CaseLaw
Omorhirhi V. Enatevwere (1988) CLR 3(d) (SC)
Judgement delivered on March 11th, 1988
Brief
Facts
The plaintiff’s claim as endorsed on the Writ of Summons is- “The plaintiff’s claim against the defendants jointly and severally is for the sum of N20, 000.00 (Twenty Thousand Naira) being special and general damages for the wrongful act of the defendants when on the 12th day of December, 1981 at Okozi Village, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, the defendants trespassed on plaintiff’s farm without the consent and or authority of the plaintiff and indeed against his will and damaged his economic crops trees to wit: cassava stems, suggarcane, okro, tomatoes and melon”.
The claim was particularized as follows: “30,000 matured cassava stems at 30k each N9, 000.00 10,000 matured sugar cane at 50k each 5,000.00 5,000 tall okro at 50k each 2,500.00 1,000 fruit bearing tomato plants at 50k each 5,000.00 2,000 matured melon balls at 20k each 400.00 General Damages 2,600.00 Total N20, 000.00
The claims were denied. Pleadings were ordered and exchanged and issues joined. The case was set down for hearing. The parties called evidence to support the averments in their respective pleadings. In a judgment delivered by the learned trial judge (Akenzua, J.) in which he meticulously considered and evaluated the evidence before him he found in favour of the plaintiff that:
“There is no evidence in support of the submission of the learned counsel for the defendants that stealing is the subject of the plaintiff’s report. I therefore reject it. The nature of the defence pleaded in this case is a claim of title to Okozi land and a justification under customary rights granted to people including the plaintiff’s father, Oriche to farm in Okozi land. No plan of Okozi land is tendered and no evidence of traditional history is given except evidence of dispute and quarrels over the said land by members of Adobor family and members of the Plaintiff’s family. Despite these deficiencies in the defendants’ case, the defendants claim no relief in their Statement of Defence. I am satisfied that no defence has been filed against the plaintiff’s action. I am consequently satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the plaintiff has proved the trespass he had complained of and has shown both from his own evidence as well as the evidence of the defence that the defendants did in fact enter the plaintiff’s farm and harvested or damaged the said crops.
As to damages, I am satisfied that the plaintiff had successfully proved the various items of his special damage.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment of the trial court, and the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court on the same contentions.