NWANKWO & 9 ORS. V. OKOYE & ANOR.

• Pages: 177-182

NWANKWO & 9 ORS. V. OKOYE & ANOR.



177

"the plaintiff was not a consenting party to the terms of settlement which is em-

bodied in the said order or judgment of the Court."

The argument that "order" in proviso (iii) means an interlocutory order is plainly

5



wrong when the proviso is read with "final decision" in subsection (2)(a). The ef-

fect of the proviso is to prevent an appeal from lying as of right under subsection

(2)(a) when the final decision was given by consent.

For these reasons we held we had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed and

it was struck out.

10



Brett, F.J.

I concur.

Bairamian, F.J.

I concur.

Appeal struck out.

15

NWANKWO & 9 ORS. V. OKOYE & ANOR.

20 NWAKASI NWANKWO & 9 ORS.

V

NDUBA OKOYE & ANOR.

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

25



ADEMOLA,



C.J.F.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

19th June, 1963.

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. FSC 254/1962

30



Civil Appeal - Land - Claim for damages - Injunction - Conviction - Claim for

title - Damages - Injunction Consolidated - Enlargement of claim - Eastern

Region High Court Rules or English Practice Applicable - Raised first on

appeal, not in court below - effect - trespass as remedy against customary

tenant - if possible.

35

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a customary tenant who sloes an act in contravention of his tenancy,

can be held liable for trespass.

2.

Whether there is a specific provision in the Eastern Region High Court Rules

40



for enlargement of the claim in a Writ of Summons.

FACTS:

The plaintiffs, the Umuayalas, instituted an action in the High Court of the Onit-

sha Judicial Division claiming £500 damages for trespass committed by the de-

fendants, the Umuenus, to land known as "Ani Umuayala" and an injunction to

45



restrain further acts of trespass. The defendants also instituted a cross-action

against the plaintiffs claiming a declaration of title to land contained in their plan,

£300 damages and an injunction to restrain further trespass.

The plaintiffs stated that the defendants were their customary tenants in respect

of an agreed area, but that in 1960 the defendants went outside the agreed upon

50



area and put other tenants on the land without the knowledge and consent of the

plaintiffs. The defendants however averred that they were owners of the land in

dispute and had also exercised acts of ownership on same since time immemo-

rial. They admitted putting tenants on the land, but denied that these tenants did

any damage to the land.