ALPHONSUS NWANDU UGWUEGBU & ANOR v. DANIEL EHIOMA & ORS (2013)

ALPHONSUS NWANDU UGWUEGBU & ANOR v. DANIEL EHIOMA & ORS

(2013)LCN/6631(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Tuesday, the 10th day of December, 2013

CA/OW/209/12

RATIO

WHETHER AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION CAN BE GRANTED AS A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER

WHETHER IT IS THE DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO ADMIT, ACCESS AND EVALUATE EVIDENCE

It is trite law that it is the prerogative of the trial court to admit, assess and evaluate evidence and when as in this case, these have been done satisfactorily the Appellate court will not interfere or intervene to disturb the findings of the trial court. What the Appellate court is interested in is to ensure that the conclusions reached by the trial court are duly supported by the evidence proffered before the lower court. See BALHAJI UMARU SANDA NDAYAKO & ORS v. ALHAJI HALIRU DANRO & ORS (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187 at 220 B – where EDOZIE JSC said:

“An appellate court is only concerned with whether the judgment appealed against is right or wrong not whether the reasons are. Where the judgment of the court is right but reasons are wrong, the appellate court does not interfere. It is only where the misdirection has caused the Court to come to a wrong conclusion that the appellate Court will interfere” PER PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

PETER OLABISI IGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. ALPHONSUS NWANDU UGWUEGBU

2. PASTOR ANSLEM NWANDU UGWUEGBU – Appellant(s)

AND

1. DANIEL EHIOMA

2. HON. RICHARD IWU

3. LASARIAN ONUOHA

(for themselves and as representatives Amakpaka Nnarambia excluding the Defendants) – Respondent(s)

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The action leading to this appeal was instituted by the Respondents as claimants vide writ of summons issued out of Imo State High Court of Justice sitting at AFOR ORU in AHIAZU MBAISE JUDICIAL DIVISION on 13th day of July 2007 wherein the said Respondents claimed against the Appellants as Defendant as follows:

“1. A Declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the right of occupancy over that piece or parcel of land known as “Ala Ishi Orji” situate at Amakpaka, Nnarambia.

2. Fifty Thousand Naira being damages for trespass.

3. Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from further trespass into the aforesaid land.

The first relief was later amended to read:

1) A Declaration that the claimants are entitled to the right of occupancy over the piece and parcel of land known as “ALA ISHI ORJI” situate at AMAKPAKA NNARAMBIA, AHIAZU MBAISE within the jurisdiction of the Court.

The Appellants filed JOINT STATEMENT OF DEFENCE AND COUNTER CLAIM. The counter claim which was on behalf of the 1st Appellant is as follows:

“WHEREFORE the 1st Defendant Counter Claims against the Plaintiffs the following reliefs:

1) A Declaration that the 1st Defendant is entitled to the right of occupancy over that piece or parcel of land known and called “Okeohia Amadioha Ugwu-egbu” situate at Amakpaka Nnarambia Ahiazu Mbaise within Jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.

2) N50, 000,000.00 being damages for trespass.

3. Perpetual Injunction restraining the Plaintiffs, their agents, privies, workmen and servants from further trespass into the land in dispute”

The matter proceeded to trial at the end of which the learned trial judge Hon. Justice F. I. DUROHA IGWE delivered a considered judgment on 12th day of March 2012. The learned trial judge made the following findings:

“My findings are

1. Ugwuegbu family donated the land in dispute to house Amadioha.

2. Ugwuegbu was the Chief Priest and Custodian of Amadioha and its property including the land in dispute.

3. Amadioha was not a personal god of Ugwuegbu family but of Amakpaka Community.

That makes properly of Amadioha that of Amakpaka community.

This is one occasion when claimant can benefit from the weakness of defendants’ case. I am satisfied that the land belongs to claimant’s defendant having made an outright gift of same. The law is that where the claimant and defendants base their claims on traditional history, and the evidence for the parities conflicts, and the trial court does not find either conclusive then he has to make use of events of recent years to decide which should prevail. See SARATU ADELEKO vs. SANUSI IYANDA (1994) 9 NWLR 133.

