CaseLaw
Onyia V. Oniah (1989) CLR 2(b) (SC)
Brief
Facts
Plaintiffs claim to be owners of Aniolu land verged green in their plan No. MWC. 893/76 filed with the statement of claim and also as extensive area of land known as Aniocha land. Both lands were inherited, they claim, from their ancestors who founded and first settled in these lands and have ever since been in undisputed ownership and possession of same. Plaintiffs have continued, as their ancestors, to exercise the same rights of ownership and possession exercised by their ancestors over the land. The portion of the land now in dispute is verged pink in the said plan No. MWC 893/76 and is known and called Uwatu land. This Uwatu land forms part of Aniocha land. The defendants and their ancestors were granted apportion of Aniolu land verged Blue in plaintiffs said plan, and were accordingly the tenants of plaintiffs in accordance with Native Law and Custom. In consideration of the land so granted defendants paid and were paying till 1974 annual tribute of 500 yams or their value to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have enforced default in the payment of such tributes in the Native Court, Asaba in 1905. Similarly, in 1931 and 1941 plaintiffs have enforced their claim to ownership and possession in the court against other communities. In 1975 plaintiffs said that the defendants by themselves, their servants and agents broke and entered, without first obtaining the consent of the plaintiffs, the piece of land in dispute which was outside the are granted them by the plaintiffs and commenced farming, building operations, and diverse acts without the consent of the plaintiffs. On being confronted by the plaintiffs, defendants claimed to be owners of the entire land shown PINK and BLUE in the plaintiffs plan aforesaid.
In their defence, defendants deny that they have at any time been the tenants of the plaintiffs. They claim that the entire Aniolu and Aniocha land belonged to their ancestors from time immemorial, who first settled in those lands and did not belong to plaintiff's ancestors as claimed by the plaintiffs. Defendants stated that plaintiffs ancestors settled at Asaba by the grace of defendant's ancestors who provided them with shelter against Bini warriors. They denied that plaintiffs possessed any fishing rights in defendant's fishing fish ponds. They say that their ancestors before them, and subsequently they, have been exercising maximum acts of possessions and ownership over the entire piece or parcel of land. The defendants denied that they were parties to any litigation in respect to the land in dispute, and have been in continuous occupation of the land and exercised numerous acts of ownership and possession.
The above account is from the averments in the pleadings filed and exchanged by the parties. They also filed and exchanged plans of the area claimed by them. At the trial each of the parties called oral evidence tracing their ownership of the area and the exercise of acts of ownership and possession. There was also evidence of their ownership and incidents of customary tenancy.
Issues
Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal right in holding that a...