Background
This appeal follows a long-standing land dispute between two extended families in Elele Town, Rivers State. The respondents, descendants of Late Pa Joseph Basam Wokem of the Umuninyah family, sued the appellants, members of the Omuenyimah family, for a declaration of title and possession of a parcel of land described in a Deed of Conveyance dated June 15, 1964. The respondents alleged that their forebear deforested the land, cultivated cash crops, obtained a registered grant, and sold portions without interference. In 2009, the dispute was referred to the Elele Council of Chiefs for customary arbitration, which ruled in favour of the respondents. The appellants contested this, claiming ancestral ownership, an aborted 1966 arbitration, and continued acts of ownership. At the High Court, both sides led eyewitness testimony, traditional histories, and documentary exhibits. The trial judge found the traditional accounts inconclusive, applied the rule in Kojo v. Bonsie to assess recent acts of possession, and awarded the land to the respondents. The Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division, dismissed the appellants’ appeal on February 19, 2016. Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the courts correctly affirmed the respondents’ title by reference to acts of recent possession and Exhibit C, the arbitration award.
- Whether Exhibits F, H, K, and L were improperly discounted under the Kojo v. Bonsie rule.
- Whether findings on the authenticity of Exhibits C, G, and L, and the failure to call Nyeocha Egwenike Woke, were perverse.
- Whether the Court of Appeal was right to affirm the High Court judgment awarding the land to the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that:
- Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts will not be disturbed unless shown to be perverse, illegal, or resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
- Under the rule in Kojo II v. Bonsie, traditional histories are assessed first; if inconclusive, courts rely on recent acts of possession within living memory to determine title.
- Customary arbitration awards, duly submitted to by the parties, are binding and conclusive on ownership and possession.
- Acts such as surveying land, planting economic crops, erecting buildings, and tendering a registered grant are valid evidence of possession signaling ownership.
Court Findings
The Supreme Court held that the High Court:
- Properly found both parties’ traditional histories unconvincing.
- Lawfully resorted to recent acts of possession, notably the registered grant and survey (Exhibit B), and the uncontested arbitration decision (Exhibit C) favouring respondents.
- Correctly discounted the appellants’ post-2009 sales (Exhibits F, J, K), executed in contempt of the 2009 arbitral award.
- Did not err in its evaluation of exhibits C, G, and L; the findings were supported by pleadings and evidence.
The Court of Appeal’s affirmation of these concurrent findings was consistent with judicial restraint in appeals.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, upheld the decisions of the Court of Appeal and High Court, and ordered each party to bear its own costs. The respondent’s declaration of title, grant of possession, injunction, and damages for trespass stand.
Significance
This decision is significant for:
- Reinforcing the limited scope of appellate intervention on concurrent findings of fact.
- Affirming the binding nature and enforceability of customary arbitration awards in land disputes.
- Clarifying what constitutes recent acts of possession under Kojo II v. Bonsie, including surveys and registered grants.
- Emphasizing that acts carried out in contempt of a valid arbitral award cannot found ownership claims.