3PLR – EZEOKEKE V. UGA

EZEOKEKE

V.

UGA

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

S. C. 270/1961

19TH JULY, 1962.

3PLR/1962/56 (FSC)

 

OTHER CITATIONS

 

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS

SIR ADETOKUNBO ADEMOLA, C.J.F. (Presided)

SIR LIONEL BRETT, F.J.

JOHN IDOWU CONRAD TAYLOR, F.J. (Read the Judgment of the Court)

 

BETWEEN 

EZEOKEKE AND OTHERS

(for themselves and on behalf of the people of MKPOROGWU)

 

AND

UGA AND OTHERS

(for themselves and on behalf of the people of UGA)

EDITORS

[Sam Eleanya, Agboola Omolola Oluwafolakemi, Vincent Eleanya Kalu, Eleanya Ugochi Vine]

 

MAIN ISSUES

LAND LAW – Declaration of title – Identity of land must be ascertainable.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Visit to locus in quo – Whether matter of discretion for the court.

 

REPRESENTATION:

Okorodudu -for the Plaintiffs/Appellants.

Iguh -for the Defendants/Respondents.

 

TAYLOR, F.J. (Delivering the Judgment of the Court): This is an appeal from the Judgment of Reynolds, J., dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims to the following:­

 

“(a)    A declaration of title to the area known as “Agu Owerri” in Ik­panikita situate at Mkporogwu-Awka Division.

 

(b)     £300 damages for trespass, and

 

(c)     An injunction to restrain further acts of trespass.”

 

There were eleven grounds of appeal filed with the Notice of Appeal but at the hearing of the appeal, Chief Okorodudu, who appeared for the appel­lants grouped his arguments under the following three heads:­

 

“(i)     That the respondents did not lay claim to a part of the area in dis­pute and therefore the trial Judge erred in not granting a declara­tion of title to at least that area.

 

(ii)     That the learned trial Judge erred in placing reliance on the Na­tive Court case Civil Suit 81/35 which was not between the parties to the present suit on appeal.

 

(iii)    That the trial Judge erred in not visiting the locus. “

 

The appellants are people of Mkporogwu and the respondents people of Uga. The area which is the subject matter of this appeal is the area edged pink on the appellants’ plan exhibit “A”. The respondents, have their plan exhibit “F” showing the area which they called Ikpa Nkita and which they say belongs to them. This latter area has been superimposed roughly on exhibit “A”, and though the greater part of it lies within exhibit “A”, it does not absorb the whole area in dispute. The net result is that an area to the east of that contained in exhibit °F” and to the north west of same are marked as “land of Nkpologu” and are not put in issue by the respondents. It is in re­spect of these areas that learned Counsel for the appellants urges that a de­claration of title should have been made in the appellants’ favour.

 

Mr. Iguh, for the respondents, however, contended that such a declara­tion could not be made because there were no fixed boundaries to these two portions of land. It is, of course, clear and well settled that if the appellants are to have a declaration of title to these areas, they must be sufficiently de­marcated so as to enable any surveyor to “pin-point” the area. The respon­dents’ plan was filed with their Statement of Defence on the 18th July, 1958, and a copy was served on the appellants. The hearing of the suit did not com­mence till the 7th January, 1960, which gave the appellants sufficient time, had they desired to do so, to have had the defendants’ plan accurately super­imposed on theirs. This has not been done and I am of the view that Mr. Iguh rightly contended that the boundaries of these two areas are too vague and indefinite to warrant a declaration of title being made in the appellants’ favour. This ground of appeal must fail.

 

On the second point as to the use made of the proceedings in Civil Suit 81/35 by the trial Judge, our attention was drawn to the following passage in the judgment, which reads thus:­

 

“The defendants demonstrated in their plan exhibit “F” that the land litigated in Isuofia Native Court Suit 81/35 was north of the land claimed; and they relied upon the evidence given by one Mkpidike of Uga who was called by Mkpologwu as their witness and said “Aku Mkpologwu and ourselves buried bodies in the Ajofia bad bush (near palm tree). The bush is the boundary bet­ween the three of us. We planted araba trees running roughly east and west through Aja Ofia.”

 

If one looks a little earlier on in the Judgment one will see that the trial Judge began by stating the case put up by the plaintiffs and then went on to state the case of the defendants, which ends with the passage just quoted. In the next paragraph he went on to say that:­

 

“Having considered the whole evidence I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case in so far as it relates to the land claimed by the defendants.”

 

The use to which the trial Judge put the proceedings appears a little lower down in a passage which seems to have received no adverse comment from Counsel. It reads thus:­

 

“The Native Court case relied upon by the plaintiffs so far from being in their favour is, in my opinion, more consistent with the defendants’ claim in that it showed that Uga land went as far north as Nwaja Ofia. It might also I think be inferred from the fact that in that suit Mkpologwu called an Uga man as their wit­ness that Uga had a boundary with them near the land in dispute which is north of that now claimed. Indeed this was admitted by 3rd P.W. Onyejimbe Odugu.”

 

After looking at the sketch plan and the judgment in Suit 81/35 and the superimposition made of the area there in dispute on to exhibit “A” I would wholly endorse the conclusions reached by the trial Judge in the passage to which I have just made reference. It should, I think, be mentioned that the very proceedings, the user of which Counsel for the appellants has attacked was not only pleaded by the appellants in their Statement of Claim parag­raph 8, which reads thus:­

 

“The land in dispute is lying parallel between the two towns of Ezenifite and Mkporogwu and was litigated over by the two towns in Isuofia Native Court Civil Suit S1/35 of 16th April, 1935, whereby the plaintiffs got judgment.

 

A representative of the Uga (defendants) people was a party to that case, and this suit will be founded upon.”

 

but it was also tendered by their third witness. I would dismiss this ground as being without substance.

 

I now come to the last ground, which deals with the refusal of the trial Judge to visit the locus. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that a great deal of the evidence on record was inaccurate and further that there were errors on the plans, which errors he contended were admitted by De­fence Witness I, Mathias Chukwurah, the respondents’ surveyor, and that in view of these it was incumbent on the trial Judge to visit the locus. Whether a trial Judge will visit the locus in civil proceedings is a matter within his own discretion. If, of course, he feels that such a visit will enable him to get a bet­ter grasp of the evidence that has been adduced before him, he should visit the scene. In the present case, I cannot but agree with the trial Judge that such a visit would not have been of any assistance. To me, one of the major and insurmountable obstacles in the appellants’ way to success is the evi­dence adduced by both contestants as to the building of the road from Ihite Aku by the Nzehinte people, which road cuts through the centre of the land in dispute. On the evidence, the road was constructed about twenty years previous to the hearing and it was done without the permission of the appel­lants but with the consent of the respondents and the payment of some form of tribute. It is as difficult to imagine a neighbouring clan building a motora­ble road of some length through land of another without first seeking the permission of the owner, as it is to conceive how even if they did so, the own­ers would not take them to task. The trial Judge accepted the evidence on this point and it would seem to me conclusive against the appellants’ owner­ship.

 

This appeal is without substance and I would dismiss it with costs asses­sed at twenty-seven guineas in favour of the respondents.

 

ADEMOLA, C.J.F.: I concur.

 

BRETT, F.J.: I concur.

 

Appeal Dismissed.