The recent event I have chosen to rely on is the contents of exhibit “A” I have chosen not only to rely on Exhibit “B-B5” the photocopies of the minutes of Amakpaka Development Union. It is in evidence that the book from which Exhibit “B-B5” was made was donated by a man living in Abuja and who brought it down to Amakpaka from Abuja. That fact that Exhibits “B-B5” are photocopies shows that the minute book could be carried to a place to be photocopied? Again, I am not unaware of the contradictions in the minutes of 14/5/07 & 24/5/07 and Exhibit “D” the purchase receipt.

Defendants made heavy whether of claimants’ representatives capacity.

The law is that even if an order to sue in a representative capacity is not sought it will be presumed that leave to sue in that capacity was given if the title and the statement of claim reflect that capacity. (2) If the suit was prosecuted in that capacity to judgment. In the instant case, there is nothing before me to suggest otherwise. Having said all and in conclusion, I hold that Claimants have proved their case on the preponderance of evidence. I hereby order as follows:

1. Claimants (Plaintiffs) are entitled to the right of occupancy over that piece or parcel of land known as “Ala Ishi Orji” situate at Amakpaka Nnarambia, Ahiara Ahiazu Mbaise within the jurisdiction of this court and reflected on Exhibits “C & E” claimants and defendants” dispute survey plans.

2. Defendants are hereby perpetually restrained from trespassing into the aforesaid property. I make no order as to costs”

The Appellants were dissatisfied by the above findings or decision of the learned trial judge. The Appellants filed Notice and Grounds of Appeal against the said judgment on 28th day of May, 2012 containing three (3) grounds. The three grounds of Appeal and their particulars are as follows:

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

GROUND 1

The learned trial Judge erred in law when she held that “the land belongs to Claimant and ordered that Claimants (Plaintiffs) are entitled to the right of occupancy over that piece or parcel of land known as “Ala ishi Orji” situate at Amakpaka Nnarambia Ahiara Ahiazu Mbaise.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

(a) The Claimants in this case relied on alleged grant of the land in dispute to them by some families but failed to establish how those families founded the land and exercised original acts of ownership and possession.

(b) The learned trial judge rightly found as a fact in this case that “The traditional evidence as led by the Claimants is inconclusive”

(c) the learned trial Judge in her Judgment highlighted the contradictions in the evidence put forward by the Claimants and rightly stated thus “I have meticulously reproduced relevant evidence of the Claimants’ witnesses to show the contradictions. She went further to state thus. “These are contradictions which buttress 2nd defendant’s (DW2) evidence that the land Anaele gave was for a community hall.”

(d) The learned trial Judge had earlier found in this case that “In the instant case, I fail to see the ample evidence of long possession and acts of ownership by Claimants”

GROUND 2

The learned Trial Judge erred in law when she held that “2nd Defendant has failed prove ownership of the land in dispute.”

(a) The Defendants in this case filed a counter-claim wherein they asked for “A declaration that the 1st Defendant is entitled to the right of occupancy over that piece or parcel of land known as and called “Okeohia Amadioha Ugwuegbu” situate at Amakpaka Nnarambia Ahiara Ahiazu Mbaise within jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.”

(b) The Defendants pleaded and gave evidence of facts relating to the founding of the land in dispute by their ancestor who exercised original acts of ownership and possession and persons on whom title in respect of the land devolved since its founding.

(c) The learned trial Judge found as a fact that “they (defendants) only proved that the land was originally Ugwuegbu’s land before it was given to house Amadioha”

(d) There is evidence that the said Amadioha was destroyed in 1996 thereby destroying the purpose of the said grant.

GROUND 3

The learned Trial Judge erred in law when she ordered that “Defendants are hereby perpetually restrained from trespassing into the aforesaid property”

PARTICULARS

(a) It is not in dispute in this case as found by the learned Trial Judge that Ugwuegbu of the Defendants is the custodian of Amadioha and its properly including the land in dispute.

(b) the learned Trial judge found as a fact that “they (defendants) only proved that the land was originally Ugwuegbu’s land before it was given to house Amadioha.

(c) the learned Trial Judge had earlier found in this case that “In the instant case, I fail to see the ample evidence of long possession and acts of ownership by Claimants.”

