CHIEF EDET OFFIONG EFFIOM & ORS v. REV. JOHN NYONG OFFIONG & ORS
(2019)LCN/13917(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 14th day of June, 2019
CA/C/206/2017
JUSTICES
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. CHIEF EDET OFFIONG EFFIOM
2. MR. EFFIONG OFFIONG EFFIOM
3. MADAM ATIM OFFIONG EFFIOM Appellant(s)
AND
1. REV. JOHN NYONG OFFIONG
2. CHIEF UKPONG ETIM AYE
3. MR. BASSEY ASUQUO OROK Respondent(s)
RATIO
IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION IN THE DETERMINATION OF A SUIT
The meat of it is plain. It centres on the jurisdiction of the lower Court. The law mandates the Courts to accord prime attention to issue of jurisdiction first where it germinates from any proceedings, see Okwu v. Umeh (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1501) 120; Brittania-U (Nig) Ltd. v. Seplat Pet. Dev. Co. Ltd. (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1503) 541; Oni v. Cadbury Nig. Plc. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Diamond Bank Ltd. v, Ugochukwu (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 193; Ngere v. Okuruket ?xiv?(2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1559) 440. I will pay total loyalty to this legal commandment so as not to insult the law. PER OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT A COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO GRANT A RELIEF NOT CLAIMED BY A PARTY
The law is trite, that a Court of law is drained of the jurisdiction to grant a relief that is not claimed by a party to a suit, see Ochonma v. Unosi (1965) NMLR 321; Agu v. Odofin (1992) 3 SCNJ 161; Agbi v. Ogbe (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 990) 65; Eagle Super Pack (Nig.) Ltd. v. ACB Plc. (2006) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 20; Odunze v. Nwosu (2007) 13 NWLR (pt. 1050) 1; Veepee Ind. Ltd. v. Cocoa Ind. Ltd. (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1105) 486; Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81; Oduwole v. West (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) 598; Stowe v. Benstowe (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1306) 450; Odom v. PDP (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 547; Al-Hassan v. Ishaku (2016) 10 NWLR (pt. 1520) 230. The rationale behind this hallowed principle of law is not far-fetched. A Court of law is not a santa claus or philanthropic organisation that doles out gifts that are not supplicated by recipients. PER OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
THE IMPORTANCE OF PRAYERS IN A STATEMENT OF CLAIM
The importance of prayer in a statement of claim, which is a critical process in adjectival law, cannot be underscored. Every statement of claim terminates with a prayer. In the absence of the prayer portion of it, a statement of claim is deemed as bare assertions and liable to be struck out, see Stowe v. Benstowe (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1306) 450. It is now an established cardinal rule of procedural law that relief/prayer must be pleaded and served for the defence to respond to it, see Oyeyemi v. Owoeye (2017) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1580) 364. This Court will wear these ageless rules, like a badge, in the dispensation of the point one. PER OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
PROPERTY TITLE BY PRESCRIPTION UNDER CUSTOMARY TENURE
I think it ought to be pointed out on this issue of adverse long possession that it is trite that title by prescription is completely unknown to land held under customary tenure. See Mogaji v. Cadbury (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 77) 383. In this connection a distinction must be drawn between land held under customary tenure and land held under statutory law. Whereas there is nothing like prescriptive title over land held under customary tenure, that mode of title is certainly cognizable in respect of land held under statutory law?. PER OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
DEFINITION OF THE TERM “ACQUIESCENCE”
In the second limb of point two, the appellants attacks the lower Court?s finding on laches and acquiescence. This entails and touches on the need to examine the doctrine of laches and acquiescence or standing by. In Nsiegbe v. Mgbemena (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1042) 364 at z374-375, Kalgo, JSC, adopted the definition of acquiescence thus:
Acquiescence means assent to an infringement of rights either expressed or implied from conduct by which the right to an equitable relief is lost. It takes place when a person with full knowledge of his own rights and of any acts which infringe them, has either at the time of infringement or after infringement by his conduct led the persons responsible for the infringement to believe that he waived or abandoned his rights. PER OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal probes into the correctness of the High Court of Cross River State, holden at Ikot Nakanda (hereinafter addressed as ?the lower Court?), coram judice: Ofem I. Ofem, J., in Suit No. HCA/15/2014, delivered on 4th April, 2017. Before the lower Court, the appellants and the respondents were the defendants and the claimants respectively.
The facts of the case, which transformed into the appeal, are amenable to brevity and simplicity. The parties are great grand children of the late Ansa Ansa Ita of Effanga Offiong Royal House who was the progenitor and founder of Ikot Ansa Ansa Village and, therefore, owner of the large expanse of land and oil palm plantations therein. Ansa Ansa Ita had only one child by name Offiong Ansa Ansa, who begat two sons namely: Effiom Offiong and Nyong Offiong. Effiom Offiong begat one son: Offiong Effiom while Nyong Offiong begat Asuquo Nyong, Affiong Nyong and Atim Nyong.
