KEI & ORS.
V.
OKPOSE & ORS.

(2011) JELR 46045 (CA)

Court of Appeal · CA/E/34/1989 · 7 Jul 2011 · Nigeria

CORAM

ISTIFANUS THOMAS Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria EJEMBI EKO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Core Terms ^Beta

dispute

burrow pits

evidence act

trial court

amended statement of defence

learned trial judge

traditional history

evidence of traditional history

trial judge

traditional evidence

grounds of appeal

acts of possession

evidence of the plaintiffs

favour of the defendants

founder of the land

evidence of dw

evidence of the defendants

statement of defence

better title

exclusive possession of the land

plaintiffs family

recent years

traditional evidence of title

aspect of the evidence

chequered history

competing evidence

consequence of the plaintiffs

contemporaneous acts

decision of the trial judge

defendants parts

din v.

enugu division of this court

evidence of their occupation of the adjacent land

exclusive possession of lands

factual evidence

high court

high court of rivers state

kaiama customary law

leading judgment

learned trial judge hold

learned trial judge right

members of land ownership

own lands

pieces of evidence

plaintiffs evidence of traditional history

respect of burrow pits

said ayakorogbo lane

stronger evidence of traditional history

trial court right

EJEMBI EKO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This case has a very chequered history. It was first filed in January 1981 and numbered as AHC/56/81 at the High court of Rivers State sitting at Ahoada in Ahoada Judicial Division. When Yenagoa Judicial Division was created out of Ahoada Judicial division it was transferred to the High court at Yenagoa and renumbered as YHC/11/82.

ON 17TH March, 1988 F. F, Tabai, J. (as he then was) delivered judgment in the suit wherein he found inter alia at page 122:

Thus, in the traditional history as to the founder of the land in dispute the evidence of the plaintiffs is slightly stronger and tends therefore to confer a better title to the land in dispute. But in the light of the other competing evidence from the defendants parts of which I have accepted I conceive that it will be inequitable to confine myself to the evidence of traditional history to ascribe title to the land in dispute on any of the parties. According to Oputa, JSC in AWOYA…

KEI & ORS. V. OKPOSE & ORS.

KEI & ORS.
V.
OKPOSE & ORS.