AFTER reviewing the case, five Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, have decided the controversy between Edepie and Biogbola clans both of Yelga, Bayelsa State, wherein they concluded that the former are trespassers on a piece of land located at Azi-Biogbolo.
Their lordships, Walter Onnoghen, Ibrahim Muhammad, Olufunlola Adekeye, Nwali Ngwuta, Mary Peter-Odili, held that the appeal was devoid of merit, and it was accordingly dismissed, with a cost of N50,000.00 awarded in favor of the respondents.
Represented by Chief Sunday Oriorio, Messrs. Jack Erimari, Obi Seaboy, Ikwe Egedi, Jonathan Wankpaliba, Tomunu Wankpaliba, Arthor Jonathan and eight others, who felt dissatisfied with the verdict of Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt, had appealed to the Supreme Court for a reversal.
Chief Joseph Osan, Silvanus Esegi and Mr. Ibatua Amos, who had sued for themselves and as representing the people of Biogbolo had initiated the proceeding at the court of first instance.
In the Writ of Summons issued in the Registry of the Rivers State High Court of Justice, Yenagoa Judicial Division holden at Yenagoa on 20th February 1984, the respondents were plaintiffs and the appellants were defendants.
The plaintiffs sued for themselves and on behalf of the people of Biogbolo in Yelga. The defendants were sued for themselves and on behalf of the people of Edepie also in Yelga.
The plaintiffs, now respondents, sued the defendants, now appellants for:
N100,000.00 being special and general damages for trespass in that the defendants on or about February 1983 without the leave or licence of the plaintiffs broke and entered Azi-Biogbolo land which has been in the peaceful possession and ownership of the plaintiffs from time immemorial and cut down economic trees and cash crops and have cleared portions of the said land for farming.
A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and or agents from further trespass on the land.
According to the statement of defence, the defendants described the claim as frivolous, speculative, devoid of merit and urged the court to dismiss same with substantial costs to them.
The plaintiffs opened their case on 6th April 1987 before Tabai, as he then was, called six witnesses and rested their case on 16th February 1987. The defendants opened their case on 12th April 1988, called four witnesses and closed their case on 8th June 1988.
At the addresses, the trial court adjourned the case to 20th September 1988 for judgment.
In the judgment delivered as scheduled, the trial court, after a review of the case and counsel’s addresses, concluded thus:
“In conclusion I hold that the sum of N6,000.00 special damages has been proved and so I award the plaintiffs that sum. I also award the sum of N2,000.00 general damages for the trespass committed by the defendants on the plaintiffs’ land.”
On the claim for perpetual injunction, the trial court said: “I am reluctant to grant this relief. If the injunction were to affect only farmlands, its grant would have been a matter of course. But since the relief sought is in respect of an area in which there are dwelling houses and a generator house, I am reluctant to grant it for the reason stated above. In the circumstances of this case, I would rather err on the side of refusing the injunction than granting it. The injunction is therefore refused.”
Both sides were dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiffs, now appellants filed a notice and ground of appeal while the respondents, now respondents filed their notice and grounds of cross appeal.
The Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division, Rivers State, in the judgment held:”In the final result, the defendants’ cross-appeal against the decision adjudging them liable in trespass fails and is accordingly dismissed. That decision is affirmed. Their appeal against the order on them to pay special damages of N6,000.00 succeeds and that order is hereby set aside. The plaintiffs’ appeal against the decision refusing to award special damages for the juju shrine and Halmus house is also dismissed. That decision is affirmed.”
The court continued: “As they had successfully proved trespass against the defendants’ however, they are entitled to an award of general damages assessed at N2,000. That amount is hereby awarded to them. That shall be the order of the trial Court. As there was no basis for the learned trial Judge’s decision to refuse to make the order of injunction sought, that decision is hereby set aside. In its place is recorded an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and/or their privies from entering upon and/or further committing any acts of trespass on the land verged brown on survey Plan No. A10/RV021-/86LD dated 20th March 1986 and filed by the plaintiffs with their statement of claim and received in evidence by the trial court.”
Rejecting the verdict, the Edepie people sought Supreme Court’s intervention. Their lordships in conclusion said: “The three issues having been resolved against the appellants, I hold that the appeal is devoid of merit. It is hereby dismissed and the judgment of the lower Court affirmed. Appellants shall pay costs assessed and fixed at N50,000.00 to the respondents.”
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