(d) the Defendants have at all times material to this suit been in possession of the land in dispute.

(e) the law of the land imputes possession to title to land.

The Appellants filed their Brief of Argument in this appeal on 19th day of October, 2012. The Respondents filed Respondents’ Briefs of Argument dated the 24th day of November, 2012 on 29th day of November, 2012. This appeal was heard on 17th day of October, 2013 when the learned counsel to the parties adopted their respective Briefs of Argument.

The Appellants learned counsel E. C. Ekechukwu Esq. formulated two issues for determination viz:

“1. Whether the Respondents established better title to the land in dispute against the Appellants.

2. Whether the order of injunction by the trial court against the Appellants in respect of the entire “Ala Ishi Orji” land is justified.”

The learned counsel to the Respondents EMEKA O. NWAGWU Esq. adopted the two issues formulated by the Appellants but opted to argue the said two issues together. The two issues distilled from the grounds of Appeal filed will be treated in sequence.

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS ESTABLISHED BETTER TITLE TO THE LAND IN DISPUTE AGAINST THE APPELLANTS.

The learned counsel to the Appellants stated that the land in dispute is the portion verged RED in the respective plans of the parties which were admitted in evidence as Exhibits “C and E” and that the land is the ‘Amadioha Shrine’ where the local deity called Amadioha was worshiped. That the Respondents case was that the land in dispute was given to AMAKPAKA PEOPLE by BONIFACE NJOKU, ANAELE and MBAEGBU for the building of Amadioha shrine because Amadioha chose that land as its place of abode. He referred to the piece of evidence given by the claimant witnesses namely PW1, PW3, PW5 and PW2.

He submitted that the evidence of the Respondents witnesses regarding the alleged donors of the land in dispute to Amakpaka Community and the purpose of the land contradicted each other. That Some of the questions that defied explanation are these viz:

(i) Whether it was Nwagwu or Anaele that allegedly gave the land to Amakpaka people.

(ii) Was it for Amadioha shrine or town hall.

The Appellants submitted that where the court is faced with contradictory evidence of witnesses called by them in their bid to establish that the land in dispute belonged to them, the court below ought to have treated the evidence of the Respondents as unreliable and should have on that score dismissed the Respondents’ claim. He relied on the cases of:

1. MOBOLAJI vs. SALISU (2007) 3 FWLR (Pt.374) 3791 at 3822.

2. CADBURY (NIG) LTD vs. MOGAJI (1985) 393 and

3. ADEBAYO vs. IGHODALO (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt. 450) 507.

Appellants submitted that the trial judge correctly stated the position of the law regarding contradictory evidence by witnesses in her judgment and made far reaching findings that there were contradictions in the evidence of PW2, PW5 and PW3. That the lower court also found that there was no evidence of long possession of the disputed land by the Respondents.

The Learned Counsel to the Appellants submitted that notwithstanding the findings of the trial Judge against the Respondents, the said learned trial Judge still went ahead to hold that the Respondent proved their case and granted the reliefs the Claimants sought for. Appellant submitted that the decision of the trial Judge did not flow logically from his conclusions on the facts and of the law alluded to by the Learned trial Judge. He relied on the case of OYEYEMI & ORS V. IREWOLE V. LOCAL GOVERNMENT IKIRE ILORE & ORS (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 270) 462 at 476. Appellants urged the Court to set aside the said judgment of the lower Court.

The Appellants made reference to their counter claim and the fact, according to them, that they gave evidence as to who founded the land in dispute as their own ancestor called Imo who exercised original acts of ownership and possession. That Appellants traced their root of title of the founder and how it devolved on Ugwuegbu the Chief Priest of Amadioha.

Appellants made reference to the findings of the trial Judge which was described as a finding of fact in respect of the disputed land which they quoted thus:

“My findings are:

(1). Ugwuegbu family donated the land in dispute to house Amadioha.

(2). Ugwuegbu was the Chief Priest and custodian of Amadioha and its property including the land in dispute…..”

The Appellant then submitted:

“It is settled law that where in action for declaration of title to land in dispute a Plaintiff takes his title direct from the person found by the Judge to be the original owner of the land in dispute, the onus is on the Defendant to prove that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the judgment of the Court.”

