ODOEMELAM v. OJIAVO & ORS
(2020)LCN/15487(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Monday, December 14, 2020
CA/OW/324/2012
RATIO
ARBITRATION: VALIDITY OF A NATIVE ARBITRATION
The law is trite, that a decision of a native arbitration, remains valid and binding on the parties, once established to have been made, and the parties had submitted to the same. See Amadi Vs. Nwosu (2014) LPELR 24428 (CA); Onyenawuli Vs. Onyenawuli & Anor. (2017) LPELR – 42661 CA; Okwuaranyia Vs. Eke (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 436) 335, Ohiaeri Vs. Akabeze (1992) NWLR (Pt.221) 1 at 24; Iwuala Vs. Chima (2016) LPELR – 40970. PER ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.
Before Our Lordships:
Raphael Chikwe Agbo Justice of the Court of Appeal
Ita George Mbaba Justice of the Court of Appeal
Ibrahim Ali Andenyangtso Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
CHIKEZIE ODOEMELAM APPELANT(S)
And
1. ENYIOMA PIUS OJIAVO 2. CHIBUZO OJIAVO 3. CHIDIEGWU PIUS ANWURUOKU RESPONDENT(S)
ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): Appellants filed this Appeal on 7/6/2012 against the judgment of Abia State High Court in Suit No. HU/178/2009, delivered on 28th day of March, 2012, by Hon. Justice A.U. Kalu, whereof his Lordship dismissed the claim of the plaintiff and rather entered judgment in favour of the Defendants in respect of their Counter claim.
At the trial Court, the plaintiff, (now Appellant), by writ of Summons, sought the following reliefs against the Defendants (now Respondents):
(a) A Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the statutory right of occupancy over the parcel of land traditionally known as and called “UZORTA” or “IHINKWOTA” situate at Amizi Olokoro, Umuahia South Local Government Area Abia State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, of an annual rental value of N10.
(b) An Order of the Court directing the Defendants to accept the sum of 15 (fifteen pounds) now N30 (Thirty Naira) only being the redemption money for the aforesaid land which the plaintiff pledged to Pius Anulaba Anwuruoku.
(c) N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only being general damages for the Defendants’ acts of trespass, which were not authorized by the plaintiff.
(d) An Order of injunction permanently restraining the Defendants, either by themselves, their servants, assigns, workmen, and, or anybody whatsoever, acting on their behalf, from entering into or interfering in any manner whatsoever, with the plaintiff’s enjoyment of the said land which is well-known to the parties.
(e) An Order of injunction, directing the Defendants, either by themselves, their servants, agents, assigns or workmen, upon the determination of this suit, to dismantle and remove forthwith the illegal structure the Defendants are erecting on the Plaintiff’s land aforesaid which is well known to the parties.”
(See pages 1, 2 and 7 of the Records of Appeal, showing the reliefs in the writ of summons and in the statement of the claim, respectively).
On being served with the processes, the Defendants (now Respondents) filed their statement of Defence, and;
COUNTER CLAIM, seeking:
1) “…;
2) A declaration by the Honourable Court that the Defendants are entitled to the statutory right of occupancy over all that their piece or parcel of land at UZOTA land.
3) An order of the Honourable Court awarding N1.5 Million (One Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira Naira) special and general damages against the plaintiff in favour of the defendants.
4) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff, his privies, agents, workmen and assigns from any further acts of trespass into the defendants’ land aforesaid.”
(See page 41 of the Records).
After hearing the case, and considering the evidence and addresses of Counsel, the learned trial Court held:
“… Now, on the basis of what the claimant had presented before this Court, a number of fatally gaping holes are noticed in his case. By the custom admitted by both sides, it follows that when Izundu died without issues and Odoemelam took over looking after his widow, and actually buried him, Odoemelam automatically inherited the land in dispute, previously owned by Izundu. I say so because it is a known settled fact in Ibo land, including Olokoro, that a woman, in this case, Mrs Nwanyidiya Izundu, would not inherit her late husband when Odoemelam had buried Izundu and taken over the maintenance and welfare of her. If that is so, it follows that it was Odoemelam, who inherited the land in dispute upon the death of Izundu and so it formed part of the estate of Odoemelam. The claimant did not tell us if he was the sole son of Odoemelam or Odoemelam had other sons. Of course, he never claimed to have inherited this land through Odoemelam.
