MR. MARTIN OKORIEOCHA & ANOR v. PAUL EMERENI & ORS
(2016)LCN/8171(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 10th day of February, 2016
CA/OW/322/2012
RATIO
LAND LAW: TITLE TO LAND; WAYS OF PROOFING TITLE TO LAND
The law on proof of title to land is well known and established, and the parties have re-stated same in this appeal, that it has to be done any of the five ways, namely:
1. By traditional evidence;
2. By production of document of title duly authenticated and executed;
3. By acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough so as to make it reasonable to infer that the person so exercising such right owns the land;
4. By proving acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land and
5. Proof of possession of connected or adjacent lands in the circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected and adjacent lands would be the true owner of the land in dispute. See Oyadare vs. Keji (2005) ALL FWLR (pt. 247) 1583; Idundun vs. Okumagba (1976) 10 SC 227; Alufe vs Oghomienor (2004) 13 NWLR (pt. 890) 327; SUU vs. Jobak Nig. Ltd (2012) LPELR 7932 (CA); (2012) 49 WRN 53; Ogah & Anor vs Gidado & Ors (2013) LPELR – 20298 CA and Dada vs. Falaye (2007) ALL FWLR (pt. 349) 1134. per. ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE: TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE; WHAT THE PARTY CLAIMING TITLE TO LAND HAS TO PROVE
And for a plaintiff claiming title to land on traditional evidence, he has to prove how the land was founded, the original founder and the successive persons through whom title devolved, right down to the plaintiffs, and the chain of ownership must not be broken, as failure to trace the linking chain of person on whom the title devolved, right down to the plaintiff, can be fatal. See Akanni vs. Olaniyan (2006) 8 NWLR (pt. 983) 531; Popoola and Ors vs. Oyeyemi (1992) LPELR – 2922 SC; Ukariwo Obasi and Anor vs. Eke Onwuka & Ors (1987) LPELR – 2152 SC (1987) (NWLR pt. 61) 364. per. ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE: BURDEN OF PROOF; WHICH OF THE PARTIES HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING HIS CASE IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF THE TITLE TO LAND
It must be stated that, in a claim for declaration of the title to land or any claim for declaratory reliefs, the plaintiff’s burden to establish his case remains static, and he must succeed on the strength of his own case, whatever the weakness of the case of his opponent. See Eyo vs. Onuoha (2011) 3-4 MJSC 46 at 71, Agboola Vs UBA & Ors 2-3 MJSC (pt. 11) 150 at 179; Asika & Anor vs. Onyedike. per. ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE: CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: WHETHER CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT WILL AVAIL OR HELP THE PLAINTIFF IN SUSTAINING HIS CASE WHERE HE HAS NOT PROVED THE SAME
The Respondents did not counter-claim in this case and so they had no burden to establish their claim, in the circumstances, to enhance the claim/case of the Appellants, See Eyo vs Onuoha (2011) 3-4 MJSC 46 at 71; Agboola vs. UBA & 2 Ors (2011) 2-3 MJSC (Pt.11) 150 at 179. In Obiazikwor vs. Obiazikwor (2007) 27 WRN 106 at 132, it was held:
“Contradictions in the evidence of a defendant, who by the pleadings has not the initial burden to prove his case, can only be material in the determination of the case, if the plaintiff has, in the first place, proved his case. Where a plaintiff has not proved his case, contradictions in the evidence of the defendant will not avail or help the Plaintiff in sustaining his claim.” (Per Abba Aji, JCA). See also Hamza vs Kure (2010) NWLR Pt (1203) 650. per. ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: TITLE TO LAND; WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND
As rightly held by my Lord, the law is trite that there are five ways of proving title to land as enumerated in the celebrated case of Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 10 S.C. 227; Ayoola v. Odofin (1984) 11 S.C. 120, Nkado v. Obiano (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt.503) 31 at 34; Nkwo v. Iboe (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt.558) 354 S.C., Ewo v. Ani (2004) 17 NSCQR 36; one of which is by traditional evidence as relied upon by the Appellants herein. Per. IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE: PROOF OF TRADITIONAL HISTORY; HOW CAN THE APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ESTABLISH TITLE BY TRADITIONAL HISTORY
It is also trite that to establish title by traditional evidence the Appellants as Plaintiffs in the Lower Court ought to lead credible evidence in proof of how the land was founded, the original founder and the successive persons through whom the land devolved in an unbroken chain until it eventually devolved on them (the Plaintiffs/Appellants). See Nkado v. Obiano (supra), Archibong v. Edak (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt.980) 485, Dike v. Okoloedo (1999) and Otanma v. Youdubagha (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt.964) 337 S.C., Onisaodu v. Elewuju (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt.998) 517 S.C. Per. IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ITA GEORGE MBABA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. MR. MARTIN OKORIEOCHA
2. MR. GIEAON MADUBUIKE OKAFOR
(For themselves and as representing Members of Umudike family of Umuihi-Ihitte) Appellant(s)
AND
1. PAUL EMERENI
2. MICHEAL EMERENI
3. CHARLES EMERENI Respondent(s)
ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of Imo State High Court in Suit No. HME/47/1986, delivered on 14/6/12 by Hon. Justice F.I. Duroha-Igwe, wherein his lordship dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim for lacking in merit.
In the Court below the Plaintiffs had sought the following reliefs against the defendants (now Respondents).
(1) A declaration that the Plaintiffs are within the making and intentions of the Land Use Act, 1978, the owners and entitled to the Statutory right of occupancy of the piece or parcel of land known as and called ALA UMUDIKE, situate at, being and lying at DIKENACHIEZE in UMUELEM, Umuihi within the Etiti Urban Area in the now Ihitte-Uboma Local Government Area of Imo State, more particularly, covered by the Plaintiffs’ Litigation Plan No. AS.A/IMO 293/87 OF 23/12/87 made by J.O. Agugua Licenced Surveyor.
(2) An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and privies or any person by whatsoever name called, from trespassing, disturbing, harassing or otherwise interfering with the Plaintiffs’ ownership and possession of the land?
?(3) The sum of
N515,000.00 (Five Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Nira) being special and general damages against the defendants jointly and severally for their damages and trespass on the Plaintiffs’ land?
