CaseLaw
Okoronkwo V. Chukweke (1992) CLR 1(a) (CA)
Brief
Facts
It is not disputed that both the Plaintiffs/Respondents (hereinafter referred to as Respondents) and the Appellants hail from the same village, Amankalu Alayi and that while Respondents belong to the Amaelu family, the Appellants belong to Umuanya family. Also, parties are agreed that while the Respondents refer to the land in dispute as Akwakwa, the Appellants call it Ajaoji land, which according to them (Appellants) includes other lands apart from the portion in dispute. The Respondents plan was tendered as Exhibit ‘D’ while the Appellants plan was tendered as Exhibit J at the trial. Both parties relied on previous court judgments over the land in dispute and the immediate surrounding or adjoining portions. The Respondents in addition tendered a judgment of the Alayi Native court in which they were represented by one Eme Okoro of a section of their family while the Appellants were represented by the 1st Defendant on Record. The judgment was in favour of the Respondents and the subsequent appeal by the Appellants to the District Officer was struck out vide Exhibit ‘B’. Also, when in 1972 the Appellants sued the Respondents for a declaration of title, damages for trespass and injunction of the land (Ajaoji) in Suit No. HU/54/72 and the case was dismissed because the Appellants could not go on with it after it was part heard.
The Appellants did not appeal. The proceedings and two plans of the parties in that case were tendered and received as Exhibits C, C1 and C2 respectively. The Respondents also further tendered Exhibit E another record of proceedings between the parties and a copy of proceedings relating to Osula land which encompassed the area occupied by a leper settlement vide Exhibit G.
The Appellants for their part also tendered the record of proceedings in their 1946 case with the Respondents in which Eme Okoro represented the Respondents, to wit: Exhibit ‘H,. They also tendered a copy of another proceedings against the Respondents in which the latter were represented by Agbara Ogan (Exhibit ‘L’ refers) while the court proceedings in respect of the adjoining Ububa land was received as Exhibit ‘M’ Tendered and received in evidence also was the certified true copy of the judgment in Suit No. 176/57 of 12/8/57 vide Exhibit ‘N’. The 1st Respndent testified and called other witnesses, mainly boundary witnesses in support of their case.
At the close of the Respondents case, the Appellants called three witnesses namely DW1, one Ibrahim Eme, DW2 John Ejimonye and DW3 - Enekwu Lekwenwa none of whom was a defendant to the suit but they gave evidence on oath each in support of the Appellants case. None of the Appellants themselves gave oral testimony on oath in denial of the evidence given by the Respondents.
The learned trial Judge in a reserved judgment, found for the Respondents on all the heads of their claims on the balance of probabilities. It is against the said judgment that the Appellants have now appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Issues
Whether, on the evidence on record, the trial judge was right in entering...