Can There Be Two Independent Claims of Title and Damage for Trespass; Who Can Sue for Trespass?

CASE TITLE: OBHORRIBHO & ANOR V. ALEKE & ANOR (2025) LPELR- 82649(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 11TH DECEMBER, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Land Law.

FACTS:

This appeal questions the propriety of the judgment of the High Court of Bayelsa State, Yenagoa Judicial Division in Suit No. OHC/47/2008 delivered on 13th November 2017 by Honourable Justice Y.E. Ogola wherein the Court decided in favour of the 1st Defendant, now 1st Respondent.

Before the Court, the Appellants, as Claimants, instituted an action for a declaration of title to land vide a Writ of Summons. By their Amended Statement of Claim, the Claimants, now Appellants, claimed the following reliefs:

1. A DECLARATION that the plaintiffs are the persons who are entitled to a right of occupancy over all that parcel of land called ITOKOPIRI land bounded on the south with the Adoba family of Opumatubu (Opume) at Obiama creek, on east with Edumawunmu family of Akalabagi (Otabagi), of the west with Egbo family of Opinama (Otuogidi) and to the south with kolo creek.

2. A DECLARATION that no member of the Aduogidi family (including the defendants) can enter upon, utilize, alienate, claim compensation for, or otherwise deal with the Aduogidi family lands, particularly the Itokopiri land without the permission of the principal members of the family.

3. AN ORDER restraining the defendants from entering upon, utilizing, alienating, claiming compensation for, or otherwise dealing with the Aduogidi family’s Itokopiri land without the consent and permission of the principal members of the family.

The 1st Respondent, who was the 1st Defendant at the trial Court, denied the averments of the Appellants and counter-claimed, in his Statement of Defence and Counter Claim, the following reliefs:

1. A DECLARATION that the 1st set of Defendants are the land owners and persons entitled to the land in dispute in this case which the plaintiff call Aduogidi land but which real name is OGHADUGHA/IKPUTEBEKE LAND situate at Otuokopiri bush in Otuogidi Town of Ogbia Local Government Area of Bayelsa State.

2. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff by themselves, their servants, privies and assigns from calling the land in dispute in this case Aduogidi bush or land.

3. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the plaintiffs by themselves, their servants, agents, privies and assigns from claiming ownership of the land in dispute in this case or committing acts of trespass or further acts of trespass on the land in dispute in this case.

The 2nd Respondent, who was the 2nd Defendant at the trial Court, also filed a Statement of Defence on 25th March, 2010,

In proof of their respective cases, the Appellants (plaintiffs) called a total of 5 witnesses in the course of the trial, while the 1st Respondent (1st Defendant) called three (3) witnesses and the 2nd Respondent called a sole witness. In compliance with the Rules of the Court, parties exchanged and adopted their respective final addresses. On 13th November, 2017, the learned trial Judge entered judgment, in favour of the 1st Defendant as per his counter-claim. Miffed by the decision  the Appellants appealed.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The issues considered were:

1. Whether upon a proper evaluation of the originating processes and the evidence of the parties the trial judge was right to conclude that the action was statute barred.

2. Whether having regard to Section 294 (1), (5) CFRN 1999 the judgement of the trial Court delivered 2 years after final addresses of the parties did not violate the constitutional provision and also affected the trial Courts interpretation of proceedings.

3. Whether in rejecting the un-contradicted traditional history put forward by the appellants the trial Judge relied heavily on his personal opinion rather than the facts pleaded and proved by the appellants.

4. Whether having regards to the state of the pleadings and the evidence led, the trial Court was right to have awarded damages of four million naira (N4,000,000.00) against the appellant.

5. Whether having regard to the pleadings and evidence led, the trial Judge was right to have awarded title to the land in dispute to the defendants as per their counter claim

6. Whether the trial Judge was right to have proceeded to enter judgment despite the fact that four vital exhibits were missing from the record of proceedings.

DECISION/HELD:

The appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

●      ACTION- STATUTE BARRED ACTION: What the Court considers in determining an objection that a suit is statute barred after evidence has been led                  

●      COURT- DUTY OF COURT: Duty of an appeal Court to consider all issues for determination raised before it      

●      EVIDENCE- EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Principles that the court must have regard to in the process of evaluation of evidence

●      EVIDENCE- PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND: Position of the law on proof of traditional history as root of title to land

●      EVIDENCE- TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE/HISTORY: How conflicts in traditional evidence of parties are resolved by court

●      EVIDENCE- TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE/HISTORY: Duty of court when parties give competing traditional evidence

●      LAND LAW- TRESPASS TO LAND: Nature of damages awarded for trespass to land

●      LAND LAW- TRESPASS TO LAND: Can there be two independent claims of title and damage for trespass; who can sue for trespass

●      LAND LAW- DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND: Duty of plaintiff/claimant in an action for declaration of title to land; Whether dismissal of the claim of a plaintiff for declaration of title to land will automatically vest title in the defendant

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol