THE QUEEN V. DISTRICT OFFICER, OKIGWI

• Pages: 83-85

THE QUEEN V. DISTRICT OFFICER, OKIGWI



83

5



THE QUEEN V. DISTRICT OFFICER, OKIGWI

THE QUEEN

V

10 EX PARTE OFOMA OGBONNA

(Representing the)people of Ibinta



APPELLANT

1.

THE DISTRICT OFFICER, OKIGWI DIVISION

2.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CLASS 1

with resident's judicial powers,



RESPONDENTS

15



Umuahia.

3.

RUFUS CHIKEZIE OF ARO IBINTA

SUIT NO. FSC 213/1960

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

BRETT,



F.J.

20



UNSWORTH,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

27th February, 1962.

Land Law - Redemption of Land - Refusal at 1st Court - allowance to redeem

25



part on appeal - Affirmed on further appeal.

Appeals - Issue of time within which to appeal - Appeal dismissed.

ISSUES:

30



1. Whether the non payment of the full fees for appeal makes an appeal bad and

liable to be struck out.

2.

Whether on a claim for redemption of land, it is possible to apply the principle

applicable in declaration only to a clearly defined part of the area claimed and

refuse to apply it to the rest.

35

FACTS:

The plaintiff/appellant had been refused permission to redeem land which had

been in the possession of the defendants since 1920 at the Native Court. He ap-

pealed to the Assistant District Officer who reviewed the case and allowed plain-

tiff title the land and to redeem only a part of the large area he sought to redeem.

40



The Resident later varied the judgment on appeal by the defendants by annuling

the declaration of title but affirming the plaintiff's right to redeem part of the land.

The Plaintiff appealed on the ground that the appeal to the District Officer was

brought out of time and without full payment of the fees and also that the Court

could only either award judgment in full or dismiss the claim altogether.

45

HELD:

1.

By Supreme Court that (1) Native Courts Ordinance requires an appeal to be

brought within 30 days and this appeal was brought within that time. Non

payment of the full fees is not enough to make appeal invalid.

2.

It is well established that on a claim for declaration of title to a parcel of land,

50



the Court may grant the declaration as to any clearly defined part of the area

claimed and refuse the rest and it would be strange to apply a different rule in

an action for redemption.

Mr. B.C. Ogbuli

for the appellant.