AKPAPUNA & ORS V. OBI NZEKA II & ORS
| Pages | 287-315 |
AKPAPUNA & ORS V. OBI NZEKA II & ORS
287
In his brief before this Court, counsel for the appellant, Chief Jibowu, stated
that he could not find any issue of law or fact which he could reasonably canvass
in favour of the appellant. I entirely agree with him that both on the facts and
the law nothing could usefully be urged in favour of the appellant.
5
It was for the foregoing reasons that the appeal was dismissed, and rightly
so in my view, as hereinbefore stated.
BELLO, J.S.C.
I had the privilege of reading the Reasons for Judgment just
delivered by my learned brother, Aniagolu J.S.C. I agree the defence of insane
10
delusions under section 28 of the Criminal Code Law of Oyo State does not avail
the appellant on the facts of the case.
IDIGBE, J.S.C.
I have had a preview of the reasons just given by my Lord,
Aniagolu J.S.C. for his concurrence in the unanimous decision of this Court on
15
the 12th day of April, 1983 that this appeal be, dismissed and I agree entirely
that it was for those reasons so ably stated by him that I shared in the view that this
appeal be dismissed.
ESO, J.S.C.
I agree with the reasons just given by my learned brother Aniagolu,
20
J.S.C. for dismissing the appeal of James Anyim In this case.
The defence of insanity was not proved at all.
UWAIS, J.S.C.
I have had the privilege of reading in draft the reasons for
judgment read by my learned brother Aniagolu, J.S.C.. As it was for the same
25
reasons that I dismissed the appeal on 12th May, 1983, I have nothing to add.
AKPAPUNA & ORS V. OBI NZEKA II & ORS
30
OTUAHA AKPAPUNA & 3 ORS. (For
themselves and on behalf of the people
APPELLANTS
35
of Idumuokakwu)
V
OBI NZEKA II & 3 ORS.
RESPONDENTS
SUIT NO. SC 85/1982
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
40
IRIKEFE,
J.S.C.
BELLO,
J.S.C.
IDIGBE,
J.S.C.
OBASEKI,
J.S.C.
ANIAGOLU,
J.S.C.
45
8th July, 1983
Civil Action - Land law - Declaration of title - Injunction - damages for trespass
-
Onus on plaintiff to succeed on strength of own case not on weakness of
defendant's case - Both parties claiming through respective ancestors as original
50
settlers on land in dispute - Failure by plaintiff to prove exclusive possession
- Non-suit ordered - Inappropriate - Dismissal order instead - Traditional
evidence inconclusive - Dismissal of claim reversed by Court of Appeal on
basis of defence evidence of grant to plaintiffs ancestors - Effect of - Pleadings
-
Binding effect.
288
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1983] N.S.C.C.
Appeals - Power of the Appeal Court to draw inferences from evidence - Power
of the Appeal Court to differ on evaluation of evidence.
ISSUES:
1.
Whether it is necessary for a trial judge to afford parties to a claim for damages
5
for trespass an opportunity of being heard, before making a non-suit order on
the claim.
2.
Whether an Appeal Court can draw its own inferences from the evidence
contained in the record of trial.
3.
Whether a Court of Appeal may differ from a trial court as regards a trial Court's
10
impression of the evidence given by witnesses. (i.e. credibility of the witnesses).
4.
In a claim for declaration of title to land, what principle should govern a court
in resolving a conflict of traditional history?
FACTS:
The plaintiffs instituted an action in the Mid-Western State High Court against
15
the defendants claiming a declaration of title to a certain parcel of land situated at
Obomkpa, Asaba division, damages for trespass and a restraining injunction. The
plaintiffs maintained that they were the exclusive owners of the land and adduced
traditional evidence to this effect. They traced their root of title to the land to their
ancestor Anagba who as a result of migration, settled on the land. The defend-
20
ants however maintained that they were the original owners of the land and that
their ancestor, Obi Madagbai gave Anagba the land in dispute to settle upon. Thus
each side in seeking to establish prior settlement of the area in dispute introduced
Anagba into the case in its own peculiar way, assigning to him a role at a particu-
lar time.
25
The learned trial judge after hearing all the evidence, dismissed the plaintiffs
claim for title and injunction and made an order of non-suit in respect of the claim
for damages for trespass. The plaintiffs appealed against the dismissal of their
claim for title and injunction, while the defendants appealed against the order of
non-suit.
30
The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the trial Judge and pronounced
a decree of title and injunction in favour of the plaintiffs in regard to the land in dis-
pute. The court also dismissed the defendants claim for damages for trespass,
thereby setting aside the lower court's order of non-suit.
On appeal, it was contended
inter alia
for the defendants/appellants that the
35
Federal Court of Appeal had not correctly applied the principle in
Bousie v. Kojo
8, which laid down the test to be used to decide the more probable history where
there are two conflicting traditional histories, to the facts of the case. Also, that the
Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that a claim for damages for trespass does
not mean that a plaintiff is seeking a declaration that he is in exclusive possession
40
thereof, and that there was no need for the Court of Appeal to make an order for
injunction since it had refused the claim for trespass.
The plaintiffs/respondents also cross-appealed against the Court of Appeal's
dismissal of their claim for damages for trespass.
HELD:
45
1.
That the decision of the Court of Appeal to dismiss the claim for damages for
trespass was right as there was no basis before the High Court upon which
damages could have been assessed and because the High Court did not afford
the parties to the action an opportunity to be heard before it made the non-suit
order on the claim.
50
2.
An Appeal Court would be in as strong a position as the trial Court if what is in
issue is the inference to be drawn from the evidence contained in the printed
record of trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial