CaseLaw
Udengwu V. Uzengbu (2003) CLR 7(h) (SC)
Judgement delivered on July 11th 2003
Brief
Facts
The Appellant and the Respondents are all natives of Achina. They reside in Umuezeiyi Village of Achina. Achina is in Aguata Local Government Area within Amawbia-Awka Judicial Division, Anambra State. The land in dispute is situate in the said Umuezeiyi Village. Both parties, from the pleadings, call the land Kpokokwa.
The Appellant claims that one Ezeonwuka was the common ancestor of himself and the 1st - 4th Respondents and that he belongs to Anozie line of Ezeonwuka’s descendants. He also claims that the 1st - 4th Respondents belong to Ezegaraku line of that ancestry. According to him, Ezeonwuka shared his lands among his sons including Ezegaraku. Ezegaraku also shared his land among his sons including Okpalansofor. The land in dispute formed Okpalansofor’s share. Okpalansofor shared his lot between his two sons, Dominic Udeonu and Michael Umeohanefo but Dominic got the land in dispute. In 1976, Dominic Udeonu sold the said land to the Appellant.
The 1st - 4th Respondents, however, have presented a completely different version of claims of ownership. First, they allege that the land originated from their great great ancestor called Eze-ehido the father of Ezeamaka who begat Ezeonwuka. More adversarial is the averment that Anozie whom the Appellant claim to be one of the sons of Ezeonwuka, and through whose pedigree this land devolved, was not such a son. They say that Anozie not being the son of Ezeonwuka was not entitled to a share of Ezeonwuka’s lands. Further, their case is that Okpalansofor was accordingly not entitled to the land in dispute. Nor did he share any land to his sons, Dominic and Umeohanefo, but rather alleging that, in fact, Dominic was at large up to the time his father died.
Another angle was also introduced into the situation between Dominic and Umeohanefo in the 1st-4th Respondents’ pleading. It is in respect of an alleged dispute between them which led Dominic to file an action in the High Court against Umeohanefo seeking to have a partition of their father’s property. Nothing is alleged as to the outcome of that case. But it is averred that in 1970 Dominic began to contest ownership of the land in dispute with the 1st-4th Respondents. This led to arbitration by the Elders of Eleke and Ezeiyi Villages between Dominic and Umeohanefo of the one part and the lst-4th Respondents of the other part. The decision of the arbitrators was, as alleged, in favour of the said Respondents. It was said that that decision was arrived at because Dominic and Umedohanefo failed to show that the land belonged to their family and also that the arbitrators held that Dominic Udeonu, whom the Appellant claimed sold the land in dispute to him, could not validly alienate land that does not belong to him.” It was not an issue on the pleadings at any stage, as I understand the position of the lst-4th Respondents, that Dominic sold family property as his own or without the necessary consent of family members. It is simply that neither he nor his family had title to the land in dispute.
The learned trial Judge gave judgment to the Respondent having found that the Appellant never purchased the land in accordance with the existing customary law. The judgment of the trial Court was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
The learned trial Judge gave judgment to the Respondent having found that the Appellant never purchased the land in accordance with the existing customary law. The judgment of the trial Court was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
Appellant, dissatisfied appealed to the Supreme Court.