In the trial court the two actions filed by the opposing parties contesting the ownership of the same piece of land, though ascribing to it different names, were consolidated.
In suit No. HOG/9/85 filed by the Plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of Umue-zeafor kindred of Ohaji/Egbema/Oguta Local Government Area, as per their paragraph 9(a) of their Statement of Claim, the plaintiffs claim the following reliefs against the Defendants:
-
a
Declaration that the piece of land know and called "NWAOKPEKWE" land annual value N20.00 situate at Obile Ohaji in the Oguta Judicial Division and more particularly shown in plan No. EC1S/1162/81 dated 20th of May 1981 has been in the customary possession of the Plaintiffs who are consequent¬ly entitled to customary right of occupancy.
-
b
N500.00 general damages for trespass to the said land.
-
c
Injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants and agents from entering the said land acting in any manner in violation of the plaintiffs' customary rights of occupancy."
In the cross-action filed as suit No. HOG/15/81 the Defendants as Plaintiffs claim for themselves and as representing Umuekwodi kindred of Umuosu Obile in Ohaji/Egbema/Oguta Local Government Area, the following reliefs against the Plaintiffs/Defendants, as contained in paragraph 16 of the Defendants/Plaintiffs' statement of claim:
-
1
Declaration that the piece or parcel of land known as and called OKWUAG-BOSO land situate at Obile in Ohaji/Egbema/Oguta Local Government Area in the Oguta Judicial Division of Imo State with annual value of 30.00 (Thirty Naira) is in the customary possession and ownership of the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs are entitled to customary right of occupancy to the said pieces/parcel of land.
-
2
N600.00 (Six Hundred Naira) general damages for trespass to the said land."
Pleadings were ordered in both the main action and the cross-action. These were subsequently filed and exchanged and issues joined,
At the end of the hearing the learned trial judge in a considered judgment found that the land in dispute belong to the respondents who had es¬tablished their ownership by traditional history, that the appellants were customary tenants of the respondents and that the appellants had ungratefully trespassed on the land of their customary overlords.
Appellants appealed to the court of Appeal which found no merit in the appellants' appeal and dismissed it whereupon the appellants appealed further to the Supreme Court.
