How to Prove Communal Ownership of Land

CASE TITLE:  OBI & ORS v. OBELE & ORS (2023) LPELR-60804(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 31ST JULY, 2023

PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: PETER OYINKENIMIEMI AFFEN, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the Declaration of Title to Land.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Anambra State holden at Nnewi in Suit No. A/129/2006 delivered on 30/1/17.

In this case, the res was a parcel of land situated in Ifite Nawfia, and the Appellants and Respondents had conflicting claims of ownership. The Appellants, from the Umuedocha Family of Iridana Village, referred to the land as “Ana Olili Umuedocha,” while the Respondents, from the Uruejimofor Family of Urualor/Uruejimofor Village, called it “Ana Ebe Offia.”

The Appellants, acting as plaintiffs, presented four witnesses and submitted six exhibits marked A–F.

They traced their title to Okpalariam, who migrated from Nri and settled on a vast piece of land in Nawfia, including the disputed area. They argued that Okpalariam founded Nawfia through initial settlement and demonstrated ownership by farming, hunting, harvesting economic trees, renting land to tenants, and maintaining the land. Before his passing, Okpalariam divided his land between his two sons, Urukpaleri and Olom. The disputed land was Olom’s share, and he, in turn, divided his land between his two sons, Ozigbo and Ogada. Ogada’s share included the disputed land, which was later inherited by his son, Idana. Idana continued to demonstrate ownership and later shared his land among his sons: Jikono Ufele and Omesu, including the disputed land. Jikono Ufele also exhibited ownership and divided his land among his sons, Edocha, Ichoku Nweze, and Obele Nweze. Edocha acquired the disputed land and maintained it as his predecessors did. Upon Edocha’s death, the land became the communal inheritance of his descendants, known as Umuedocha, who collectively exercised ownership.

The Appellants argued that the Respondents, from Urualor/Uruejimofor village, were maternal cousins of the Umuomesu clan, having no connection to Ana Olili Umuedocha land. They asserted that Iridana village did not share a boundary with Urualor/Uruejimofor village, and Nnegbe, Idana Ezunu, and Uruoji were not direct sons of Okpalariam and were not allocated any land.

On the other hand, the Respondents contended that Okpalariam, a common ancestor of both parties, was the founder of the disputed land and other parcels. They explained that Okpalariam had five sons, including Eri (Urukpalaeri), Orji (Umuorji), Ezunu (Umuezunu), Idana (Uruidana), and Nnegbe (Umunnegbe), collectively known as Ifite Mkpunese. Eri, as the eldest son, inherited Okpalariam’s homestead (“Obu”) after his death and divided the land among his brothers, following Nawfia native customs.

According to the Respondents, the disputed land was allocated to Nnegbe, who had four children: Ofor (Uruejimofor), Alor (Urualor), Ifonwa, and Ifiteora. Ifonwa and Ifiteora passed away without any heirs, so Nnegbe assigned his Ana-Obu parcels of land to Ofor and Alor. They argued that Nnegbe and his descendants cultivated, hunted, and worshipped on this land, with shrines located within it. The Chief Priest was responsible for shrine upkeep and the only person authorized to enter the land for tree harvesting. The Respondents mentioned various Chief Priests and denied seeking permission from the Appellants for a rural electrification scheme.

They also claimed that the construction of a Village Hall and the 1st Respondent’s private house demonstrated ownership of the disputed land. Additionally, they asserted that Chief Emmanuel Adah (Oguodinma) of the Uruejimofor family single-handedly financed the provision of electricity from Nawfia Town Hall to Uruoji Village, and the felled trees during this process belonged to them. Lastly, they mentioned a previous complaint made by the Appellants to the Nawfia Progressive Union, which was ultimately abandoned during consideration by the Executive Committee. In its judgment, the trial Court dismissed the main claim of the Appellants (plaintiffs) and allowed the counterclaim of the Respondents(defendants).

Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The appeal was determined on the following issues:

“(i) Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have held that the appellants adopted the features in Exh. E of the defendants’ original plan by tendering it as evidence.

(ii) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in dismissing the claims of the Appellants.

(iii) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in granting the claims of the respondents.”

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the Court allowed the appeal. ​

RATIOS:

• LAND LAW – IDENTITY OF LAND – Whether where the identity of the land in dispute is known to the parties the fact that different names are given to the land or area where the land is located is of any legal significance
• ACTION – PLEADINGS – Whether parties are bound by their pleadings; purpose of pleadings
• ACTION – PLEADINGS – How pleadings should be considered
• APPEAL – INTERFERENCE WITH EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – Duty of trial Court to evaluate evidence and ascribe probative value to same; when an Appellate Court will/will not interfere
• LAND LAW – COMMUNAL LAND – What does communal land denote
• LAND LAW – COMMUNAL LAND – Proof of communal ownership of land
• LAND LAW – COMMUNAL LAND – Effect of proving ownership of a part of communal land on the whole
• EVIDENCE – PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND – Whether a party who pleads traditional title can also rely on acts of possession and ownership
• EVIDENCE – TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE/HISTORY – Nature of traditional evidence that will sustain a claim for declaration of title to land
• LAND LAW – ROOT OF TITLE – Whether a root of title that has failed can be substituted with acts of possession
• LAND LAW – POSSESSION OF LAND – Nature of possession
• LAND LAW – POSSESSION OF LAND – Principles of law on possession and title
• DAMAGES – GENERAL DAMAGES – Guiding principles for the award of general damages for trespass to land
• APPEAL – INTERFERENCE WITH EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – Duty of trial Court to evaluate evidence and ascribe probative value to same; when an Appellate Court will/will not interfere
• ACTION – PLEADINGS – Whether parties and the court are bound by their pleadings
• EVIDENCE – EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – Principles of law as regards evaluation of traditional evidence by appellate Court

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