They relied on the case of OLOSUNDE V. OLADELE (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 188) 713 to support their own claim on the counter-claim that in this case the learned trial Judge found as fact that the disputed land belonged to Ugwuegbu (Father of the 1st Appellant) before it was donated to house Amadioha. To the Appellants it is not in dispute in this case that the land was donated to house Amadioha and not for any other purpose. They also contended that there is no dispute that the parties have embraced Christianity and abandoned the worship of Amadioha thereby according to them ending the purpose for which the land was given.

The Appellants on that score submitted that the land in dispute should revert to the original owners who are the Appellants’ family because according to them the purpose of its donation was lost since 1996 when Amadioha was destroyed. That instead of the learned trial Judge making order returning the land to Appellants, he relied on Exhibit “A” in coming to the conclusion that the 2nd defendant has failed to prove ownership of the land in dispute. That the decision is not borne out of the claim and evidence before the Court. That the 2nd Defendant did not seek any relief from the Court. That it was 1st Defendant who sought relief asking for a declaration of title in his favour to the disputed land.

In reaction to the Appellants’ argument the Respondent urged this Court to hold that the Respondents have better title to the land.

On the counter claim and evidence led by the Appellants, the Respondents drew attention of this court to findings of the learned trial Judge to the effect that Amadioha was not a personal god of the Defendants but that Amadioha was god of AMAKPAKA. That it was made clear in Exhibit tendered without objection by PW1 and which Exhibit was a letter written by 2nd Defendant to AMAKPAKA Community. That the Learned trial Judge apart from holding that Amadioha was not Ogwuegbu’s personal god having regard to Exhibit “A” the Learned trial Judge also found that from the evidence of the Defendants they left the portion of land housing Amadioha when they were sharing their father’s property. The Judge concluded that this was because that portion of land housing Amadioha had been donated to AMAKPAKA Community and had become communal property off Amakpaka Community. That notwithstanding the pleaded case of Defendants now Appellants, the 2nd Appellant turned round to claim that it was his living father, 1st Defendant that gave him the land in dispute. The Respondents submitted that the findings of the trial judge was supported by evidence. That the trial Judge was right in finding for the Claimants.

Now the Appellants potrayed the judgment of the learned trial Judge as perverse just because the learned trial Judge found contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses for the Respondents but still found it convenient to give judgment in favour of the Respondents rather than judgment dismissing the Respondents’ claims.

Yes it is true the learned trial Judge highlighted some contradictions in the traditional history of the Respondents as plaintiffs at the Court below which contradictions she rightly believed militated against the evidence of traditional history postulated on their pleadings.

A close perusal of the record of appeal also shows that not all the stories of traditional history set up by the Appellants were accepted by the learned trial Judge. What the Learned trial Judge said upon evaluation of the evidence of both parties was that evidence of traditional history as postulated by each side was inconclusive. This was made clearer on page 253 of the record where the learned trial Judge said:

“The 2nd Defendant, during cross examination set up a different case when he asserted that he inherited the land in dispute from his living father. No evidence of gift inter vivos was given or pleaded. 2nd Defendant has failed to prove ownership of the land in dispute. They only proved that the land was originally Ugwuegbu’s land before it was given to house Amadioha.”

The learned trial Judge only said that the evidence of traditional history relied upon was inclusive and not that the witnesses lied. The evidence of both the Claimants and Defendants on traditional history was held to be inconclusive and that explained the rationale/reason for the option by the learned trial Judge to test the stories on both sides with acts of the parties in recent times concerning the ownership of the land.

Hence her reliance on the case of SARATU ADELEKE V. SANUSI IYANDA (1991) 9 NWLR 133.

I am of the settled view that what the learned trial Judge did was right and justified in the circumstance of this case particularly on the evidence from the Respondents and the Appellants. See CHIEF SAMUSIDEEN AFOLABI AYORINDE & ORS V. CHIEF HASSAN SOGUNRO & ORS (2012) 7 SCM 77 at 90 G – 91 A – B per RHODES – VIROUR, JSC, who said:

“The Onus is on the Plaintiff to establish his title, to the land and this she does by proving acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time. He relies on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the adverse party’s case. It is only where evidence of traditional history is inconclusive to establish Plaintiffs title that traditional history must be tested by reference to the facts in recent years as established by evidence.”

