NOW, His Royal Highness, Alhaji I. M. J. Umoru, the Aidonogie of South Ibie Kingdom, and his subjects in Edo State can heave sighs of relief as the Supreme Court has rejected the moves by another community, headed by His Highness, Alhaji A. G. Momoh, Ikelebe I and the Otaru of Auchi to strip the former of their title to a vast community land, located in Auchi, in the Etsako Local Council of Edo State.Their lordships, in a unanimous judgment disagreed with the plaintiffs, led by the Otaru of Auchi, who asked the court to among other things declare that the land in dispute was theirs and that the Aidonogie of South Ibie and his subjects, should be restrained from entering, re-entering or remaining on the hitherto controversial land.'We hold that this appeal is devoid of any merit. It fails,' their lordships had held.Momoh, Alhaji Prince S. B. Ikharo, Ebidaney Umoru, and Alhaji Col. F. A. Z. Shielu, all appellants, had claimed that their ancestor, Uchi, together with five sons namely, Usogun, Akpekpe (Afekpe), Aibotse, Igbei and Ekhel migrated from Udo in Benin, which was within Ovia West Local Council of Edo State, settled in the place later called Auchi. According to them, the original settlement encompassed an area marked by the site of the Uchi market at Auchi. Uchi's settlement grew in size because of the demand for land for farming and hunting purposes, and also as a result of the sons' movement to settle in areas bearing their names and farming quarters or villages of Auchi.Historically, the boundary neighbours of the Auchi people were named as the people of Warrake and Ivbiaro (Iyaro) to the West, the people of Avia to the North, Jattu (Uzarue) to the North East, Ibienafe people of the South, Ibie clan to the East and the people of Ugioli (Aviele) to the South. They said that their boundary with the Nafe, is marked by an albino mound on an old ancient footpath.It was the case of the appellants that in 1964, the people of Auchi as represented by the Otaru gave the parcel of land on which the Auchi Polytechnic (formerly Mid-West Technical College) was built. It was then that the first direct and overt assertion of adverse title by Iyakpi people to the land in dispute came when the respondents claimed to be the owners of the said land in order to benefit from the compensation payable by government.The appellants also claimed to have left the respondents on the land in dispute because they were subjects of the first appellant from 1920 to 1950 and they went to court when the respondents became unfriendly by teaming up with Uzarue people against them.Before the trial court, the appellants sought the following prayers:' A declaration that in accordance with Auchi Customary Law and Tradition, the plaintiffs, the people of Auchi, are the persons vested with all the existing rights to the use and occupation of all that piece or parcel of land lying and situate in Auchi, in the Etsako Local Council of Edo State and within the jurisdiction of the court, and verged pink in plan No. 1902;' A declaration that the plaintiffs, the people of Auchi or Auchi Community by virtue of Auchi Customary Law and Tradition, are the persons entitled to the customary and/or statutory right of occupancy in respect of the said piece or parcel of land; and' An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, their servants, agents or any person claiming through or under them or howsoever from entering, re-entering or remaining upon the said piece or parcel of land in purported exercise of any right in relation to the possession, use and occupation of the land or any part thereof in derogation of plaintiffs' vested rights or interests therein.Additionally, the plaintiffs sought forfeiture or declaration of forfeiture by the defendants of the area of plaintiffs' land (Sabo Quarters) occupied by the defendants with the permission or tacit permission of the plaintiffs, before disputes arose between the parties, and by the reason of the defendants' claim of title thereto and denial of the plaintiffs' title.Umoru who led Alhaji Mamudu Magorie, Alhaji Adamu Braimah (late), and Alhaji M. B. Musa, the respondents, on the other hand, asserted that their ancestors migrated from Benin about the 15th century and settled at their present site. It was from that site that the founders of the other South Ibie villages migrated to where they eventually occupied. Ibie Nafe, according to them, means people that ran away from home and that Iyakpi was the original settlement of the South Ibie people.The respondents claimed, among other things, that the citing of Auchi Polytechnic was done with their permission. Other positive acts of ownership by the respondents, according to them, were the possession of 100 houses, Ekhabhele Primary School and farms.According to them, the Iyakpi Community of South Ibie accepted the decision of the Justice J. A. Obi's Commission of Inquiry, which was set up by the government to establish the boundary between the appellants' community and its neighbours.Pleadings were duly filed and exchanged between the parties. At the close of the case, the trial court gave judgment in favour of the respondents dismissing the appellants' claims.Aggrieved by the judgment, the appellants asked the Court of Appeal, Benin Division, to reverse the lower court's verdict. But the appellate court held otherwise, dismissing the appeal, while affirming the judgment of the trial court.Still dissatisfied, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. In its judgment read by Justice Suleiman Galadima, the apex court unanimously dismissed the appeal.In clear terms, Galadima said that the findings of the lower court could not be faulted, as it did not run contrary to the evidence adduced.'In this appeal regarding this point, it is clear on records that the court below'held that the findings of the learned trial Judge could not be faulted. The court was in clear agreement with the findings of the trial court. It becomes its findings. The findings of the trial court do not in any run counter to the evidence proffered. The trial court did not take into consideration extraneous matters and there is certainly no miscarriage of justice.'The lead Judge concluded thus: 'I hold that this appeal is devoid of any merit. It fails. The decision of the trial court and its affirmation by the Court of Appeal is hereby affirmed. The respondents are entitled to costs against the appellants, which I assess at N50,000.
Click here to read full news..