Another angle of looking at the weakness of the case presented by the claimant is that, when he claims that he inherited this land on the basis of having buried Nwanyidiya and looked after her while she was alive, the question then follows, why did the claimant not assign this inheritance to Odoemelam, who first buried Izundu and proceeded to look after the Nwanyidiya post the death of Izundu? In other words, why should Odoemelam, who buried the primary owner of the land – Izundu – and looked after Izundu’s widow, Nwanyidiya not inherit Izundu’s estate, but the claimant, who only claims to have looked after Izundu’s widow and buried her, now ascribe to himself inheritance of Izundu’s estate? One clearly noticed that the claimant failed to plead and prove the place of a woman in inheritance under Olokoro Custom.
My view is that the claimant has not presented any cogent and convincing evidence that Ndulaka deforested this land and even if, for the purposes of argument we agree that Ndulaka deforested the land, based on the story presented by the claimant, that the person who ought to inherit Izundu would be Odoemelam. If that is so, the claimant would inherit this land through Odoemelam, along with CW1’s father, who is Odoemelam’s son and older than the claimant and any other male issues of Odoemelam. In sum total the claim to title of this land by this claimant fails as a result of its own internal conflicts and contradictions. It is dismissed.
Now the Counter claim. I have to note that evidence of the defendants was not without its own weaknesses…
However, with all the imperfections, the defendants’ case still seems more preferable to that of the claimant. I am satisfied that the defendants/counter claimants have proved that ownership of this land rests on them as opposed to the claimant. I am more moved to believe that the traditional evidence presented by the defendants/counter claimants than that presented by the claimant. I am reinforced in this position by the fact that I am more inclined to believe based on the evidence that the counter claimants have in recent years been exercising acts of ownership and possession over the land in dispute and that the claimant lied, when he claimed to have been putting the land into use.
In sum total, I order the suit of the claimant dismissed and enter judgment in favour of the defendants/counter claimants…”
See pages 127 to 129 of the Records.
That is the judgment Appellant appealed against, feeling aggrieved, as per the Notice and Grounds of Appeal on pages 131 to 137 of the Records of Appeal, disclosing 7 grounds. Appellant filed his brief of arguments on 27/9/2013, which was deemed duly filed on 30/4/2015. He distilled two (2) Issues for the determination of the Appeal, namely:
(1) Whether or not the traditional history of the Appellant was inconclusive and between the traditional history of the Appellant and the Respondents, which one is more probable, preferable, reliable and believable? Grounds 2, 5, 6 and 7.
(2) Whether the learned trial judge was right in law in granting the land in dispute in favour of the Respondent on the grounds of recent acts of ownership and possession? Grounds 3 and 4.
The Respondents filed their Brief of Arguments on 14/7/2015, and raised what they called preliminary objection on page 3 of the brief, urging us to strike out the grounds 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Appeal. For the consideration of the Appeal on the merits, Counsel posed two Issues, for the determination of the Appeal, as follows:
(1) Whether the learned trial judge was right in law to have been “moved to believe that the traditional evidence presented by the defendants/counter claimants” is more preferable to that of the Clamant/Appellant.
(2) Whether the learned trial judge was right in law in reinforcing or strengthening his position and preference of traditional evidence of the Defendants/Counter Claimants by reliance to acts of ownership and possession.
At the hearing of the Appeal, on 17/11/2020, when Counsel adopted their Briefs on behalf of the parties, Counsel for the Respondents withdrew the said preliminary objections, which is hereby struck out.
Arguing the Appeal, A.U.K Ngumoha, Esq., who settled the brief for Appellant, on Issue 1, said Appellant’s traditional history was not inconclusive; that Appellant pleaded and gave an unchallenged evidence, of how the land in dispute was deforested by his ancestors, Ndulaka and that Ndulaka begat three sons, namely Izundu, Onwuneme and Odoemelam; that Ndulaka farmed on the land in dispute, without any challenge and at his death his sons shared his estate and Izundu got the disputed land. He said that Izundu died without any male child and Odoemelam (Appellant’s father) buried him, and started taken care of Izundu’s wife (Nwanyidiya) until he (Odoemelam) died, and Appellant took care of Nwanyidiya, till she died, and he (Appellant) buried her single handedly. Counsel said that under their native law and custom, where a person buries a deceased relative, without any financial support from the members of the deceased family, the estate of the deceased person devolves, exclusively, on the person; that buried the deceased person that this custom has been judicially noticed by the Supreme Court in many cases, and so the trial Court was bound to apply this custom in favour of the Appellant, who inherited the land in dispute. Counsel relied on Section 122 (2) (l) of the Evidence Act, 2011; the case of Chukwu Vs Amadi (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt.1227)56.
