EVOYOMA & ORS V. DAREGBA & ORS
| Pages | 151-156 |
EVOYOMA & ORS V. DAREGBA & ORS
151
EVOYOMA & ORS V. DAREGBA & ORS
5
1. ERDMANN EVOYOMA
2. ADJEKPEWU
10 3. EDURE EVOYOMA
4.
EDODUDU EHAMA
5.
ONOAKAMRE OMOVWIE
APPELLANTS
6.
MICHAEL ADJEKPEWU
(For themselves and
15
on behalf of Olota
Village, Okparabe
Clan, Central Urhobo)
V
1. OKIKI DAREGBA
20 2. EGUBERE
3. OGHOABODUA
4. OBOBOGBE
(For themselves and as
RESPONDENTS
Representing the people
25
of Ogoda Village, Ewu
Clan, Central Urhobo)
SUIT NO.SC 8/1966
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
ADEMOLA,
C.J.N.
30
LEWIS,
J.S.C.
MADARI KAN,
J.S.C.
31st May, 1968.
Land Law - Declaration of title to fishing strewn - Issues before trial judge not
35
properly clarified - Meaning of S.3(1) of the Minerals Act considered -
Impossible for Supreme Court or appeal to determine real issue between parties
- Non-suit ordered - Desirability of both parties to have opportunity to visit
locus in quo with judge - Judge in civil action not to call witnesses of his
own volition without consent of panne.
40
ISSUES:
1.
Whether a private right of ownership can exist over a stream, and in this regard,
what is the meaning of S.3(1) of the Minerals Act.
2.
Where the issues before the trial court were not properly clarified, can the
45
Supreme Court on appeal deter mine the real issue between the parties.
FACTS:
The essence of the dispute between the parties was that they were each claim-
ing a declaration of title in respect of a riverine area called Ugborerborevbo, which
the respondents described as a "fishing pond:, whilst the appellants described it
50
as a "fishing stream". The appellants however, were claiming a larger area of
Ugboreborevbo than the respondents, but each alleged the other side trespassed
in the area which they claimed, and each sought an injunction against further tres-
passing, as well as damages for the past trespass. The appellants also claimed
a declaration of title to land on either side of the fishing stream.
To continue reading
Request your trial