In the case of KOJO II V. BONSIE & ANOR (1957) 1 NLR P.1223 the Privy Council explained the position in these words:

“The dispute was all as to the traditional history which had been handed down by word of mouth from their fore-fathers. In this regard it must be recognized that in the Course of transmission from generation to generation mistake may occur without any dishonest motive whatever, witnesses of utmost veracity may speak honestly but erroneously as to what took place hundred or more years ago, where there is a conflict of traditional history, one side or the other must be mistaken, yet both may be their belief. In such a case demeanour is little guide to the truth. The best way is to test the traditional history by reference to the facts in recent years as established by evidence and by seeing which of the two competing histories is more probable.”

The learned trial Judge was right in her conclusion that the Claimants have proved their case on the preponderance of evidence. The evidence on the printed record justified that cause of action. The Appellants did not appeal against the positive findings of the learned trial Judge which they described as findings of fact in paragraph 4.17 of Appellants Brief of Argument.

The findings are:

“1. Ugwuegbu family donated the land in dispute to house Amadioha.

2. Ugwuegbu was the Chief Priest and custodian of Amadioha and its property including the land in dispute.

3. Amadioha was not a personal god of Ugwuegbu family but of Amakpaka Community. That makes the property of Amadioha that of Amakpaka Community.”

Pages 253-254 of the Record.

The case of OLOSUNDE V. OLADELE Supra relied upon by Appellants is of no help to them. The land here was given out to the Community of Amakpaka outrightly to house the Amadioha which was the deity or god of the community. The Appellants conceded that the land was a donation. The trial Court never found that 1st Appellant was the owner of the land contrary to the submission of Appellants. The findings of the Judge are very explicit. The Learned trial Judge stated that it was Ugwuegbu family that donated the land to house Amadioha and not the father of 2nd Appellant.

The only reason why the Appellants are contesting the ownership of the land is that in as much as the disputed land was given to the Community to house Amadioha and Amakpaka Community has virtually embraced Christianity then the land should revert back to the Appellants family the original owner. See paragraphs 4.20 and 4.21 of the Appellants Brief.

The Appellants made that submission notwithstanding that there was no pleading on their part in that regard and they never pleaded that the land was on leasehold to the plaintiffs and by extension the Amakpaka Community in which case the Appellant could claim reversionary interest. The action of the Appellants is in bad faith. Donation whether in form of land or money to a person, Community, Church or Organisation is a heartfelt absolute gift which can never be reclaimed. I am of the solemn view that once a donation is always a donation. The land in dispute remains the property of Amakpaka Community and can be used for Community developments or purposes.

The learned trial Judge was right in granting the reliefs sought by the Claimants and was justified in dismissing the counter claim of the Appellants.

The findings in favour of the claimants made the counter claim moribund and liable to be dismissed. And the said counter claim by the Appellants was rightly dismissed. It does not matter whether it was the 1st Defendant or the 2nd Defendant that set up the counter claim. Suffice to say that it counter claim was rightly dismissed.

Issue 1 is resolved against the Appellants.

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION BY THE TRIAL COURT AGAINST THE APPELLANTS IN RESPECT OF THE ENTIRE “ALA ISHI ORJI” LAND IS JUSTIFIED.

The Appellants drew attention to paragraph 16 of the Statement of Claim wherein the Respondents claimed Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from further trespass into the aforesaid property.

The Appellants submitted that an Order of injunction is generally granted to protect an existing legal right to property. They cited in support the case of OYE V. GOV. OF OYO STATE (1993) 7 NWLR (pt. 306) 473.

The Appellants are of the view that since the learned trial Judge found the traditional evidence led by Claimants to be inconclusive and there was no evidence of long possession and acts of ownership on the disputed land by claimants then the learned trial Judge was wrong to have granted an order of injunction. They relied on the cases of:

1. RUNSEWE v. ODUTOLA (1996) 3-4 MAC (Monthly Appeal cases) 1 & 6

2. OLOWU V. ENIOLA (1967) NMLR 339 AT 340.

In their own reaction the Respondents stated that since the learned trial Judge found that the land belongs to the claimants now Respondents the Respondents are entitled to the order of perpetual injunction sought. The Respondents are of the opinion that the cases of OYE V. GOV OYO STATE and OLOWU V. ENIOLA are inapplicable to the facts of the case on appeal.