Counsel said there was evidence that, after burying Izundu, Appellant’s father was farming on the land in dispute, without any challenge, until he died and the land devolved on the Appellant; that this evidence was not challenged, and so deemed established. He relied on Adejumo Vs Ayantegbe (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.110) 417. Counsel also relied on Ukegbu Vs Nwololo (2009)3 NWLR (Pt.1129) 194; Jiya Vs Awumi (2011)4 NWLR (Pt.1239) 467, on proof of devolution of land under traditional history (evidence of devolution of the land right from the founder). Counsel said there was no dispute that Odoemelam was the father of the Appellant, and that even if the Appellant did not specifically say that he “inherited” the land in dispute, or used such word, the same was obvious, from the pleading and evidence. He relied on the case of Makinde Vs Akinwale (2000)2 NWLR (Pt.645)435 at 441 and 447. Thus, he said there was no conflict or gap in the traditional evidence of the Appellant; he said that the finding of the trial Court was therefore perverse.
Counsel faulted the findings of the trial Court on the traditional evidence by the Respondents and said there was no nexus or linkage between the Respondents and those whom they claimed shared the estate of the Eneri; he said that that was fatal to Respondent’s cases.
Counsel argued that the trial Court failed to properly evaluate and weigh the evidence before it; that Appellant led more credible evidence and deserved judgment in the case. He relied on the case of Momoh Vs Umoru (2011)15 NWLR (Pt.1270) 217; Ogunjemila Vs Ajibade (2010)11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 559 at 568. He added that, where a party relied on traditional history to prove his title but failed to establish it, he cannot fall back on or rely on acts of ownership and possession; he relied on Ukaegbu Vs Nwololo (supra).
On Issue 2, whether the trial judge was rightly in law in granting the land in dispute in favour of the Respondents on the grounds of recent acts of ownership and possession, Counsel answered in the negative. He said that the findings of the trial Court, on page 129 of the Records, that despite the imperfections in the Defendants case, they had proved their ownership; that their traditional history/evidence was better than that of Appellant, because they have in recent years been exercising acts of ownership and possession over the land in dispute and that the claimant lied when he claimed to have been putting the land into use.
Counsel said that was erroneous finding, as there was no evidence and pleading to support that and so was speculative; that a Court cannot make findings outside what is presented before it. He relied onJiya Vs Awumi (2011)4 NWLR (Pt.1238)467. Counsel referred us to the pleading and evidence of Respondents on page 38 of the Records, which showed that they alleged to have been in possession of the land, exercising acts of ownership, “until sometime in 1982”. Thus, that the Respondents did not plead facts establishing recent ownership.
Counsel said Appellant was rather the person in possession of the land, and that Respondents acts on the land were acts of trespass. He urged us to resolve the issues for Appellant and allow the Appeal.
Responding, Counsel for Respondents, Chief Augustine Ndife, who settled the Brief for Respondents, on Issue 1, said the trial Court was right to prefer the traditional evidence by the Respondents to that of Appellant. He reminded us of the attitude of appellate Court on findings of fact; that there is presumption that the decision of the trial Court, which had the privilege of seeing and hearing the witnesses, was well settled. He relied on Engineering Enterprises Vs A.G. Kaduna State (1987)2 NWLR (Pt. 381); Federick Nwobi Otogbolu Vs Onwu Emena Okeluwa (1981) 6-7 SC 99 at 105. Counsel argued that Appellant was not able to dislodge the presumption accruing in favour of Respondents in the findings of the trial Court; he said that, even where the Appellate Court was in doubt, the Appeal must still be dismissed, as in that case, the burden on the appellant would have not been discharged. He relied on Lion Building Ltd Vs Shadipe (1976)12 SC 135 at 153.
Counsel said that Ndulaka, whom the Appellant traced the land to had nothing to do with the land in dispute; that the trial Court was right to hold that “… the claimant had not presented any cogent and convincing evidence that Ndulaka deforested this land…” He said that before the trial Court reached that conclusion, the Court had weighed the evidence adduced by both parties on the imaginary scale and found that of the Respondents more probable; that that met the principle in the case of Mogaji & Ors Vs Odofin & Ors (1978) 3 SC 91 at 95; Bello Vs Eweka (1981)1 SC 101.
