CaseLaw
Ohiaeri V. Akabeze (1992) CLR 2(c) (SC)
Judgement delivered on February 7th, 1992
Brief
Facts
The action, the subject matter of this appeal, was instituted at the Nnewi Judicial Division of Anambra State. The plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of members of Otogbolu family sought an order of court against the defendants for themselves and on behalf of members of Ohiaeri family in the following terms:
Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged. The plaintiffs called five witnesses, including the first plaintiff who testified as PW 1 to establish their claim in support of their case. The defendants called four witnesses including the first defendant who testified as DW 3.
In his judgment, Uyanna, J., was of the view that in respect of traditional history pleaded and evidence adduced there was no meeting point between the parties on the issue. He then went on to say that “in the absence of an independent source by which to test the accuracy of these facts given in evidence this sort of traditional history usually affords no reliable basis for coming to a conclusion one way or the other.” He therefore indicated that on the authority of Ekpo v Ita 11 NLR, 68 at 69, he would rely on other pieces of evidence to arrive at his decision.
After a detailed review and appraisal of the evidence adduced by both sides on acts of ownership, he was satisfied that the plaintiffs had not established their claim to the land in dispute. He also believed that the arbitration that earlier looked into the dispute between the parties adjudged defendants owners of the land. He accordingly dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.to:
Aggrieved by this decision the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal of the respondents. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
The learned trial Judge found that there was evidence (from the plaintiffs) that there were other children and grandchildren of Chief T. K. Dada who were not mentioned in Exhibit A. He therefore found that those other children and grandchildren acquired no interest in the land granted. The learned trial Judge observed that there was no averment in the statement of claim that the Aige family ever granted or allotted the land in dispute delineated on Exhibit A to Chief T.A. Dada.
The plaintiffs sued in a representative capacity for themselves and on behalf of the entire members of Oturadewun Tefojukan, Kutimoju Dada branch of Aige family.
The learned trial Judge held that there was no evidence of relationship of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiff with Chief T.K. Dada. He found that the 1st plaintiff is the son of one Efuneye, one of the grantees.
The plaintiffs/respondents predicated their claim on Exhibit A and from the content of Exhibit A, the parcel of land granted was to the named grantees. Their heirs and assigns in fee simple. It was not to the grantees for themselves and the entire members of Chief T.K. Dada's branch of Aige family. The learned trial Judge therefore dismissed the claim. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Court of Appeal and succeeded.