The appellant, as the plaintiff at the High Court of Etiti in Mbano/Etiti Judicial Division instituted the actin which led to this appeal against the respondent as defendant claiming a declaration to the customary right of occupancy of the land called Ala Uhu Uwuoka or Alaulo meeting situate at Okwelle, Amauzari; and perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent, his agents, privies and assigns from dealing with the disputed land in any manner whatsoever. The appellant relied on traditional evidence to the effect that his family had been the owner of the land from time immemorial and his ancestors were farming on the land and reaping all the economic trees thereon without let or hindrance from anybody including the respondent and his ancestors. The appellant also led evidence of recent acts of possession and ownership exercised by him P W 2 and P W 3 members of Okwelle Community testified to the effect that the appellant's father granted part of the land in dispute for the holding of Okwelle meeting to the Okwelle Community and when the community ceased to make use of the land it reverted to the appellant's family. The appellant stated that the problem started when he cleared a bush within the area in dispute and started to assemble cement blocks in preparation for a building project and then the respondent for the first time started laying claims to the land; that in pursuance of this, the respondent summoned the appellant before the elders of Okwelle Union, that the Union as against hearing the case delegated their functions to arbitrate on the dispute to nominated people. The appellant objected to the jurisdiction of the nominated people. The nominated people immediately went into action and quickly found for the respondent as being the owner in possession of the land. The appellant rejected the decision.

The respondent in his own case rejected the traditional history put forward by the appellant, that is to say that the appellant never inherited the land from anyone and did not exercise the act of possession averred in the statement of claim. The respondent then put forward his own conflicting traditional evidence. The respondent however admitted that the land forms part of a larger portion of land belonging to the appellant. The respondent also relied on the decision of the nominated people that arbitrated on the dispute.

The trial High Court after considering the submission of counsel for the parties found that the appellant is bound by the decision of the customary arbitration and that the traditional evidence of the appellant was scanty. The trial court then dismissed the appellant's claim in its entirety.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal contending, inter alia, that he was not bound by the decision of the arbitration of Okwelle family, because the Elders of Okwelle family meeting could not delegate their duties to nominated people and that the trial Court failed to evaluate and consider the evidence led by the appellant.