Counsel added that the duty of ascribing probative value to evidence is that of the trial Court, and that once that is done, the appellate Court will not lightly interfere with it, and cannot substitute the trial Court’s findings with its own, unless the findings are perverse. He relied onOgbechie Vs Onochie (1988)1 NWLR (Pt.470) 370; Egba Vs Ogodo (1984)1 SCNJ 372, Balogun Vs Agboola (1974) 1 All NLR (Pt.2) 66; Dakolo & Ors Vs Dakolo (2011) 198 LRCN 25.
Counsel said that the trial Court is entitled to reject traditional evidence which is incredible. Iriri Vs Erhurhobara (1991)2 NWLR (Pt.173) 252. He said that the traditional history presented by the Appellant was discredited, unreliable, being inconclusive; that it did not call for a resort to the rule in the case of Kojo II Vs Bonsie (1957)1 WLR 1223; (2001) 86 LRCN 1492, as the trial Court had no difficulties with the traditional history by the Respondents, which it preferred and relied upon to give judgment to Respondents. He relied on Taiwo Vs Ogundele (2012) 208 LRCN 1 at 28; Michael Eyo Vs Emeka Collins Onuoha (2011) 195; Nruamah Vs Ebuzoeme (2013) 221 LRCN (PT.1) 252.
On Issue 2, whether the trial Judge was right to reinforce or strengthen his position and preference of Traditional evidence of Respondents, by resort to their alleged acts of ownership and possession, Counsel answered in the affirmative. Counsel referred us to the 2nd relief by Appellant at the trial Court, which sought an order for Respondents to accept “15 pounds, being the redemption money for the aforesaid land, which the plaintiff pledged to Pius Anualaka Anwuruoku.” Thus, Counsel said, Appellant admitted that Respondents were in possession of the land! He relied on the case ofEze Udu Vs Obi Agwu (1986)3 SC 1 at 30 – 31; Lawrence Onyekaonwu & Ors Vs Ekwubiri & Ors (1966)1 All NLR 32 at 34.
Counsel said the Respondents were truly in possession of the land and had denied that the Appellant ever pledged the land in dispute to anybody at any time. He added that the land Appellant disputed with Ekpo Onwunaeme was called Okpula and that there was arbitration over the dispute which went in favour of Ekpo as per the Exhibit B, tendered by the Appellant to prove his claim; that the CW2, who tendered the Exhibit B, told the Court, under Cross examination, that Exhibit B was false and forged – page 79 of the Records – lines 6 and 7. Thus, the chief document which Appellant relied upon was discredited by CW2 (the claimant); that that knocked out all averments and evidence thereto by the claimant/Appellant.
To further prove their possession of the land, Counsel also referred us to the pleadings by Appellant, in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Statement of claim, wherein Claimant said that Defendants recently cleared the land in dispute, and started laying foundation, preparation for erecting concrete building; that the defendants will not leave the land, except by order of Court. Counsel said that, in addition to the plea of the pledge of the land to Respondents, was admission against interest. He relied on Ezeudu & Ors Vs Obiagwu (1986) 3 SC 1.
Counsel said Exhibits C & D showed the concrete building of Respondent on the land, and that the said building and their farming, were the recent acts of ownership and possession. Counsel further founded on the evidence of Dw3, under cross examination, on page 86 of the Records, when she said:
“I was only married into the family as a girl child and ever since then, the family I married into has been farming this land. I know the claimant’s father and mother and both never came into this land to form (sic).”
Counsel urged us to resolve the issues against the Appellant and to dismiss the Appeal.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
I shall consider this Appeal on the two issues distilled by the Appellant, which are identical with those of the Respondents, except for semantics, but I shall take the two issues, together.
There was evidence, actually, that the Appellant, properly traced his historical evidence to the land he claimed to have belonged to Izundu which Appellants father inherited, upon his burial of the remains of Izundu and taking care of the deceased widow, Nwanyidiya.
