EGBUNIKE & ANOR. V. MUONWEOKU

• Pages: 40-44

40



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1961] N.S.C.C.

EGBUNIKE & ANOR. V. MUONWEOKU

5

JAMES E. EGBUNIKE

&.

ANOTHER



APPELLANTS

V

SIMON MUONWEOKU



RESPONDENT



10

SUIT NO. FSC 140/1961

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

UNSWORTH,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.



15

19th January, 1962.

Land Law - Declaration of title - when not to be granted.

ISSUES:



20

1.

Whether it is mandatory upon a court to grant a declaratory judgment.

2.

What are the situations in which a declaratory judgment can be granted.

3.

Can a party who fails to prove exclusive title succeed in a claim for Declaration

of title?

4.

When may a court decline to grant a declaratory judgment.



25

FACTS:

Plaintiff/Appellants brought an action in the Onitsha Native Court. They claimed

a declaration of title to certain lands and buildings in a part of Onitsha, as well as

an injunction restraining the Defendant/Respondent from interfering with their

property.



30

The evidence showed that the parties had, in 1943, agreed in writing that cer-

tain properties, including the lands in dispute, then held by each of them separ-

ately, should thereafter be communally owned by them. In 1949 they entered into

a further written agreement whereby they mutually agreed that the properties be

divested of their communal nature, and that the lands in dispute be vested in the



35

Defendant/Respondent and certain vacant lands in the Plaintiffs/Appellants. The

agreement was not registered when produced at the trial of the action, but was

later extracted from the Court records and duly registered.

Shortly after the 1949 agreement was executed, the Plaintiffs/Appellants sold

to a third party the vacant lands which had been vested in them by that agreement.



40

The 1949 agreement was admitted in evidence during the trial before the Na-

tive Court; which gave judgment in favour of the Defendant/Respondent, but ex-

cluded from the judgment that portion of the lands allocated to the

Plaintiffs/Appellants by the 1949 agreement, and which the Plaintiffs/Appellants had

already sold.



45

The Plaintiffs/Appellants appealed to the Chief Magistrate's Court, which set

aside the Judgment of the Native Court and entered Judgment for the Plaintiffs/Ap-

pellants as prayed. The Acting Chief Magistrate based his decision solely upon

the ground that the 1949 agreement, not being registered at the time of trial, was

wrongly admitted in evidence, and the Native Court Judgment, having been based



50

on that agreement, could not, therefore, be sustained. The Defendant/Respond-

ent conceded that the 1949 agreement was inadmissible, but contended that in

order to succeed in their claim the Plaintiffs/Appellants were bound to show that