CHUKWUEKE V. NWANKWO & ORS

• Pages: 856-868

CHUKWUEKE V. NWANKWO & ORS.



856

CHUKWUEKE V. NWANKWO & ORS.

5

ENYINNAYA OKORONKWO CHUKWUEKE



APPELLANT

(for himself and as representing

10 the members of Chukwueke family

of Amuda Eluama, Uzuakoli)

V

1.

OJI NWANKWO

2.

OBIOHA ANASONYE



RESPONDENTS

15 3. NWAMADI ONYEIKE

(for themselves and the people

of Amuda Eluama, Uzuakoli)

SUIT NO. SC 215/1984

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

20



SOWEMIMO,



C.J.N.

BELLO,



J.S.C.

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

KAWU,



J.S.C.

25



14th June, 1985

Land Law - Declaration of

communal

ownership - Onus of proof - Issue whether

parties common ancestor or defendant's direct ancestor alone original owner of

land in dispute - Presumption of communal ownership as basis of customary

30



land tenure - Exclusion where personal ownership permissible by relevant

customary law.

Customary Law- Eluama Clan of Imo State - Land Tenure - Individual ownership

permitted - Consequent inapplicability of general presumption of communal

35



ownership.

Practice and Procedure - Onus of proof - Presumption of communal ownership

as basis of customary land tenure displaced by evidence of individual ownership

of all land surrounding land in dispute - Onus rightly on plaintiffs to prove

40



communal ownership, not on defendants to establish exclusive by their ancestor.

ISSUES:

1. Whether a plaintiff in a

claim for declaration of title to land can succeed on the

weakness of the defence.

45



2. Whether the general principle of communal ownership of land as pronounced

in

Amodu Tijani

v Secretary Southern Nigeria

(1921) 2 A.C. 404 would always

apply to claim for declaration of title under native law and custom.

3.

How should a court come to a

decision on who has better title in a claim for

declaration of title where both parties rely on evidence of traditional history?

50

FACTS:

This was a claim for declaration of Communal Ownership. The plaintiffs al-

leged original ownership of the land in dispute by a common ancestor of both par-

ties (Uda) whilst the defendants contended original ownership in their own direct

ancestor Uduma. Evidence before the court showed that most of the lands sur-