The trial Court had held:
“Now, the claimant is relying on traditional history as his root of title. He claims that his ancestor, Ndulaka, deforested this land in dispute and that Ndulaka begat Izundu, Onwunaeme and Odoemelam. The claimant said that upon Ndulaka’s death, his estate was partitioned among his three sons, with Izundu getting the land in dispute and Izundu married Nwanyidiya, but that the union produced no issues. The claimant told the Court that when Izundu died, he was buried by claimant’s father, Odoemelam, who also took over caring for Izundu’s widow, Nwanyidiya. (See paragraph 10 of claimant’s statement on oath dated 30/8/2010) … By the custom admitted by both sides, it follows that when Izundu died without issues and Odoemelam took over looking after his widow and actually buried him, Odoemelam, automatically, inherited the land in dispute, previously owned by Izundu. I say so, because, it is a known settled fact in Ibo land, including Olokoro, that a woman, in this case, Mrs. Nawanyidiya Izundu, would not inherit her late husband, when Odoemelam had buried Izundu and taken over the maintenance and welfare of her. If that is so, it follows that it was Odoemelam who inherited the land in dispute, upon the death of Izundu and so it formed part of the estate of Odoemelam.” (See pages 125 – 127 of the Records of Appeal).
With such clear findings above, it became worrisome, in my view, when the trial Court also said:
“Critically, through-out the claimants’ evidence he never claimed that Odoemelam inherited the land in dispute. A reading of the claimant’s statement on Oath, under reference, creates the impression that after Odoemelam allegedly buried Izundu and started taking care of Nwanyidiya, his widow, that is Nwanyidiya, continued owning the land in dispute. That is borne out by what the claimant said in paragraphs 11 – 14 of his statement on oath, dated 30/8/2010.” (pages 125 – 126).
And the Judge also said:
“The claimant did not tell us if he was the sole son of Odoemelam or if Odoemelam had other sons. Of course, he never claimed to have inherited this land, through Odoemelam.”
I think that presented a confused and conflicting understanding or appraisal of the case of the Appellant by the trial Court. After admitting that Appellant’s father (Odoemelam) buried Izundu and took care of the widow (Nwanyidiya) and that the land, automatically, became part of Odoemelam’s estate, having inherited Izundu’s property, by reason of the Igbo custom, how come the trial Court queried that Appellant did not tell the Court that he was the sole son of Odoemelam and that he (Appellant) never claimed to have inherited this land, through Odoemelam?
What were the gaping holes which the trial Court said he noticed in the case of the Appellant, when it (Court) admitted the historical facts presented, that Appellant’s father, infact, buried Izundu and took over the case of his (Izundu’s) widow, and so inherited (Izundu’s) landed property (disputed land) according to custom and tradition of the people?
I think the trial Court was in conflict when he held (on the historical evidence):
“My view is that claimant has not presented any cogent and convincing evidence that Ndulaka deforested this land and even if for the purposes of argument, we agree that Ndulaka deforested the land, based on the story presented by the claimant, that the person who ought to inherit Ozundu would be Odoemelam. If that is so, the Claimant would inherit this land through Odoemelam, along with CW1’s father, who is Odoemelam’s son and older than the claimant and any other male issues of Odoemelam. In sum total, the claim to title of this land by the Claimant fails as a result of its own internal conflicts and contradictions…” See page 128 of the Records.
I have searched the Records, to find the difference between the CW1, Benefit Onwunaeme, page 76 of the Records) and the Appellant, Claimant), whether the two had separate cases. It appears to me CW1 was testifying for the Claimant (Appellant) and that they had the same case, when he, (CW1) said under cross-examination:
“…The land in dispute is Izundu Ndulaka… I will be surprised to hear that the Okonko Society awarded this land to the defendants… My uncle Maduka Onwunaeme now deceased, told me that when claimant was in the city, that Ekpo Onwueme entered this land with force.”
In his statement on oath, which he adopted at the trial, the CW1 had said, that the claimant (Appellant) was his uncle – his father’s younger brother to Mr. Ekpo Onwunaeme, and they descended from the same Onwunaeme Ndulaka, while the Claimant also descended from the same grandfather, with them – Mr. Ndulaka.
He knew the land in dispute; deforested by their grandfather – Ndulaka; Izundu Ndulaka got the land in dispute at the sharing of the landed property of Ndulaka; when Izundu died, his brother, Odoemelam, buried him and took over the care of the widow Nwayidiya; At the death of Odoemelam, his son (Appellant) continued to care for Nwanyidiya, and buried her; that Appellant inherited the land in dispute, by custom of the people, his father, having buried Izundu and the wife – Nwanyidiya – See pages 18 of 21 of the Records of Appeal.