(4) For forfeiture of the grant for conduct inconsistent with the terms of the grant with respect to the Parcel of Land not sold or exchanged with the defendants for unreasonable behaviour and denial of overlords title”
The particulars of special damages were:
(a) 33 heads of Palm trees valued at N250.00 now valued at N8,250.00
(b) 1 pear tree valued at N100.00 now valued at N1,500.00
(c) Nine stands of Plantain valued at N120.00 now valued at N2,850.00
(d) 200 stems of cassava plants valued at 50k per stem now valued at N12.00 per stem = N2,400.00
Total special damages = N15,000.00
General damages = N500,000.00
Total = N515,000.00
(See pages 151 to 153 of the Records of Appeal.)
After hearing the case and considering the addresses by the Counsel, the trial Court held:
?”In conclusion, Plaintiffs have failed to prove their case on the balance of probability? I hereby dismiss this Suit. I ward cost of N50,000. to the Defendants against the Plaintiffs. Exhibits to be returned
to their respective owners,” See pages 338 – 339 of the Records”.
?Appellants, being dissatisfied, filed their Notice of Appeal on 17/7/2012 and raised 9 grounds of appeal, as seen on pages 314 to 320 of the Records of Appeal. They filed their Brief of Arguments on 11/12/2012 and formulated 5 Issues for determination, namely:
(1) Did the trial Court properly evaluate the evidence before him before arriving at his decision that the claimants have failed to prove their case on the balance of probabilities? (Grounds 1 and 9)
(2) Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he failed to declare the right of occupancy over the land in favour of the claimants when in addition to the evidence of traditional history put forward by the claimants they gave evidence of acts of ownership and possession over the said land (Grounds 2,3, and 4)
(3) Whether the learned trial judge was right when he dismissed the case of the Claimants based on speculative interference, erroneous conclusions and based upon matters in which there was no evidence whatsoever. (Grounds 5)
?(4) Whether the trial judge was right when he held that the Plaintiffs led no evidence of the grant by Plaintiffs to
the defendants and thereby declined to make an Order for forfeiture against the defendants over the land in dispute (Grounds 6 and 7)
(5) Was the learned trial judge right when he declined or failed to award damages to the Claimants (Grounds 8).”
The Respondents filed their Brief on 12/9/14 which was deemed duly filed on 10/3/15. They said a lone issue should be distilled for the determination of the appeal, inview of what they called repetitive nature of the grounds of Appeal; namely:
“Whether the Appellants discharged the onus on them to prove their case at the trial with cogent and credible evidence for it to be said that the trial Court wrongly dismissed their case”.
However, Respondents’ Counsel elected to adopt the issues as distilled by the Appellants for the determination of the appeal, to be on the safety side.
?Arguing the appeal on 20/1/16, Appellants’ Counsel, C. Ike Inegbu Esq, who settled the brief, on issue one, referred us to some pages of the judgment by the trial Court and said that the trial Court did set out the evidence of Plaintiffs and the Defendants anywhere in the judgment and appraise them, rather it set out the pleadings and relied on the
pleadings of the parties to reach its decision. He submitted that averments are not evidence upon which a Court should base its judgment. He relied on the case of NAS LTD Vs UBA Plc (2005) 14 NWLR (pt.945) 421; Ogundepo Vs Olumesan (2011) 18 NWLR (pt.925) 54; Adebayo Vs Shogo (2005) 7 NWLR (PT.1278) 467. He cited Udoh Vs O.O.P. Plc (2005) 24 WRN 140 to say that a trial Court has a duty to evaluate evidence placed before the Court; that evaluation and appraisal of evidence simply means the assessment or estimation of evidence so as to give credit or value to it. He also relied on Nkpan Vs Nkume (2001) 6 NWLR (pt.710) 543.
Counsel said that if the trial Court had done proper evaluation of the evidence of the Appellants he would have decided differently, because, according to Appellants’ Counsel, Appellants evidence was credible and uncontroverted. He relied on Iyere Vs BFFM Ltd (2008) 18 NWLR (pt.1119) 300. He added that the defence case was full of contradictions; that the trial judge agreed there was contradiction in the traditional history by the Defendants, but said that he did not consider the contradiction to be fatal. Counsel urged us to resolve this issue
for Appellants and to reverse the decision of the Court below and give Judgment to the Appellants. He relied on Mini Lodge Ltd Vs NGEL (2009) 18 NWLR (pt.1173) 254; Nigerian Ports Plc Vs Beecham Ltd (2005) 24 WRN 38.
On Issue 2, Counsel said the trial Court erred in law when he failed to declare the Claimants the Owners of Land, entitled to the right of occupancy over the Land. He said that the Court had acknowledged the evidence of traditional history put up by the Claimants, and he drew our attention to the five ways of proving title to land, which includes evidence of traditional history. He relied on Idundum Vs Okumagba (1976) 9 – 10 SC 227; Dada Vs Falaye (2007) ALL FWLR (pt.349) 1134; Yusuf Vs Adegoke (2007) 11 NWLR (pt.1045) 332. He added that in this case the Claimants were claiming title by evidence of traditional history and that all that was required of them to prove their title was how the land was founded, the original founder and the successive persons through whom the title evolved. He relied on Akanni Vs Olaniyan (2006) 8 NWLR (pt.983) 531.
Counsel relied on the evidence of PW1 (Martin Okorieocha) on how the land was deforested by Late Pa
Agbakaere and he named the successive persons through whom the title had devolved – pages 250 – 251 of the Records. Counsel further referred us to page 308 of the Records of Appeal, where he said the trial Court acknowledged that the evidence of PW1 was in line with the traditional history pleaded by the Appellants in their further Amended Statement of Claim. Counsel submitted that after accepting these pieces of evidence the trial Court, surprisingly, held on page 312 of the Records that he was not satisfied with the traditional history of the Claimants.
Counsel submitted that the Respondents had presented conflicting evidence of traditional history when they stated that Elem their ancestor deforested the land in dispute but later, under cross examination, stated that it was Chieze. He submitted that by law, where a defendant to a Claim for title to land fails to prove his root of title, his defence to the claim fails. He relied on Oyadare Vs Keji (2005) 7 NWLR (pt.925) 571; Ogunjemila Vs Ajibade (2010) 11 NWLR (pt.1206) 559.
