MELIFONWU & ORS. V EGBUJI & ORS

• Pages: 341-351

MELIFONWU & ORS.

\I

EGBUJI & ORS.



341

MELIFONWU & ORS. V EGBUJI & ORS.

5



ANIEKA MELIFONWU & ORS.



APPELLANTS

V

10 CHARLES EZENWA EGBUJI &



ORS.



RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 11/1982

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

IRIKEFE,



J.S.C.

BELLO,



J.S.C.

15



ESO,



J.S.C.

NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

24th September, 1982

20

Land Law - Customary Law (Onitsha) - Declaration of title - Succession to

Kingship - Onus - Parties - Representative capacity - Plaintiffs' authorization

to sue on behalf of community opposed by same community members -

Finding that defendants in occupation initially as caretakers for plaintiffs but

later claiming land.

25

Practice and Procedure - Duty to prove pleaded custom either through evidence

or decided cases not discharged by defendants - Rule that plaintiff must

succeed on strength of his case.

30 ISSUES:

1.

Whether it is necessary for a plaintiff suing in a representative capacity to have

the mandate of all to members of the community, before he can represent them.

2.

Whether the rule that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case

applies to the case on appeal.

35 FACTS:

The plaintiffs brought this action in the High Court against the defendants, claim-

ing a declaration of title to land, a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants

from further interferance with the land, and damages for trespass. The defend-

ants were in possession of the land at the time the action was instituted. Both plain-

40 tiffs and defendants descended from a common ancestor, who had allotted various

portions of land to his sons. The dispute was over who had been allotted the land

in dispute, as both parties claimed ownership. The learned trial Judge preferred

the evidence of plaintiffs and held in their favour.

The Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal,

45 then further appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD:

1. None of the inferences drawn by the trial Judge are at variance with the facts.

The Trial Judge was right in finding that the plaintiffs had proved their case,

and awarding them a declaration of title.

50



2. A plaintiff because of incompatibility of human nature, needs not have the

authority of the entire interested groups, to sue in a representative capacity, as

long as he has the authority of the majority.