Late Ansa Ansa controlled the land and oil palm plantations and when he died it devolved on his only son Offiong Ansa Ansa. On the death of Offiong Ansa Ansa, the property devolved on Effiom Offiong and upon his death on his junior brother Nyong Offiong. Respondents are of Nyong Offiong extraction while appellants are of Effiom Offiong stock. After the death of Nyong Offiong (grandfather of respondents), Offiong Effiom (father of appellants) took over and has since then excluded other beneficiaries from the benefits even though the said land and oil plantations were never partitioned among the beneficiaries. All efforts at negotiations failed. Sequel to that, the respondents beseeched the lower Court, via a writ of summons filed on 3rd of November, 2014, and tabled against the appellants, jointly and severally, the following reliefs:
(a) A Declaration that the Claimants are joint beneficiaries with the Defendants of the estate of Late Ansa Ansa Ita as their Progenitor and founder of Ansa Ansa Village in Akwa Ikot Effanga, Akpabuyo Local Government of Cross River State, Nigeria.
(b) An order for the defendants to render account of the proceeds generated from the family?s Oil Palm Plantation located at Ikot Ansa Ansa Village in Akpabuyo from 1978 till judgment.
(c) An order partitioning the land and Oil Palm Plantation located at Ikot Ansa Ansa village, Akpabuyo to all the beneficiaries of the estate of late Ansa Ansa Ita, progenitor of both parties in this case.
(d) N100,000,000 (One Hundred Million Naira) general damages.
In reaction, the appellants joined issue with the respondents and denied liability. In their statement of defence, they denied any blood relationship with the respondents.
Following the denials and rival claims, the lower Court had a full scale determination of the case. In proof of the case, the respondents fielded one witness: CW1. In disproof of the case, the appellant called a single witness, DW1. A total of eighteen documentary evidence, Exhibits 1-18, were tendered by the parties. At the closure of evidence, the parties, through their respective counsel, addressed the lower Court. In a considered judgment, delivered on 4th April, 2017, found at pages 136-145 of the record, the lower court granted, in part, the respondents? claims.
The appellants were dissatisfied with the decision. Hence, on 27th April, 2017, they lodged an 8-ground notice of appeal, copied at pages 146-155 of the record, wherein they prayed the Court for:
(i) An Order of this Honourable Court setting aside the judgment of Honourable Justice Ofem I. Ofem delivered on 4th April, 2017 in Suit No. HCA/15/2014 (Rev. John Nyong Offiong & 2 Ors. Vs Chief Offiong Effiom & 2 Ors.).
(ii) An Order of this Honourable Court dismissing Suit No. HCA/15/2014 (Rev. John Nyong Offiong & 2 Ors. Vs. Chief Offiong Effiom & 2 Ors.).
Thereafter, the parties, through counsel, filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument in line with the procedure regulating the hearing of civil appeals in this Court. The appeal was heard on 10th April, 2019.
During its hearing, learned counsel for the appellants, E. O. E. Ekong, Esq., adopted the appellants? brief of argument, filed on 25th July, 2017, as representing his arguments for the appeal. He urged the Court to allow it. Similarly, learned counsel for the respondents, E. E. Ndiyo, Esq., adopted the respondents? brief of argument, filed on 8th November, 2017 and deemed properly filed on 10th April, 2019, as forming his reactions against the appeal. He urged the court to dismiss it.
In the appellants? brief of argument, learned counsel distilled a solitary issue for determination to wit:
Whether the judgment of the learned trial judge delivered on 4th April, 2017 is correct having regard to the evidence on record and settled principles of law?
Admirably, learned counsel for the respondents adopted the singular issue crafted by the learned appellants? counsel.
Arguments on the issue
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the lower Court wrongly granted to the respondents the relief on partition which they did not claim. He relied on Kayili v. Yilbuk (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 775) 347. He added that the wrong act amounted to altering the case of the respondents suo motu. He cited Addah v. Ubandawaki (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 775) 200. He noted that the lower Court ought not go outside the case before it. He referred to Agbu v. Civil Service Commission Nasarawa State (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 675) 318. He observed that the lower Court was bound to receive address from parties before granting it. He cited Okonkwo v. Onu (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 725) 395.
Learned counsel contended that the lower Court was wrong when it made no finding on laches and acquiescence against the respondents? case. He maintained that the respondents? case was caught by laches and acquiescence. He referred to C