Counsel further said that the trial Court also mentioned the evidence of acts of ownership and possession by the Claimants and yet held
that the Claimants had failed to prove their case. He relied on Oyadare Vs Keji (supra) which says that:
“Where a Plaintiff proves sufficient acts of possession in a Suit for declaration of title to land and trespass, the burden is thrown on defendant under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, to prove the contrary. In other words in order to get judgment, the defendant has the onus to rebut the evidence of the Plaintiff”
He urged us to resolve the Issue for Appellants, saying that acts of possession and enjoyment of land can be prima facie evidence of a particular piece of land in respect of which such acts are exercised.
?On Issue 3, Counsel said the trial Court dismissed the Claim of the Appellants on speculative inferences, erroneous conclusions and upon matters on which there was no evidence on record. He referred us to page 311 of the Records, where the trial Court observed that PW1 mentioned boundary neighbours to the land in dispute but they did not call any of them to testify. He submitted that such demand was unnecessary, where the Court had accepted the evidence of traditional history and had acknowledged evidence of acts of ownership and possession. He
relied on the case of Sunday Ukwu Eze Vs Gilbert Atasie (2000) 9 WRN 73.
Counsel also quarreled with the trial Court’s holding that Appellants (PW1) did not call any independent evidence (oral or documentary) on the assertion of sale of the land to the 2nd defendant. Counsel said that on page 312 of the Records, the trial Court stated that “parties are agreed that Okorieocha of Plaintiff’s family at a time sold land to the 2nd defendant” but, surprising, accepted the contradictory story of the defendants on how Okorieocha of Claimants family came to own the land. Counsel argued that the Defendants first stated that the land was originally owned by Anakaraonye Chieze of Defendants family who sold it, many years ago to Okorieocha of the Claimant’s family, but under cross examination DW1 said that Anakaraonye plegded the land to Okorieocha, while DW2 and DW3 gave no evidence of this alleged sale of the land. Counsel said that despite these contradictions, the trial Court preferred the evidence of the Respondents! He said that there was no basis for the action of the trial judge. He relied on the case of Nwoga Vs Benjamin (2009) 5 NWLR (pt.1133) 152, that says that
“where there is a conflict in the testimonies of a party’s witnesses, the trial Court cannot pick and choose which of the testimonies to believe as it is not the duty of the Court to provide explanations for the conflict in the evidence of the party’s witnesses. Therefore, the Court may not act on the testimonies of any of the witnesses.” He also relied on Adu Vs Gbadamosi (2009) 6 NWLR (pt.1136) 110; Yusuf Vs Obasanjo (2008) 18 NWLR (pt.956) 96 at 120 and Imani vs Sheriff (2005) 4 NWLR (pt. 914) 80 and said that the Court should have acted on the evidence of the Appellants, which he said was credible, instead of fishing for materials with which to discredit same. He urged us to resolve the issue for the Appellants.
On issue 4, Counsel submitted that the Trial Court erred when he held that the plaintiff led no evidence of grant by the plaintiffs to the defendants. He referred us to the evidence of PW1 on page 251 to say that evidence of grant was led, and added that the PW1 was not cross examined on the point. He relied on the case of NITEL Plc vs. Ikpi (2007) 8 NWLR (pt. 1035) 96. Counsel said that because the Trial Court failed to hold the evidence of
grant, that occasioned miscarriage of justice. He said that if the Trial Court had considered the evidence of grant, it would have made the order for forfeiture as claimed by the Appellants; that because apart from the evidence of grant, the claimant had given evidence of the various misconducts by the defendants inconsistent with the grant, such as denial of the Claimants’ title and unreasonable behaviour. He relied on the case of Ajao vs. Obele (2005) 5 NWLR (pt. 918) 400.
Counsel said that the totality of the evidence of the Respondent was hinged on the facts that they live on land indispute, but added that the Respondents lived on the land because the same was granted to them by the father of the claimants; that having denied the grant and asserted right to the land by traditional history, the Respondents had a duty to establish their claim; that the trial Judge was wrong when he said that the Defendants (Respondents) have nothing whatsoever to prove (page 410 of the Records). He relied on the case of Nwaru vs. Okoye (2008) 18 NWLR (pt. 118) 29. He added that being in possession of the land did not prove the land belonged to them, especially as the
Appellants gave evidence of grant of the land to them (Defendants) by the Appellants. He relied on the case of Dabo vs. Abdullahi (2005) 7 NWLR (pt. 923) 181.
On Issue 5, (Appellant erroneously referred to as 6), Appellant said they were entitled to award of damages, having given evidence of forceful entry to the land by the Defendants, and causing of extensive damage thereon.
He urged us to allow the appeal upon resolving the issues for the Appellants.
The Respondents’ Counsel, Uche Wisdom Durueke Esq, submitted that the facts that they, (Respondents), filed no counter claim in the case meant the onus remained, permanently, on the Appellants to establish their case on cogent and credible evidence; that they were to sink or swim in their case based on the strength of their case, especially as they were seeking declaratory reliefs.
?On Issue 1, Counsel for the Respondent said that the Trial Court had evaluated the evidence in the case, properly, before reaching its conclusion. On the claim that the trial Court only considered the pleadings and not evidence by the Appellants, Counsel for the Respondents said that was not correct. He also added that pleadings guide
evidence and that there cannot be a review or evaluation of evidence in a case without reference to pleadings. Thus, he said that the evidence can only be reviewed or evaluated in the con of the pleadings; that the Trial Court was not wrong in referring to the pleadings as it considered the evidence. He referred us to pages 299 and 309, in particular, where the trial Judge made references to the pleadings and evidence in quick successions; he said that the trial Court did not just consider the pleadings of the parties, including but both the pleadings and evidence. He said that such practice cannot be faulted in law.
On the allegation of contradictions in the traditional evidence of the Respondents, Counsel said Appellants strained every nerve in an attempt to accentuate this point, but failed to sound convincing; that this allegation is akin to the Biblical ‘judge’ who pressed so hard to remove a speck in another person’s eye, while overlooking his own eye; the story of a pot calling a kettle black!