Now on the Claim for perpetual injunction that was granted by the lower Court in favour of the Respondents, the law is certain that an order of injunction against the Defendant can be granted as a consequential Order or relief where a claimant succeeds in establishing his rights to principal relief or reliefs claimed even where the order is not specifically sought or asked for. I believe that in this case the grant of it is apposite because the claimants asked for it. The learned trial Judge having found that the claimants the Amakpaka Community are the owners of the land in dispute they are entitled to the order of injunction sought from the lower court. See UBAKA PAUL OKOYE V. THE CHIEF LANDS OFFICER OF RIVERS STATE OF NIGERIA & ANOR (2005) 5 SCM 149 at 161 PER KUTIGI JSC (Later CJN Rtd) who held:

“It is true however that the Plaintiff did not specifically seek for an Order injunction against the 3rd Defendant in the Court of trial. But that portion of the Judgment quoted above clearly shows that injunction against the 3rd Defendant was consequential in nature.

The Plaintiff having been declared to be entitled to the property in dispute needs protection against 3rd Dependant who has lost and has now acquired the status of a trespasser. The Order of injunction against the 3rd Defendant was therefore a proper and necessary order”

Consequently the Appellants having been held to have no title or interest in the land in dispute are properly restrained by the order of the learned trial Judge from further trespassing on the said landed property.

Issue 2 is also resolved against the Appellants.

On the whole the Appellants’ appeal lacks merit and same is hereby dismissed. The judgment of Imo State High Court of Justice contained in the judgment of F.I DUROHA-IGWE J, delivered on 12th day of March, 2012 in favour of the Respondents at the lower Court is hereby confirmed. The Appellants shall pay costs assessed at N50, 000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) in favour of the Respondents.

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother, P. O. Ige, JCA, just delivered.

I entirely agree with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by his Lordship that the appeal is devoid of any merit.

Let me chip in a word by way of contribution for emphasis only.

The facts of this case are clearly set out by my learned brother in the lead judgment and I need not over burden the issue here.

A careful perusal of the records of appeal clearly shows that the only reason why the Appellants, are contesting the ownership of the land in dispute is that since the disputed land was initially given to the community to house Amadioha (their deity) and that since Amakpaka Community has virtually embraced Christianity, then the land should revert back to the Appellants’ family who were the original owners of the land in dispute.

The action of the Appellants does not accord with the principle of justices and fairness. A donation whether in the form of land or money to a person, community, church or organization is absolute which can never be reclaimed unless otherwise stated. I am of the view that this appeal was brought in bad faith. I accordingly dismiss the same.

The judgment of the lower court delivered on the 12th day of March, 2012 is hereby affirmed. I endorse the consequential order made in the lead judgment inclusive of orders as to costs.

PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, PETER O. IGE, JCA. It is indeed true that a careful perusal of the record of appeal clearly shows that the learned trial judge did not swallow hook, line and sinker all the depositions of traditional history set up by the appeals. The learned trial court merely evaluated the evidence of both parties and declared the evidence of each side inclusive. It is therefore my humble opinion that the learned trial Judge was right in justifying the circumstance of this case on the evidence from both the Appellants and the Respondents. In the result, the trial court was right to conclude that the claimants have successfully proved their case on the preponderance of evidence.

Consequently, the Appellants having been proved to have held no title or interest in the land in dispute are rightfully restrained by the court’s order from further trespassing on the said land in dispute.

Accordingly, this appeal is devoid of merit and same is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the Imo State High Court delivered on the 12th day of March 2012 in favour of the Respondents is hereby affirmed. I abide by his Lordship’s order as to costs of N50, 000 in favour of the Respondents.

Appearances

G. O. C. Ihebom and Okey MaduforFor Appellant

AND

E. O. Nwagwu Esq., C.C. Uchechukwu (Mrs), A. Opara Esq.For Respondent