Whether Oath-Taking is Recognised Under Customary Law Arbitration?

CASE TITLE: ANYANWU v. NWACHI & ORS (2025) LPELR-81939(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 22ND AUGUST, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: CUSTOMARY LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: NTONG FESTUS NTONG, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on oath-taking under Customary Law Arbitration.

FACTS:

This appeal challenges the judgment of the Customary Court of Appeal of Abia State sitting in Umuahia, Coram Hon. Justice Amaobi L. Agbara on 23/9/2015, wherein judgment was entered in favour of the Respondents.

The case originated at the Customary Court, where the appellant, as defendant, maintained that the disputed land formed part of their Uzo Ikwo land, which had been exchanged with the respondents to prevent recurring disputes over goats destroying farms. The appellant claimed the land came to them by inheritance through Egbu and argued that the respondents only held the land on pledge through Nwachi Ogbaraegbe.

Conversely, the respondents, as plaintiffs, asserted ownership through their great-grandfather, Nwachi Ogbaraegbe, who they said received the land as a marriage gift from Nwamaghinna Oparaocha. They further relied on litigation at the Native Court in 1906, where they allegedly took an oath over the land, and claimed that the present disputed land was part of an exchange arrangement to avoid conflicts. The respondents sought declaratory reliefs, damages, and a perpetual injunction, while the appellant counterclaimed for a declaration of customary right of occupancy over Uzo Ikwo land, including the disputed portion.

On 9 April 2008, the Customary Court delivered judgment in favour of the appellant, granting its reliefs. Dissatisfied, the respondents appealed to the Customary Court of Appeal, which reversed the decision and entered judgment in their favour. The appellant, in turn, appealed against the judgment of the Customary Court of Appeal to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal on the surviving issue for determination, which is:

“Whether it is conclusive from the Asa Native Court judgment of 1906 (Exhibit B) that the Respondents took the oath as ordered, survived it and celebrated it?”

DECISION/HELD:

The Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment of the Customary Court of Appeal was therefore affirmed.

RATIOS:         

• APPEAL- APPEAL FROM CUSTOMARY COURT OF APPEAL: How to determine when an appeal raises a question of customary law
• APPEAL- PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES: Effect of more than one issue being formulated from a single ground of appeal
• CUSTOMARY LAW- QUESTION OF CUSTOMARY LAW: What amounts to a question of customary law
• CUSTOMARY LAW- OATH TAKING: Whether oath-taking is recognised under customary law arbitration
• EVIDENCE- UNCHALLENGED/UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE: Effect of unchallenged/uncontroverted evidence
• LAND LAW- IDENTITY OF LAND: Whether proof of identity of land is necessary where identity of land is not in issue

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