?Counsel said, just as the name sounds, that traditional history must connect to practical situations, events and people in history; he said that Agbakaere or
Maduike who the Appellants claimed founded the land in dispute has no link whatsoever with Umuchieze, Umuelem or Umuihi. Counsel said that while in their pleadings, Appellants claimed Pa Agbakaraere was the first person that deforested the land in dispute, during the trial, the case suffered a fatal internal conflict; that PW1 and PW2 disagreed with each other on this material issue. While PW1 said that the land in dispute was deforested by Pa Agbakaere (page 250 lines 20-23). PW2, under cross examination, talked of “our ancestor called Maduike and others who deforested the land”. (Page 258 lines 8-11). Counsel said the PW2 did not mention the alleged ‘others’; whether they were the defendants’ ancestors or not, and what extent of the land Maduike allegedly deforested and the extent the others deforested. He said that at the end of the trial, there were two conflicting stories on the Claimants’ root of title; that the legal implication of the conflict meant that the claimant did not give cogent and credible evidence in support of their case, and their case was bound to be dismissed; that in the circumstances, there was no way the trial Court could have saved
the case. He relied on the case of Nwogu vs Benjamin (2009) 5 NWLR (pt. 1133) 152, saying the same, actually, supported the Respondents’ case.
On the issue of the alleged grant to the Respondents, Counsel said the onus was on the Appellants to prove that they “as the Plaintiffs and their parents” granted the land to the parents of the Defendants. He argued that the PW1 at page 250 of the Records alleged that the Defendants’ father, Emeremi Nwachukwu, came to the land on permission; that he (father of Defendants) “came into the land by permission of our father Nwoke-Ijirinwa Madubuike”. And on page 251, the PW1 said “my father made the grant subject to certain conditions.” Counsel said that the father of PW1 (by his evidence-in-chief) was Okorieocha, but the PW1 contradicted himself on an issue that he ought to have known like ABC, if he was not lying. Counsel referred us to Paragraph 9 of the further amended statement of claim, where they alleged “the grant to the defendant was made by the plaintiffs upon presentation of Kola and wine by the Defendants and their parents at various times.”
?Counsel argues that by the above averment, the alleged grant was made by
the Appellants themselves to the Respondents and at various times. He said parties are bound by their pleadings; that Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Appellants pleadings were in conflict; that it naturally followed that whatever evidence given on them would be in conflict. Thus, the evidence of alleged grant went to no issue. He relied on the case of Ole vs. Ekede (1994) 4 NWLR (pt. 187) 571. He also relied on the case of Okonkwo and Anor. vs. Okolo (1988) 1 NSCC 909 on the need to clearly plead the ingredients, condition and nature of the grant in customary law. He added that the said ingredients, conditions and nature of the alleged grant were not pleaded nor proved in evidence; that the Appellants needed to have pleaded the same and give credible evidence of the:
I. Person(s) who made the grant
II. Defendants’ ancestors the grant was made to
III. Date(s) or period(s) in history the grant was made
IV. Where the Defendants’ ancestor(s) came from
V. Terms of the grant(s) and
VI. Persons that witnessed the grant(s).
?Counsel said it was disappointing that the claimant, who pleaded that the grant was made at various times could not state, at least, one of the various
instances or period(s) in history when the grant was made to the Defendants or to their parents, and they could not mention any name as witness to the alleged grant(s). He submitted that the Appellants story was incredible and relied on the case of Imah vs. Okogbe (1993) 9 NWLR (pt. 316) 159 at 173.
Counsel also drew our attention to the Appellants’ pleading in Paragraph 10 of their further Amended Statement of claim and said, that therein, the Appellants had admitted that Chieze was the Respondents ancestor and that the land was an inheritance from Chieze. He said that though they (Appellants) did not say who Chieze was to the Respondents, there was no better explanation than the fact that he (Chieze) was the Respondents’ ancestor. Counsel also noted that Appellant never pleaded nor adduce evidence to suggest that the land, inherited by the Respondents, was sold to Chieze or was a grant or gift or pledge to the said Chieze. He also noted that PW1 had alleged that the grant of the land was to Emereni Nwachukwu, great grandson of Chieze (and not to Chieze). Counsel referred to Paragraphs 8-14 of the written deposition of DW1 (pages 155-156 of the Records) on the
fact that Emereni Nwachukwu was the great grandson of Chieze.
Thus, Counsel said, Chieze was a beneficial owner in possesion under customary law of the land in dispute. He wondered how the Respondents who inherited the land from their ancestor Chieze could be called ‘strangers’ and ‘grantees’ by the Appellants! He said that was incredible and urged us to hold that the Appellants had not established the alleged grant; that the burden to prove the alleged grant remained with the Appellants and could not shift, since the Respondents never counter claimed. He relied on the case of Eyo vs Onuoha (2011) 3-4 MJSC 46 at 71; Agboola vs. UBA & 2 Ors (2011) 2-3 MJSC (pt. 11) 150 at 179. Counsel also relied on the case of Obiazikwor vs. Obiazikwor (2007) 27 WRN 106 at 132 to say that, even if there were contradictions in the evidence of the Respondents (which he did not admit) the same can not still help the case of the Appellants who had a duty to prove their claim on the strength of their case; that the law is “where a plaintiff has not proven his case, contradictions in the evidence of the Defendant will not avail or help the plaintiff in sustaining his claim.”
On?Issue 2, whether the trial Court was right to have failed to declare the right of occupancy over the land in favour of the Appellant when in addition to the traditional history, Appellant gave evidence of acts of ownership and possession over the land? Counsel said the 2nd Issue was tied to the first Issue and so the submission made in respect of the Issue one also applied to Issue 2. He added that the so called traditional evidence relied upon by the Appellant suffered from internal conflicts as the evidence of PW1 and PW2 were contradictory on who deforested the land in dispute. He relied on the case of Ogunjemila vs. Ajibade (2010) 11 NWLR (pt. 1206) 559.
“Where the evidence of the witness of one party is contradictory on the traditional history of ownership, his case fails.”
