.
hbriefs heading animation Search for cases summary on Hbriefs like hbriefs on facebook follow hbriefs on twitter

BOOK: First 2-Years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons - visit website

JUMP TO CONTENT

Engr. Christopher Ugwu & Ors v. Mrs. Magdalene Ezeanowai & Ors (2017) - CA


place advert here


icon CASE SUMMARY OF:

Engr. Christopher Ugwu & Ors v. Mrs. Magdalene Ezeanowai & Ors (2017) - CA

by PaulPipAr
icon PARTIES

APPELLANTS
1. ENGR. CHRISTOPHER UGWU
2. ANTHONY EZEANOWAI
3. GEOFFREY EZEANOWAI
4. THEOPHILUS EZEANOWAI
5. DANDY EZEANOWAI
6. CHINEDU EZEANOWAI

v.

RESPONDENTS
1. MRS. MAGDALENE EZEANOWAI
2. NELSON NDUBUISI EZEANOWAI
3. MISS FRANCA EKWUTOSI EZEANOWAI
icon CITATION

(2017) LPELR-42754(CA);
icon COURT

Court of Appeal
iconLEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:

Joseph Tine Tur, J.C.A.
icon LAWYERS WHO ADVOCATED

FOR THE APPELLANT
- Chief (Mrs) A.J. Offiah, SAN

FOR THE RESPONDENT
- V. U. Ugwu, Esq
Get that your business, idea, or work available to the public. HCB gets sufficient amount of visits daily. Utilise this golden opportunity to make your product(s) available to the public domain by advertising on this website. If you are interested in advertising on this platform, click "place my advert".

place my advert

place advert here
Go to Crowdfire


icon FACT

The respondents who were the plaintiffs at the High Court commenced by Writ of Summons proceedings against Engineer Christopher Ugwu & Ors. before the High Court of Justice of Enugu in Enugu Judicial Division on 13th November, 2002. They sought among several reliefs though related, "A declaration that the storey building situated at No.10 Chime Avenue, New Haven, Enugu is a family property and belongs to the plaintiffs and the defendants except the 1st defendant (1st Appellant) collectively and in common.".
After consideration of the suit, the Judge of the High Court gave judgement in favour of the plaintiff. This has therefore necessitated the appeal by the defendants now the appellants.
icon ISSUE

Whether the weight of evidence adduced by the respondents entitled them to the remedies the learned trial Judge granted them in the lower Court?
icon HOLDING

The Justices of the Court of Appeal gave judgement in favour of the respondents. the lead judgement stated, "The learned trial Judge was right in entering judgment for the respondents.":
"The 2nd - 5th appellants acquiesced to the partition of family property on 2nd April, 1997 (see Exhibit "1"). They have no legal nor equitable interest to donate the same portion of the property to the 1st appellant."

"My humble opinion is that upon the death of Andrew Uzoma Ezeanowai on 12th day of May, 1973 his property was to have devolved on the immediate or extended family members according to the native law and custom prevailing in his locality and by a partition of the family property there was no need for the respondents to seek that a receiver should be appointed to collect rent on their property, the property having become theirs absolutely. Furthermore, the lifespan of the Letters of Administration ceased to have any legal effect since 2nd April, 1997 when the property was partitioned.";
icon REFERENCED

Order 18 Rule 3(1)-(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011;
Order 18 Rules 4(1) and (2) of the Rules;
S.134 Evidence Act 2011;
S.70 - 73 Administration of Estate Law Cap. 5 Revised Laws of Enugu State of Nigeria, 2004;
S.45(1) CFRN 1999;
icon SOME PROVISIONS
The member(s) and administrator(s) of HCB put in energy in order to provide the cases summary they do on this online platform. We desist from charging you a fee, and we have decided to keep this online platform free and accessible for as long as we deem fit. However, in order to keep alive the impetus that makes us provide these free services, kindly make a donation, if you can.
Bank: Zenith Bank.
Name: Branham Paul Chima.
Account No.: 2178756839.


icon NOTABLE DICTA

The issues formulated by the appellants have to be distilled from the grounds of appeal and the pleadings. - JOSEPH TINE TUR, J.C.A. Engr. Christopher Ugwu & Ors v. Mrs. Magdalene Ezeanowai & Ors (2017)

By the provisions of Order 18 Rules 3(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011, the parties should assume I have read the briefs and considered the exhibits, authorities and the reasoning of the learned trial Judge in order to arrive at this decision. This will obviate the necessity of having to summarize the arguments of the learned silk and the respondents' counsel in the briefs of argument which often makes the proceedings bulky but not concise. - JOSEPH TINE TUR, J.C.A. Engr. Christopher Ugwu & Ors v. Mrs. Magdalene Ezeanowai & Ors (2017)

What is not denied on the pleadings needs no further proof at the trial. No person sets out to prove that which has not been denied. - JOSEPH TINE TUR, J.C.A. Engr. Christopher Ugwu & Ors v. Mrs. Magdalene Ezeanowai & Ors (2017)

Partition of family property has to occur by the voluntary agreement of the beneficiaries to the estate of the intestate and is usually evidenced in a deed or proved by parol evidence. - JOSEPH TINE TUR, J.C.A. Engr. Christopher Ugwu & Ors v. Mrs. Magdalene Ezeanowai & Ors (2017)

Family property remains so once partition has not occurred. - JOSEPH TINE TUR, J.C.A. Engr. Christopher Ugwu & Ors v. Mrs. Magdalene Ezeanowai & Ors (2017)
The end of this brief.


If this brief was aidful to you, LIKE Hbriefs on Facebook and FOLLOW Hbriefs on Twitter to get frequent Legal updates from Hbriefs.
kind_emoji


place advert here




USE THE SEARCH BOX BELOW
If the search box is not available below, it is due to network issues; in that case, reload page or check back again.
The search feature works perfect! Although the search feature might not capture very recent uploaded cases; If you did not get a particular case, we recommend entering the Case Summary categories and use your browser search/find feature, or use the request feature below.


JUMP TO TOP


REQUEST A CASE SUMMARY





ABOUT



TERMS AND CONDITONS



ADVERTISE ON HBRIEFS



FOUNDER




Humongouz Empire
© 2018 - 2021

website developed by hzztudio