Background
This case involves a land dispute between the Irrua community, represented by the plaintiffs, and the Ojemen family of Ewu, represented by the defendants. The plaintiffs sought declarations of customary tenancy rights and recovery of possession after the defendants allegedly committed acts of trespass on the plaintiffs’ land. The trial court sided with the plaintiffs, leading the defendants to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and subsequently to the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
Issues
The principal legal issues concern:
- The competency of the Supreme Court to hear an appeal involving questions of fact or mixed law and fact when the appeal was filed without necessary leave.
- The application of the doctrine of res judicata regarding a prior inquiry into boundary disputes involving the same communities.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that:
- The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is grounded in Section 213 of the 1979 Constitution, which delineates when an appeal lies as of right and when it requires leave.
- Customary law must be proven through competent witnesses, regardless of their status as parties to the case.
- The plea of res judicata was inappropriate given the distinct nature of the issues surrounding the established boundaries.
Court Findings
The court found that:
- The defendants' appeals were founded on grounds that did not fall within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction without leave, specifically involving facts and mixed law and fact.
- The prior inquiries into boundary disputes did not address the specific claims of customary leasehold that were brought in this action.
- The evidence of customary tenancy was adequately supported by testimony from community members, making them valid witnesses even though they were parties to the case.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the defendants' appeal, affirming the lower court's judgements in favor of the plaintiffs. The court mandated that the appellants pay costs to the respondents.
Significance
This case is significant in clarifying how the Supreme Court engages with appeals from the Federal Court of Appeal, particularly regarding the requirements for leave in appeals involving questions of fact. Additionally, it underscores the recognition of customary law, confirming that community members can testify about their customs and traditions, thus reinforcing the communal aspect of customary law in legal proceedings.