On the issue of possession, Counsel submitted that Appellants did not show their so called acts of possession under this head. He said that Appellant had misinterpreted the presentation of their case by the Court through the ipse dixit of the PW1, as the Court’s acceptance of their case. He said that the fact that the Court sets out the case of a party as presented by him, did not mean
that it accepted same, as erroneously contended by the Appellants. He said it was common ground in the case that the Respondents live on the land in dispute, harvest the economic trees and build thereon, and he referred to the evidence of PW1 (pages 253) and DW4 (pages 158-160 of the Records).
On the issue of exchange of land between a relation of the Respondents and the Appellants – Exhibit C, Counsel said the document was not registered; that an Agreement alleging exchange of land is a land instrument in law as it claims to transfer title to land and so ought to be registered; that no registration of same, voids the transaction. He relied on Section 77 of the Law of Property, 1994, Law of Imo State and Section 15 of the Land Instrument Registration Law, Cap 72 Law of Eastern Nigeria, 1963, applicable in Imo State. Thus, Counsel said Exhibit C was wrongly admitted as it was inadmissible and the fact that Respondents raised no objection against its admission was inconsequential. He relied on Chief Joshua Aloa vs. Alfa Issa Akano & Ors (2005) 20 WRN 157 at 173; Etim vs. Ekpe (1883) 1 SCNLR 120.
?Counsel added that even if the document were admissible, it would
not aid the case of the Appellants, as the document did not state that the land exchanged was deforested by Agbakaere or Maduike; that in law what is not expressed cannot be implied. He further submitted that the exchange is not an act of possession by the Appellants, being an act the Respondents allowed. Thus, the act of exchange should count for the Respondent. Counsel also said that Appellants did not plead or give evidence of any sale of the land; that even the evidence of sale by PW1 to DW4 was countered and explained by Respondents who showed that it was Anakaraonye, a member of the Respondents’ ancestral family that first sold the land to the father of PW1, Okorieocha, and PW1 had acknowledged this fact on page 253 of the Records when he said that the land he sold to DW4 was “bought from the Defendants.”
?On the alleged arbitral award by the traditional authorities, that “Appellants were not strangers’ in the land, Counsel wondered why the alleged arbitration judgment, which Appellants claimed to have been in writing and copied by the Traditional Ruler of the Community to public authorities, like the Etiti Local Government Council and the Police, was not
tendered in evidence as exhibit! He argued that Appellant cannot be allowed to lead oral evidence of a written document; that failure to produce the alleged arbitration judgment was fatal to the Appellants, and the oral evidence thereon went to no issue, especially as the Respondents had stoutly denied the alleged arbitral award. He relied on Federal Mortgage Finance Ltd vs. Hope Offiong Ekpo (2003) 45 WRN 134 at 148. He urged us to invoke Section 167 (d) against the Appellants on the issue, relying on People of Lagos State vs. Umuaru (2014) 3 MJSC 136 at 182.
On Issue 3, Counsel submitted that the Appellants were wrong to say that the trial Court dismissed their case based on speculative inferences, erroneous conclusions and based on matters in which were there was no evidence; that Appellants had failed to appreciate the fact that the entire burden of proving their claims rested squarely on them, especially as the claim was for declaratory reliefs. Counsel said that the evidence by the PW1 and PW2 failed woefully to establish Appellants’ case and so the trial Court was right in its conclusions.
?On Issue 4, Counsel said the trial Court was obviously not
satisfied with the evidence led by the Appellants regarding the alleged grant of the land in dispute by them to the Respondents. He reproduced the submissions earlier referred in issue 1, which appears to have covered this issue. The said submissions in issue one on the issue of grant are hereby referred and applied to this Issue.
Counsel added that the entire evidence of grant was based on mere guess work; that no elder in Umuelem or Umuichi was called by the Appellants to give evidence of the alleged grant. Rather, that the Respondents gave clear evidence of where the Appellants came from and this was admitted by Appellants. He urged us to discountenance all the authorities cited in respect of the issue as the same were not applicable.
On Issue 5, Counsel argued that the Court having shown that the main claim in the suit could not stand, the issue of damages did not arise at all. He said it was common ground that the Respondents lived on the land and were in firm possession of same, therefore if there was trespass, it was by Appellants. He said that in law a person who is not in exclusive possession of land cannot claim damages for trespass. He relied on the
case of Adua vs. Essien & Ors (2007) 3 WRN 95 at 112:
“So for a plaintiff to institute or commence an action in trespass, he must show he is in exclusive possession, exclusive in the sense that he does not share his right of possession with any other person.”
Counsel urged us to resolve the issues against the Appellants and to dismiss the appeal.
RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES
As rightly observed by learned Counsel for the Respondents, I think the five issues donated by the Appellants for the determination of this appeal were repetitive of similar or common complaints which were repeated in the grounds of appeal. The main issue is:
“Whether, given the evidence led at the trial, the trial Court had properly evaluated the evidence before coming to the decision to dismiss the case of the Appellants, saying that Appellants failed to prove the same”.
?A brief of facts of the case shows that Appellants had laid claims to the land, which they referred to as ALA UMUDIKE, saying the same was theirs by inheritance. They relied on evidence of traditional history to establish their root of title to the land PW1 (the 1st Appellant or 1st Plaintiff) was the main witness. He gave
evidence to the effect that the land in dispute was theirs by inheritance and that the defendants, who, he admitted, lived on the land in dispute, were the children of Emereni Nwachukwu (now deceased) from Umuchieze; that before he died, he lived on the land in dispute “Ala Umudike” and he said the Respondents’ father came into the land by permission of the Appellant’s father, Nwokeyirinwa Madubuike. He claimed Agbakaere was the first man to acquire the land in dispute by deforesting it and that the said Agbakaere was their ancestor and that the land later devolved on his son, Dike and from Dike to Atulayo, thereafter to Madubuike and then to the four sons of Madubuike – Esokanwu, Okorieocha, Osuagwu and Okafor, and thereafter, on the Appellants, who are the sons of Okorieocha and Okafor, respectively. He alleged that they farmed on the land, (after saying that the Respondents are in possession of the land).
