n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Mkpinang & Ors V. Bassey & Ors (2012) CLR 12(a) (SC)

Judgement delivered on December 14th 2012

Brief

  • Ownership of land
  • Declaration of title

Facts

This appeal arose from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division which the division of Nkop CJ sitting at Akwa Ibom High Court Uyo and ordered a re-trial on the ground of the non-evaluation of the evidence led by the respondents on their pleaded acts of ownership and possession. The plaintiff/respondents had sued the appellants in a representative capacity in suit No. Hu/4/85 seeking a declaration that they are entitled to the Customary/Statutory right of occupancy over the disputed land called 'Esuk Inwang Okon Eyo; N1,000,000.00 (one million naira) being general damages for trespass and a perpetual injunction restraining die defendants, their agents and assigns from ever committing further acts of trespass over the said land.

The claim was denied. Pleadings were filed and exchanged and the parties called witnesses. The learned trial Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom State before dismissing the plaintiffs' case found inconsistencies in the various versions of the traditional history given by the plaintiffs’ witness when he stated in the judgment:

  • "I have carefully considered the two sets of traditional evidence tendered by both parties to this suit. I must confess that it is a bit difficult to test the credibility of the traditional history tendered by the plaintiffs. In the first place, then-arc some inconsistencies in their various versions"

(See page 210 line 10-15 of the printed record of appeal)

The learned trial Chief judge after pointing out what he considered to be the deficiencies in the plaintiffs' evidence accented the defendants" evidence and held that all recent acts and facts disclosed in evidence tended to support the traditional history tendered by the defendant. He proceeded to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case with #1,500.00 (One Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) cost to the defendant

The plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the decision of the learned trial Chief Judge and appealed against to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal and ordered a re-trial. It is against the order of re-trial that defendants/respondents now appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  • 1
    Was the lower court right in holding that with numerous acts of ownership...
  • Read More