₦airaland Forum

FreedomfromtheT:
It is Peter Obi that is on the ballot. He is going to be the president of Nigeria not that of Igbos alone. It is not a matter of may. About 75% or more of Southsouth voters are for Peter Obi. Thank you.

South south votes for Obi is 90%

Labour party Peter Obi has my PVC. In fact, my PVC has been dusted waiting to vote for Peter Obi . Na Warri we dey and Obi is our candidate. 99.9% of Warri youths are obidient.

FarahAideed:
So Atiku also sold the same Nonsense to Buhari in 1984? Abeg take your lies away

Go and read the history of Fulani people. You don't seem to know them.

[quote author=IamANigerianMan post=121013786]Oga nothing concern me[/quote
Ok then

IamANigerianMan:
Yorubas are the most tribalistic people on Earth, this nonsense you wrote is the reflection of the yorubas .....

I am from Delta state and I hope you know that Atikus VP is my governor and my people are working closely with them and we know exactly what is happening.

Xscape1993:
So cheap narrative.....

What you don't know is bigger than you

Recall that Atiku had been holding meeting with former heads of state who were the characters behind the annulment of the June 12 presidential election.
President Muhammadu Buhari who is bent on foisting another core Fulani man as president was said to have accepted the proposal from Atiku at the palace of the sultan of Sokoto in the presence of Abdusalami Abubaka, Ibrahim babangida and former military service chiefs of northern extraction. Also present at the meeting according reliable sources are representatives of the organization of Islamic countries. They also agreed in the meeting that Nnamdi Kanu must not be released to ensure that there is crises in the east that will make it difficult for elections to be conducted there. Their option A is to ensure that Atiku is delivered while option B is to hand over power to an interim government who will hand over power to a military head of state of Fulani extraction.
President Buhari was said to have accepted the deal wholeheartedly because he feels the only person that can cover his tracks is a Fulani man, having failed to deliver a northerner in the APC primary.
How this whole drama will play out in the coming days is left to be seen.

bitbillionaire:
Nigerian government can force Finland to repatriate him if the right strategy is adopted.

After repatriating him, another spokesman emerge and the violence continue, what have you achieved, nothing. Why not address the very root cause of the agitation.
They spend billions to kidnap MNK, it only aggravated the violence. Nigeria has by its complain admitted that they don't have what is takes to fight IPOB one on one bullet for bullet on ground. That in itself is a sign of failure.

Buhari is more of a threat to Nigeria than Simon Ekpa. Buhari is a security threat to Nigeria and Africa.

I never supported the no election before now but because of this letter and the extent that the Fulanis are going to subjugate other Nigerians. Igbbos should ensure that the election does not hold. There is something the Fulanis are benefitting from the current state of the country. If the Fulanis can dialogue with Boko haram, why is Simon Ekpa and Bifran people different. If Nigeria is made attractive to all parts of the country people will be happy to be called Nigeria. After using Yorubas to attain power, they are betraying Yorubas using naira policy and End SARS shooting.

UGM should use orji Kalu for sacrifices , the man is disgustingly behaving like an overfed fool.

Obi is the choice of the masses
If Buhari refused to give Tinubu who helped to become president, Obi is our choice.

I owe my children a duty to join hands with other youths to end this madness. I can't be a second class citizen in my own country. I am a PDP member but Peter Obi is our new political party.

We the Youths are ready to Obidiently end SARS in Nigeria
Where SARS represent:
Buhari
Bad leadership
Inflation
Curuption
Nepotism
Unemployment
Terrorism
Insecurity
Mindless stealing
Etc.
All we are waiting is for Peter Obi to release his account number for donations. We will flood his account with money that the account will be too full to receive money.
PDP delegates can enjoy the Atiku dollars while we take back our country from those ancestors who are gambling with our future.

Photo speaks

The most potent argument in support of Okerenghigho is offered by the Highest Court in Nigeria. I just love the quote below by the trial Judge. You can appeal against it if that is possible in your opinion.

Suit No. W/29/49 (Later W/29/51 upon transfer in 1951): E.E.Sillo & Anor (For themselves and on behalf of the people ofOmadino) Vs. Aduromokumor ( For themselves and on behalf ofthe people of Bakokdia) for the declaration of title to land. In this suit judgement was granted in favour of Omadino people inrespect of Bakokodia, Okerenghigho and the surrounding villages.

Quotable legal notes:

“ I am satisfied and find that the Plaintiff founded the village of Okenghigho, Omadinor, Bakodia and Akpata; Ofomini and his son Biabor settled with their people at Bakokodia with the permission of Chanomi and the Elders of Omadinor”

-Per Courtney Walton Recee Puisne, Judge.

See Page 4 of the judgement.

Sequel to the said judgment the Ijaws continued to disregard the above judgment, and Omadnio people sued the Ijaws for and an Order of Forfeiture at the Warri High Court.