?He said he sold a portion of that land to the 2nd Respondent. He alleged that the Respondents’ father, at the time, obtained a portion of this land in dispute from their (Appellants’) father, to live on; that the Respondents’ father was living somewhere
else prior to the grant, but was driven from the land in their village by spirits, that his father (Okorieocha) made the grant subject to certain conditions; that the Respondents’ father and their (Appellants’) father lived peacefully. But that in 1984, the Respondents took them (Appellants) to the Traditional Ruler J. C. Ovuike (now late) alleging Appellants were strangers on the land and the case was adjudged for them (Appellants) that they were not strangers on the land, rather Respondents were adjudged to be living on Appellants’ land and the Traditional arbitration advised them (Appellants) to give the 3rd Respondent 20 feet of the land to use as his back yard, an advice which they refused to heed; that the Respondents, thereafter, forcefully entered the land, used bulldozer and caterpillar to grade the land and damage economic crops/trees. See pages 249-251 of the Records.
However, PW2 (also of the family of the Appellants), under cross examination said:
“Our ancestors called Maduike and others deforested the land. The elders are in a better position to expatriate on this.”
He said that in answer to a question as to how his ancestors got into the land in
dispute. He admitted that a good number of his family members lived at Mbaranta; that his relations live at Mbara (See page 257 of the Records).
The Respondents had denied the claims of the Appellants and had asserted rights over the land, also by inheritance, but they never counter-claimed. They traced their roots to Chieze and called the land Ala Umuchieze situate in Umuchieze, Umulem, Umuihi. Respondents said the land was deforested by their ancestor, Chieze. On the claim that part of the land was sold by PW1 to 2nd Respondent, DW1 said under (cross examination):
“Martins sold no land to us. Anakaronye pledged the land to Okorieocha”
But DW4 said:
“Yes, it is true to say that the 1st claimant sold a land to me . . . he said the land was bought by his forefather from Anakaronye and that I must pay for it.” (See page 291 of the Records).
There is evidence that Anakaraonye was of the family of the Respondents.
Appellants had claimed title to the land in dispute and by their line of evidence, relied on traditional history to prove their claim. The law on proof of title to land is well known and established, and the parties have re-stated same in this appeal, that it
has to be done any of the five ways, namely:
1. By traditional evidence;
2. By production of document of title duly authenticated and executed;
3. By acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough so as to make it reasonable to infer that the person so exercising such right owns the land;
4. By proving acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land and
5. Proof of possession of connected or adjacent lands in the circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected and adjacent lands would be the true owner of the land in dispute. See Oyadare vs. Keji (2005) ALL FWLR (pt. 247) 1583; Idundun vs. Okumagba (1976) 10 SC 227; Alufe vs Oghomienor (2004) 13 NWLR (pt. 890) 327; SUU vs. Jobak Nig. Ltd (2012) LPELR 7932 (CA); (2012) 49 WRN 53; Ogah & Anor vs Gidado & Ors (2013) LPELR – 20298 CA and Dada vs. Falaye (2007) ALL FWLR (pt. 349) 1134.
And for a plaintiff claiming title to land on traditional evidence, he has to prove how the land was founded, the original founder and the successive persons through whom title devolved, right down to the plaintiffs, and the chain of ownership must not be broken,
as failure to trace the linking chain of person on whom the title devolved, right down to the plaintiff, can be fatal. See Akanni vs. Olaniyan (2006) 8 NWLR (pt. 983) 531; Popoola and Ors vs. Oyeyemi (1992) LPELR – 2922 SC; Ukariwo Obasi and Anor vs. Eke Onwuka & Ors (1987) LPELR – 2152 SC (1987) (NWLR pt. 61) 364.
It must be stated that, in a claim for declaration of the title to land or any claim for declaratory reliefs, the plaintiff’s burden to establish his case remains static, and he must succeed on the strength of his own case, whatever the weakness of the case of his opponent. See Eyo vs. Onuoha (2011) 3-4 MJSC 46 at 71, Agboola Vs UBA & Ors 2-3 MJSC (pt. 11) 150 at 179; Asika & Anor vs. Onyedike.
Appellant had led evidence on traditional history of their title to the land but they had a conflicting account. While the PW1 (1st Appellant) alleged that the land in dispute was deforested by their ancestor, Pa Agbakaere (also spelt as Agbakere), (page 249 of the Records), the PW2 said their ancestors who deforested the land was called Maduike and he did it with others! (Page 257 of the Records). And in the PW1’s account, Agbakere was succeeded on
the land by Dike (his son) and when Dike died, his son, Atulayo inherited the land; Madubuike inherited it from his father, Atulayo, and his four sons – Esokanwu, Okorieocha, Osuagwu and Okafor inherited the land from him (Madubuike). Appellants are the Children of Okorieocha and Okafor, respectively, who took out the action for themselves and on behalf of their extended family. PW1 only mentioned the name of Madubuike when he traced his father (Okorieocha) and the father of the 2nd Appellant (Okafor) to him (Madubuike) as their common grandfather.
It is not clear whether Madubuike, who was the Appellants’ grandfather, was the same person the PW2 referred to as their ancestor called Maduike. Whether or not the two names belonged to one and the same person, the clear message is that Appellants had conflicting accounts as to their original ancestor who deforested the land and that had dealt a fatal blow on their case. The case of Ogunjemila vs. Ajibade (2010) 11 NWLR (pt. 1206) 559 referred to and relied upon by both the Appellants and Respondents, is quite instructive. It says:
“Where the evidence of the witnesses of one party is contradictory on the traditional
history of ownership, his case should fail.”
In the case of Sunday Ukwu Eze vs. Gilbert Atasie (2000) 9 WRN 73 at 82 it was held:
“Where a plaintiff by his pleadings and evidence relies on traditional history for his root of title to land, he fails or succeeds on that history . . . The traditional history is then accepted on its strength and urgency. This is what the authorities have established that where evidence of traditional history is not contradicted or is not in conflict with another that was set up and found by the Court to be urgent, it can support a claim for declaration of title without further requirement.”
