Appellant had commenced proceedings against the respondents and the matter was heard and determined by C. Onyia J. sitting in the Awka/Anambra Judicial Division of the High Court of Anambra State. During the hearing, the respondents with the leave of the court, filed an amended statement of defence.

At the trial, apart from the documentary exhibits tendered and admitted, the appellant gave evidence in support of his claim. The respondents, also for their part, called six witnesses.

The parties to this dispute are natives of Adazi Nnukwu in Njikoka Local Government Area of Anambra State. It is also not in dispute that the appellant's compound is situate and lying adjacent to the compound of the 1st respondent. Upon those common grounds it is the case for the appellant that as he has no motorable access road to his compound, he approached the 1st appellant to grant him portion of his land for that purpose. The appellant claimed that in order to have an effective access to the main road, he had also approached P.W. 5 Mr. Aronu, who was the owner of the land nearer to the main road. Mr. Aronu who gave evidence in support of this claim duly granted a portion of his land to the appellant as requested. This was after the necessary customary gifts of drinks and kolanuts had been given to the said Mr. Aronu by the appellant. Similarly, the appellant said that he approached the 1st respondent who he first met at Abakaliki where the 1st respondent was living. It was after the meeting held there that they agreed to conclude discussion on the grant of the access road during the Easter period of 1977. They met as arranged. The first meeting was on Easter Sunday when the appellant in the company of his relations, namely his uncles and younger brother presented more the customary gifts necessary when such requests are made to the 1st respondent. The first respondent who was with the 3rd respondent accepted these gifts whole-heartedly and agreed with the proposal made to him for part of his land to enable the appellant construct thereon the access road to his compound. He then promised that on the next day being Easter Monday, he would signify the area of his land that he would give to the appellant. On that note the parties dispersed and they met as arranged on Easter Monday. The 1st respondent in the presence of those present then demarcated the land which he granted to the appellant for the construction of an access road on a permanent basis to the appellant's compound, through the land so granted to the appellant by the 1st respondent. Thereafter the appellant commenced with the clearing of the land and this included the felling of trees that were on the land. And with that done the appellant constructed a motorable access road to his compound. He claimed that he started using the access road from about 1977. But sometime in 1981, after he had finished building a wall round his compound and had erected an iron gate to his compound, the 2nd and 3rd respondents came to see him. When they came, they had with them this other persons and also brought a carton of beer and a bottle of whisky. And it was then that the 2nd respondent requested the appellant to permit the extension of the access road to traverse through the appellant's compound to the compound of the 2nd respondent.

The appellant claimed that he refused this permission. And that following his refusal to permit the extenuation of the access road by the 2nd respondent, as requested, the 2nd respondent said to his hearing that he would cause the access road to be closed. The events that led to this action commenced thereafter. The access road was closed as promised by the 2nd respondent and inspite of the meeting held between the parties with PW3, Igwe M. Ojiuko, the Adama of Adazi Nnukwu and traditional head of Adazi Nnukwu, who advised against the closure of the road.

For the respondents their cases put briefly is a complete denial of the grant of the part of 1st respondent's land to the appellant to build a permanent access road to the appellant's compound. They claimed that what was granted to the appellant was a temporary right of way to enable him bring into his compound building materials, etc., for the construction of the building in his compound. They also denied that the appellant brought the customary gifts of kolanuts and drinks for the purpose of effecting this grant of a portion of the 1st respondent's land to construct such an access road. They also denied that PW 3 the traditional head of Adazi Nnukwu advised the 1st respondent against the closure of the access road. Rather they claimed that PW 3 declined to say anything on the dispute because the matter was already in the court at the time they met him in 1982.

With the conclusion of the hearing of the evidence of the parties, the learned trial Judge was addressed by their learned counsel and he adjourned to deliver a considered judgment. By that judgement, though the learned trial Judge made findings of fact which appear to be in favour of the appellant, he nevertheless held that the appellant has failed to prove title to permanent access through the 1st respondent as to quote him: two wrongs cannot make a right". He however went on to award the sum of N6,000.00 as damages in favour of the appellant, and felt obliged to observe that "It is enough that he could have alternative access through the old, father's gate on Udo Amaezeani road".

Being dissatisfied with part of the judgment and orders of Appellant dissatisfied appealed. Respondents filed a respondents Notice to challenge the award of N6000.00 made against them and prayed the appeal be dismissed. Appellant raised an objection to the Notice claiming that the respondent ought to have cross-appealed instead.