-
5
The plaintiff was given a piece of parcel of land measuring l00'x50’ along Tasia Road but the area does not extend to Awka Road. The alleged Deed of Conveyance which the plaintiff claims to derive title from is not and cannot be a true and correct document. The legality of the document will be contested at the trial. The defendant will at the trial urge the court to set aside the said Deed of Conveyance in paragraph 9 of the statement of claim and declare same as null and void.
-
6
The late F.U Ojibah died intestate and there is no evidence that long before Mr. Ojibah's death he allocated in his time No. 40 Awka Road, Onitsha to the plaintiff. Paragraphs 9 and l0 of the statement of claim are therefore denied.
-
10
On 13/8/77 the matter was finally settled in favour of the defendant. Evidence will be led at the trial to show that the decision of the native tribunal (i.e. The Obi-In-Council) was in favour of the defendant and is binding upon the plaintiff."
At the trial, plaintiff alone testified on his behalf in line with his Statement of claim and tendered the document, Exh. A, which he stated was a conveyance of the land in dispute to him by his late father.
The defendant testified on his own behalf in line with his statement of defence and called a witness, Chief Joseph Etukokwu, a member of the Obi's cabinet who took part in the arbitration. He testified how both parties submitted the matter to arbitration, and that they heard both parties. After inspecting the land, they told the plaintiff to hands-off the land and allow the defendant to build on it.
The trial Judge held that a plan of the land in dispute was necessary but that none was tendered and so the identity and quantity of the land in dispute remained in doubt.
He held that the dispute, having been referred to arbitration, the decision of the arbitrators was binding on the parties. He therefore dismissed the claim of title of the appellant and held further that since the claims for damages for trespass and injunction were so linked up with the claim for a right of occupancy that they too were bound to fail. He therefore dismissed the appellant's case in its entirety.
Appellant dissatisfied appealed to the Court of Appeal which held that since both sides knew the land in dispute, a plan was unnecessary. The court dismissed the appellant's appeal on the grounds that he did not prove exclusive ownership, that he did not establish the genuineness and validity of the Deed of Gift and that he could not resile from the decision given by the Obi and his Council.
Appellant, still aggrieved, appealed further to the Supreme Court.