In the case of Yusuf & Ors vs. Akande and Ors (2011) LPELR – 5114 (CA), it was held:
“A plaintiff who claims a declaration of title to land has the duty to prove his title by credible evidence, not withstanding any weakness in the defence, unless the case of the defendant actually supports the plaintiff’s claim. See the cases Akinduro vs. Alaya (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt.1057) 312; Odunze vs. Nwosu (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt.1050) 1; Ogunjemila vs Ajibade (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1205) 559 at 581; Balogun vs. Yusuf (2010) 9 NWLR (pt. 1200) 515.”
Appellant had tried
to point out what they claimed to be contradictions in the evidence of the Respondents as to traditional history presented by the Defendants (Respondents); that they said Elem, their ancestor deforested the land in dispute, but later, under cross examination, said it was Chieze. Such weakness even, if established, cannot accrue to the benefit of the Appellants, who had a duty to establish their claim of title, via traditional history, by credible evidence. The Respondents did not counter-claim in this case and so they had no burden to establish their claim, in the circumstances, to enhance the claim/case of the Appellants, See Eyo vs Onuoha (2011) 3-4 MJSC 46 at 71; Agboola vs. UBA & 2 Ors (2011) 2-3 MJSC (Pt.11) 150 at 179. In Obiazikwor vs. Obiazikwor (2007) 27 WRN 106 at 132, it was held:
“Contradictions in the evidence of a defendant, who by the pleadings has not the initial burden to prove his case, can only be material in the determination of the case, if the plaintiff has, in the first place, proved his case. Where a plaintiff has not proved his case, contradictions in the evidence of the defendant will not avail or help the Plaintiff in sustaining
his claim.” (Per Abba Aji, JCA). See also Hamza vs Kure (2010) NWLR Pt (1203) 650.
Apart from the obvious contradictions in the evidence of the Appellants as to who their ancestor, who deforested the land in dispute actually was, Appellant appeared to have complicated their case further, when PW1 said:
“I know Emereni Nwachukwu, he is from Umuchieze and he is the father of the Defendants. He is dead. When he was alive, he lived on “Ala Umudike” the land in dispute. He came on the land by permission of our father Nwokeyirinwa Madubuike. Defendants live on the same land in dispute. I know one Iroananam Emereni, he is from Umuchieze and lives on the land in dispute. He got this land in exchange from Ekelem Nwosu of Umudike. Even though this land is within the land in dispute, it is not part of the contested portion of the land in dispute . . . I have a land in the land in dispute, which I sold to Micheal Emereni i.e. 2nd Defendant. I have not dealt with any other person in respect of this land. At a time, the Defendants’ father obtained a portion of this land in dispute from our father to live on. Defendant’s father was living somewhere else prior to this grant but
was driven from the land in their village by spirits. My father made the grant subject to certain conditions. The condition was that the land will never (sic) to us whenever they decide to go back to their village. The second condition was that we reserve the right to drive them away from the land, if they became troublesome. Defendant’s father and our father lived peacefully.”
The claim of grant of the land to the Defendants’ father by the 1st Appellant’s father to live on, appeared to be made up by PW1, as it left more questions than answers. He called no one to substantiate the claim and he supplied no particulars to verify it. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the further Amended statement of claim, they had pleaded:
8) Plaintiffs and their parents in a bid to be their brothers keepers granted some portion of the now disputed land under native law and custom to the parents of the Defendants when they were forced out of their previous residence by natural hazards and thereafter to the Defendants. The Plaintiffs will at the trial found and rely on the evidence of such customary grants to the Defendants. .?.
9) It was a term of the grant of the portion not sold or
exchanged that the property will revert to the grantors, upon misconduct or upon vacation by the grantee as was the case in respect of the grant to EMERENI NWACHUKWU the father of the Defendants. The grant to the Defendants was made by the plaintiffs upon the presentation of kola and wine by the Defendants and their parents at various times.” See page 149 of the Records of Appeal.
It does not sound reasonable or probable that a grant of a particular land to a person can be “made at various times”. If the grant was made by the father of the PW1 to the father of the Defendants on conditions that he (father of the Defendants) behaved well and did not part with the land, and the plaintiff’s father and Defendants’ father lived, peacefully, as testified by PW1, what then is the basis of this claim? There is also evidence that PW1 even sold a portion of the land in dispute to the 2nd Defendant and the Respondents said the portion was earlier sold to the father of the PW1, and this claim of the Respondent was admitted by the PW1 on page 252 of the Records, when he said:
“It was not Chieze who gave the land to Njoku to live on. I did not inherit the land I sold to the
2nd and 3rd Defendants from my brother who bought from the Defendants”
If a portion of the land which was earlier bought by the plaintiffs (or their brother) from the Defendants, was bought back by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants from the PW1, how can that become a subject matter of grant by the Appellants to the Respondents for which Appellants sought revertal or forfeiture? Impossible! The fact that the Appellants admitted a sale and/or exchange of some portions of the land in dispute to/with the Respondents, directly negates every claim of grant of the same land to the Respondents, subject to condition(s). Appellants’ claim and evidence are therefore, mutually conflicting and the admission of sale and exchange of portions of the land in dispute, cancel the allegation and claim of grant and revertal interest, in my opinion.
Of course the particulars of the alleged grant were not disclosed in evidence. (See Okonkwo & Anor vs. Okolo (1988) 1 NSCC 909; Imah vs Okogbe (1993) 9 NWLR (pt. 316) 159). Specifically no date or witnesses of the grant, or terms thereof was stated or produced.
?Even if the allegation of grant of the land by the father of the Appellants to
the father of the Respondents were established in this case (which is not conceded) it should be noted that a grant, sometimes, is an outright gift, and usually without conditionalities. And, where a claimant, as in this case, is not able to substantiate the conditionalities for a grant, to suggest any revertal rights, the Court will view the grant as a gift, and the claimant as a trouble shooter or suspect out to breach the peace. In the case of Ekpa vs Utong (1991) 6 NWLR (pt. 197) 258 at 284, the Supreme Court said:
“I think it has to be conceded that a person is completely without power or competence to revoke a completely constituted gift of land made inter-vivos by his ancestor, who let the donee into possession . . . unless perhaps, he can show that such gift was null and void, ab initio or that the gift was subject to a condition which has been broken ?. Such a gift of land, completed with delivery of possession, according to custom, is a transfer of ownership of the land to the donee and extinction of the rights of those who claim through or under the Donor . . . ‘What is given is given'” (See also Igbozuruike vs. Onuador (2015) LPELR – 25530;
(2015) 7 car 15).
