CaseLaw
Oparaji V. Ohanu (1999) CLR 8(p) (CA)
Brief
Facts
The plaintiffs' case as pleaded and rectified is that the land in dispute is owned and possessed by their family of Umuohorum, Umunwanyi, Ohuba. They relied essentially on traditional history and acts of possession to establish their case. The defendants, on the other hand similarly based their ownership of the land in dispute on evidence of tradition and acts of possession thereof from time immemorial. Both parties also pleaded and relied heavily on two customary law arbitrations between them in respect of the land in dispute which were headed by P W 5 and P W 7 respectively. Each side gave a different version of the decisions of the arbitration panels and called evidence in support of their divergent versions. From the evidence tendered at the trial it is clear that there was no agreement between the parties as to the real decisions of the arbitrations. Each of the parties claimed that the decisions of the arbitrations were in its favour and each called evidence to support its assertion in this regard.
At the conclusion of hearing Ukattah, J as he then was after a careful review of the evidence was of the view that the issue of estoppel founded on the two arbitration proceedings was not established by the parties. He was satisfied that neither P W 5 nor P.W 7 found by way of customary law arbitration, that the land in dispute belonged to the plaintiffs. He preferred generally the case of the defendants on the issues of traditional history and acts of possession of the land in dispute to that of the plaintiffs. Consequently, he proceeded to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims in their entirety. On the other hand he found for the defendants and declared their entitlement to the customary right of occupancy over the piece or parcel of land in dispute known as and called Ohia Oru Umuagor or Ogbotorobo Ugbirigba situate at Umuagor, Obosima and more particularly delineated and shown in plan number VLD125/81 Exhibit F, and therein verged red. The defendants were also awarded N3, 000.00 as general damages for trespass together with an order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiffs, their servants agents and/or workmen from any further entry upon or in any way interfering with any part of the said land outside the area allowed the 2nd plaintiff for his palm plantation.
Dissatisfied with this judgment of the trial court the plaintiffs lodged an appeal against the same to the Court of Appeal Port Harcourt Division, which court in a unanimous decision dismissed the appeal on the 22nd day of November, 1991.
Aggrieved by this decision of the Court of Appeal the plaintiffs have now appealed to the Supreme Court.