AJA & ORS. V. OKORO & ORS.

• Pages: 479-498

AJA & ORS. V. OKORO & ORS.



479

AJA & ORS.

V.

OKORO & ORS.

5

1. AJA MAZI AJA

2. EUGENE CHUKWU

10

(For themselves and as

representing the members

of Ogwor village Ishiagu

APPELLANTS

Afikpo Divisions).

V.

15

1.

JOHN OKORO

2.

CHUKWU NNEOKORIE

3.

OKPE OJUBI

4.

AJA OKPIRIKPI

RESPONDENTS

(For themselves and as

20

representing the members

of Umobor village in

Akeze Afikpo Division).

APPEAL NO. SC. 3/1990.

25

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

KARIBI-WHYTE,



J.S.C.

KAWU,



J.S.C.

WALT,



J.S.C.

AKPATA,



J.S.C.

30

OMO,



J.S.C.

27th September, 1991.

35

Appeal - Grounds of appeal - Where of mixed Law and fact - Leave of court to he obtained.

Arguments - On what based - Whether on grounds of appeal or issues formulated -

Issues for determination - Formation of - Determination of matters not in issue - Effect

of

Constitutional Law - Judicial powers of courts - Exercise of - Not beyond limits granted by

40



Constitution.

Judgment - Declaration of title - Where no evidence supports such declaration - Party not

entitled thereto - Judgment only for what is claimed and proved on evidence before

court.

45

Land law - Evidence - Ownership of land - Proof of title - Burden ofproof - On whom lies.

ISSUES:

1. How may issues for determination in an appeal be formulated?

50

2. When are parties said to join issues as regards ownership of land?

3. How may counsel canvass arguments in an appeal?

480



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1991] 2 N.S.C.C.

4.

What is the effect of failure to seek leave to argue on grounds of mixed law and

fact?

FACTS:

In February, 1971, the plaintiffs as appellants instituted an action against the

respondents claiming declaration of title to Elueke land alleged by the plaintiffs to

situate at Ogwor village, damages for trespass and perpetual injunction. It was

the plaintiffs' case that it was their ancestors who named the land "Elueke" and that

their ancestors granted the defendants ancestors permission to farm on a certain

portion of Elueke. As customary tenants the defendants were obliged to pay the

customary "Oji-Ala (tribute) to the plaintiffs' ancestors. It was further alleged in the

statement of claim that it was in 1946 the defendants refused for the first time to

pay tribute. However, one Okoroji now deceased, a member of the defendant's

village was paying the necessary tribute up to the time of his death in 1965 for

himself and his family.

Defendants contended that they alone farmed on the "Elueke" land. The plaintiff

had no building on the land at any time. They contended that no one from Umobor

ever paid any tribute to the plaintiffs for farming or living on the land. The land put

in dispute by the defendants in their plan Exhibit B is about four times the size of

the land in dispute as shown in Exhibit A falls outside the land edged pink as being

in dispute in Exhibit B. On the whole the learned trial Judge was not satisfied that

the plaintiffs had discharged the onus of proving that they were owners of the

"Elueke land". Their claim for declaration of title trespass and injunction over the

Elueke land as shown in plan No. OG/4/71 Exhibit A was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal court affirmed the

decision of the trial Judge. The plaintiffs/ appellants appealed further to the

Supreme Court.

HELD:

1.

The issues for determination in any appeal must have a direct bearing on the

grounds of appeal. They are to project succinctly and clearly the substance of

the complaints contained in the grounds of appeal requiring resolution. There

is no doubt that a number of grounds of appeal may raise a single issue but it

is over simplification of the issues in an appeal to say that the issue is "whether

or not the trial court or Court of Appeal was right in its judgment having regard

to the evidence and the findings of fact made. The formulation of an issue in

this manner is only appropriate if the only ground of appeal is that the judgment

is against the evidence or weight of evidence as the case may be.

(See p.487

lines 15 - 24).

2.

Where a defendant claims in his plan the ownership of a parcel of land but

purports that it is not in dispute and the plaintiff in his plan also claims

ownership of it, issue is obviously joined as to which of the parties owns the

land. This is more so where by his pleadings the defendant avers that the

plaintiff's land does not extend to the said parcel of land said by the defendant

not to be in dispute. (See

p.490 lines 30 -

35).

3.

Arguments are to be canvassed on the basis of issues formulated and not to

be based on the grounds of appeal. While a resolution of an issue which is a

question in dispute between the parties may determine an appeal, a ground

of appeal which forms a part of that issue may not. It is meaningless formulating

issues arising for determination and then proceed to argue the appeal on the

grounds of appeal and not on the issue formulated for determination. In the

instant case, it is thus clear that "this particular issue" said to have been