I cannot therefore see any internal conflicts in the Appellant’s evidence and that of CW1 at the trial Court. CW1 in his evidence told the Court that Appellant later pledged this land, now in dispute, to Pius Anwuruoku; that it was at the time that Appellant went to redeem the land, that Pius Anuwuruoku started laying claims of ownership over the land. CW1 then said Ekpo Onwunaeme (CW1’s uncle) told him that the land did not belong to Odoemelam, rather to Anwuruokwu; he said that the matter went into arbitration, and Pius Anuwuruoku was asked to swear to an oath, (juju) if he was sure the land was his, but he refused to swear. CW1 said another person Chibuzo Ojiavo, opted to take the Oath (on behalf of Anuwuruoku); that the claimant refused; but the Okonko Society, which arbitrated, refused the objection by the Claimant and allowed Chibuzor Ojiavo to take the Oath. He said that by custom, if the person who took the Oath survived within one year, he would claim the land, but if he or any of his relation died, the person would be deemed not to have survived the Oath. He said that Chibuzor Ojiavo did not survive the juju (Oath), as his witnesses – Ekpo Onwunaeme, Sunday Ojeogu, his blood brother and wife died; that surprisingly, the Okonko Society awarded the land to Chibuzo Ojiavo, on the reason that he, himself, did not die. (See CW1’s averments on pages 18 – 21 of the Records).
The statement on oath by the CW2 (Appellant) on pages 9-13 of the Records, agree substantially with that of CW1 on the issues of the pledge and the arbitration and showed that Respondents were in possession of the land, and admitted that the Okonko Society awarded the disputed land to Pius Anulaba as a result of the arbitration, which ended in oath taking; that he rejected the decision of the arbitration and sued the 1st Defendant Pius Anulaba Anwuruoku and Abedenego Anwurunka at the Customary Court, Afor Ibeji in Suit No.CC/1C/83/97, but by motion for certiorari in Suit No. Hu/364M/2008, the judgment in Suit No. CC/1C/83/97 was quashed. See paragraphs 24 – 28 of the Claimant statement on oath (page 12 of the Records).
The learned trial Court appeared not to have reflected the issues of the pledge of the land and the subsequent arbitration on it by the Okonkwo Society and the eventual Oath taking and results, in the judgment. But since there was evidence, on record that the arbitration over the land in dispute by the Okonko Society, ended in Oath taking and was resolved in favour of the Respondents, I think it would be save to allow the arbitration decision to prevail, especially as the effort by Appellant to nullify same in the Customary Court decision in Suit No. CC/IC/83/97, was said to have been quashed by the High Court, in Suit No. HU/364M/2008, thereby leaving the arbitration decision, subsisting.
The law is trite, that a decision of a native arbitration, remains valid and binding on the parties, once established to have been made, and the parties had submitted to the same. See Amadi Vs. Nwosu (2014) LPELR 24428 (CA); Onyenawuli Vs. Onyenawuli & Anor. (2017) LPELR – 42661 CA; Okwuaranyia Vs. Eke (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 436) 335, Ohiaeri Vs. Akabeze (1992) NWLR (Pt.221) 1 at 24; Iwuala Vs. Chima (2016) LPELR – 40970.
Thus, the flaws, I observed above in the findings of the trial judge, notwithstanding, on the alleged issue of inheritance of the land from the estate of Izundu by Appellant, through his father, Odoemelam, having buried Izundu and his wife, Nwanyidiya, who died childless, with the alleged subsequent pledge of the land to the family of the Respondent (which appear to have been overtaken by the arbitration decision), I see no merit in this Appeal, in the face of the subsisting arbitration award.
I therefore resolve the issues against the Appellant and dismiss the Appeal.
Parties shall bear their respective Costs.
RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO, J.C.A.: I agree.
IBRAHIM ALI ANDENYANGTSO, J.C.A.: I agree.
Appearances:
A.U.K. NGWUOHA, ESQ., with him, T.A. UWAKWE, ESQ. For Appellant(s)
CHIEF AUGUSTINE NDIFE, with him, C.I. OHAERI, ESQ. (who adopted the brief settled by CHIEF NDIFE) For Respondent(s)
