ANYAOKE & ORS V. ADI & ORS.
| Pages | 799-815 |
ANYAOKE & ORS V. ADI & ORS
799
costs to the respondents to the motion which
I
assess at N25.00. I adopt all the
other consequential orders in the lead ruling.
Appeal dismissed.
ANYAOKE & ORS V. ADI & ORS
1.
ANACHUNA ANYAOKE
2.
NKEANYIMO OBEDUM
3.
RAPHAEL NWOGBO
PLAINTIFFS/
4.
GODWIN EJIOFOR
APPELLANTS
(For themselves and on behalf
of Umuowerre Village,
lfite Enu Agulu)
V
1.
DR. FELIX C. ADI
(Substituted for Simon Adi by
1ST DEFENDANT
Order of Supreme Court)
/RESPONDENT
AND
2.
CALEB AKUBUIKE
3.
FIDELIS OKPOKO
2ND SET OF
4.
GABRIEL ONYAGU
DEFENDANTS/
(For themselves and on behalf
of Okpu Umuabiala and
RESPONDENTS
Amatutu Villages, 'Re
Enu, Agulu)
AND
5.
EPHRAIM OKEKE
6.
OKONKWO ELOSI
(For themselves and on behalf
3RD SET OF
of Akpulukpu Umuebube,
Umulum, Nnebana, Ifoko
and Umuobi families in
DEFENDANTS/
RESPONDENTS
Nneogidi, Agulu)
SUIT NO. SC 15
7
/
1
983
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
40
ESO,
J.S.C.
UWAIS,
J.S.C.
COKER,
J.S.C.
KARIBI-WHYTE,
J.S.C.
KAWU,
J.S.C.
45
13th June, 1986
Land Law - Declaration of - Plaintiffs alleging that land in dispute part of land
separately owned by 4 villages - Defendants contending that land communal
property of all 11 villages, to one of which 1st defendant belongs - Finding
50
that plaintiffs failed to prove boundaries of portion alleged to be owned
exclusively by their village - Non-suit inappropriate in face of finding that
defendants established ownership by entire community - Plaintiffs claim rightly
dismissed.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
800
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1986] 2 N.S.C.C.
Practice and Procedure - Non-suit - Appeals - Grounds of appeal - Omnibus
grand - Scope - Encompasses complaint of improper evaluation of evidence.
ISSUES:
1.
Whether it is necessary for grounds of appeal to contain the particulars of the
5
complaints made in them.
2.
Whether an appellant can file a brief without advancing arguments on the
grounds.
3.
When does the Court of Appeal give an order for non- suit as opposed to
dismissal of an action?
10
4.
Whether a counsel who concedes that a ground of appeal is defective, can
later complain that the ground was wrongly struck-out.
FACTS:
The plaintiffs instituted an action in the High Court of former Eastern Region in
1966, for a declaration of title to land, damages for trespass, and a perpetual in-
15
junction to restrain the defendants from further acts of trespass. After the interven-
tion of the Nigerian Civil war, the case was transferred to the Amawbia-Akwo
division of the High Court. The defendant died, and the second set of defendants
applied to joint the action in February 1973. In June 1973, the 3rd set of defend-
ants applied and were joined in the action, and fresh pleadings were filed. The
20
plaintiffs claims were directed against the 1st defendant only. While the plaintiffs
claimed ownership of the land, the two sets of defendants denied the claims, con-
tending communal ownership and long possession. After considering the evi-
dence, the learned trial Judge held that the claims had failed, and dismissed the
action.
25
Aggrieved by this decision, the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal,
which, after striking out the first three grounds of appeal, dismissed the remaining
ground and the appeal. The appellant thereupon appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD:
1.
Grounds of appeal must contain the particulars of the complaints made in them.
30
Grounds which do not contain the particulars are defective and should be struck
out. The Court of Appeal acted rightly in striking out grounds (i) (ii) and (iii).
2.
The practice of filing briefs without advancing any arguments on the grounds
is irregular and ought to be discouraged. The grounds of appeal and their
particulars cannot adequately be a substitute for the contents of an appellant's
35
brief of argument, as required by Order 8 rule 2(3), and Order 6 rule 5(1) of
the Supreme Court Rules 1985.
3.
An order of non-suit becomes necessary only when the provisions of Order 48
rules 1 and 2 of the High Court Rules Cap 61 have been satisfied. Thus where
satisfactory evidence has not been given to entitle either the plaintiff or
40
defendant to judgment, or upon a motion for a new trial or review of judgment,
the court may give an order of non-suit.
4.
Since the counsel for the appellants conceded in the Court of Appeal that one
ground of appeal was defective before it was struck out, the appellants cannot
now be heard to complain in respect of that ground, that the Court of Appeal
45
acted in error by striking out the ground.
5.
The appellants, in seeking a declaration of title, failed to prove that the land in
dispute, was exclusively owned by them, and the defendants successfully
proved that the land in dispute was communally owned. Thus an order for
non-suit could not have been appropriate. The decisions of the trial Court and
50
the Court of Appeal are affirmed.
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:
1.
Okeke Amadi v. Okeke
Okoli
(1977) S.C. 57.
To continue reading
Request your trial