Appellants had, generously admitted, both in pleading and evidence, that the Respondents were in possession of the land in dispute. PW1 said:
“I know Emereni Nwachukwu, he is from Umuchieze and he is the father of the Defendants . . . when he was alive he lived on ‘Ala Umudike’ the land in dispute . . . Defendants live on this same land in dispute.”
That means, Appellants were not honest when they claimed for damages for trespass by the Respondents on the land. After having admitted that Respondents were on the land, living thereon and effectively occupying it, either by right of grant, sale or exchange (as their (Appellants’) evidence admitted all of the above!), I think Appellants were rather the aggressors.
In the case of Adua vs Essien & Ors (2007) 3 WRN 95 at 112 the Court of Appeal) held:
“So, for a plaintiff to institute or commence an action in trespass, he must show that he is in exclusive possession; exclusive in the sense that he does not share his right of possession with any other person. A plaintiff need not show ownership of the land; proof of actual possession can sustain an action on trespass. To resist the plaintiff’s claim, a
defendant must show either he is the one in actual possession or that he has a right to possession. See also Fagunwa vs. Adibi (2004) 17 NWLR (pt. 903) 544, Ansa vs. Ishie (2005) 15 NWLR (pt. 948) 210.
Appellants had also pleaded the decision of traditional arbitration, which they said held that they (Appellants) were not strangers on the land. The Respondents had denied the alleged decision of the native arbitration. Though they (Respondents) admitted going for the native or traditional arbitration, they said no decision was reached by the panel. Of course, the Appellants who relied on the arbitration award, which they said was in writing, signed by the Eze Ovuike and his cabinet and copied to other people, including the police, had a duty to produce it at the trial. They failed to tender the alleged arbitration award but rather led oral evidence on it. That, in my view, cannot be accepted. See F. M. F. Ltd vs. Hope Effiong Ekpo (2003) 45 WRN 134. In fact, failure to produce the alleged arbitral award should be presumed against the Appellants, in the circumstance, going by Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, 2011.
Appellants had also tried to blackmail the
trial judge by alleging that he did not evaluate the evidence adduced, but rather highlighted the pleadings. They were wrong as the trial judge duly considered the evidence on both sides before reaching his decision.
I cannot fault the decision of the trial Court, dismissing the claims of the Appellants for lack of evidence to prove their case. I therefore resolve the issue against the Appellants and dismiss the appeal for want of merit. I award cost of Fifty Thousand Naira (N50,000.00) against the Appellants, payable to the Respondents.
RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO, J.C.A.: I have read in draft the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother I. G. Mbaba JCA and I agree that this appeal completely lacks merit and ought to be dismissed. The onus on a plaintiff in an action for declaration of title to land to prove his title is fixed and does not shift. The trial Court was right when it held that the plaintiff in this case did not discharge that onus. I too dismiss this appeal with N50,000.00 costs against the appellants.
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in advance, the lead judgment of my learned brother I. G. Mbaba, JCA and I am in total
agreement with his reasoning and conclusion that the Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismiss.
As rightly held by my Lord, the law is trite that there are five ways of proving title to land as enumerated in the celebrated case of Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 10 S.C. 227; Ayoola v. Odofin (1984) 11 S.C. 120, Nkado v. Obiano (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt.503) 31 at 34; Nkwo v. Iboe (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt.558) 354 S.C., Ewo v. Ani (2004) 17 NSCQR 36; one of which is by traditional evidence as relied upon by the Appellants herein.
It is also trite that to establish title by traditional evidence the Appellants as Plaintiffs in the Lower Court ought to lead credible evidence in proof of how the land was founded, the original founder and the successive persons through whom the land devolved in an unbroken chain until it eventually devolved on them (the Plaintiffs/Appellants). See Nkado v. Obiano (supra), Archibong v. Edak (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt.980) 485, Dike v. Okoloedo (1999) and Otanma v. Youdubagha (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt.964) 337 S.C., Onisaodu v. Elewuju (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt.998) 517 S.C.
In the instant case, my Lord has rightly held that Appellants did not prove with definitive certainty
whether Madubuike who was the Appellants’ grandfather was the same person the PW2 referred to as their ancestor called Maduike who, he said deforested the land in dispute and that where as in this case the evidence of traditional history was conflicting, the Lower Court was right to have dismissed their (Appellants) claim apart from the complication of the case by the PW1 on the sale of the land to 2nd and 3rd Defendants which piece of land he bought from his (PW1’s) brother but not inherited from their father.
As was rightly held there is confusion as to whether the land in dispute was an outright sale or grant to the Defendants and since in a case like this, it was incumbent on the Plaintiffs/Appellants to rely on the strength of their case and not on the weakness of the Defendants/Respondents’, the Lower Court was right to have dismissed their claim. See Yusuf & Ors v. Akande & Ors (2011) LPELR – 5114 (CA) and Eze v. Atasie (2000) 9 WRN 73 at 83 and Eyo v. Onuoha (2011) 3 – 4 MJSC 46 at 71.
Accordingly, I agree that the Respondents who were admitted by the Appellants to be in possession of the land cannot be liable in trespass as they (Appellants)
have not shown that they had better title to the land in dispute. Fagunwa v. Adibi (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt.003) 544 and Adua v. Essien & Ors (2007) 3 WRN 95 at 112 refer.
Moreover, the Appellants who pleaded Customary Arbitration which award was reduced into writing could not produce that evidence and the law is trite that if they had produced the Arbitration Award, it would have been against them.
?On the whole, I also affirm the decision of the Lower Court dismissing the claims of the Appellants for want of evidence. I abide by the order as to Costs of N50,000.00 in favour of the Respondents and dismiss the Appeal for lacking in merit.
Appearances
Ike Inegbu Esq, with O. Chukwu EsqFor Appellant
AND
Uche Wisdom Durueke EsqFor Respondent