The case progressed to the Supreme Court where ultimately the Ijaws accepted aconsent judgment in which they clearly acknowledged Omadino’s ownership of the land. See Suits Nos. W/29/51,WACA No. 3707, W/37/61 and SC/393/64; W/35/75.

ON THE MARITIME UNIVERSITY
Question by Amon Ra:
Quincy Onuwaje, are there Itsekiri people dwelling there at Okerenghigho? If so, why is the Supreme Court Judgement not in effect? Is there a representative of the Olu of Warri there?

Answer by Quincy Onuwaje:
Amon Ra, the entire extent of land in question is an extension of the nature given territory of Omadino community, an extension of land out of which they make their living and still do as fishermen, lumbermen and farmers. As time went on, fishermen and wood fellers from other tribes secured the permission of Omadino community to also support their lives from the resources in this land. Omadino community obliged them, but regulated their activities and collected rents from them. These persons were not only Ijaws. There were Urhobos, Kwales, Ijaws etc who carried out these activities and paid their rents to the Omadino people. Sometime in the 1940s, the ijaw tenants started making claims to the land, and not only did they refuse to pay their rents, they also became hostile to the other tribes who made a living out of the land, attempting to substitute themselves as the new landlord who should collect the rents that were due to the people of Omadino, thus causing the evacuation of the Urhobos, Eshans, isokos etc who were also tenants to the Itsekiris of Omadino. This hostile action was what led to the Court case against the Ijaws which went up to the Supreme court, and which was decided in favour of Omadino. When they failed to obey the court Judgement, the Omadino people then sued for forfeiture and eviction from the land. At this point, they then rescinded their actions and pleaded to remain on the land. Seeing that they had no legal and historical base, they resorted to the use of arms which was freely brandished during the Warri crises of 1997-2003 wherein they maimed and killed thousands of Itsekiris and sacked many villages with the strong support of their people from Bayelsa and everywhere else. They claimed to be fighting against the relocation of a Local government HQ, but they were actually carrying out an attempted wiping off of the Itsekiri people from their nature given territory. Since then, it has been rule of might whereby they continually blackmail the FG and all others whenever issues relating to their illegalities are brought to the fore.

Some body should educate me here. Is there any law in Nigeria that says if you rent your house to a tenant, after 100 years, the tenant automatically becomes a land lord? When we eventually join our brothers in Oduduwa Republic, we will evict the Ijaws from our land. It is good that the Aree Onakanfor of Yoruba Land has visited Warri to assess the situation.

Here is the only proof of ownership the Ijaws have is threat of war. Here is their Press Statement
8th January, 2017

IJAWS IN GBARAMATU WILL CRUSH ANY BODY FIGHTING TO RENAME OKERENKOKO, NIGERIA MARINTIME UNIVERSITY.

It is pertinent to note that Okerekoko is the original name of where the Nigeria Maritime University is sited and any Itsekiri fighting to rename Okerenkoko and Nigeria Maritime university will be crushed. You can not give a name that does not belongs to us and you expect us to accept it. That is a capital NO, because we are not known by Okerenghigho but Okerenkoko and for the purpose of record ,Okerenkoko is never being disputed in any legal tussle. Okerenkoko and Okerenghigho is not same name and OKerenkoko is not corrupted name of Okerenghigho, the whole should note.

We wish to state unequivocally and reiterate that Okerenkoko is the Original name of where the Nigeria Maritime University is located. There is no time Okerenkoko is called Okerenghigho. No community in Gbaramatu kingdom is referred as Okerenghigho. Okerenkoko is made of Ijaw only. There is no trace of Itsekiri in Okerenkoko. Attempt to rename our community is sucidal and dangerous. We are Ijaw People and can never bear Itsekiri identify. This is an attempt of slavery. I have not seen in any where in the world where a particular identity of a people is renamed to bear the identify of another ethnic background. The action of AGF Malami is retrogressive and may likely put those few Itsekiris fighting to rename Okerenkoko and Nigeria Maritime University at cross- road. We are not scared about the inimical Memo. We have been pushed to the wall, but Ijaws are not afraid of WAR.

It is so unfortunate that deliberate attempts are being made by AGF Malami to ignite fire where there is none. We want president Buhari to call AGF Malami and the cabal at the corridor of power to order. It is not only curious and spurious, but surprising how Malami came up with his jaundice memo that is meant to instigate crisis between the Ijaws of Gbaramatu kingdom and our Itsekiri neighbors.

The ljaws of Delta State must be stop now from all forms of illegality across the country. Soon the Lawless citizens of the ljaws can wake up someday to tell the Federal Government they are the original owner's of Nigeria and can even go as far as corrupting the Name "Nigeria to Nigekoko" to suit their claim.Just like the way they corrupted an ltsekiri enclave Okerenghigho to Okerenkoko. No matter how long illegality continue to thrive one day Justice must take it's cause. An injustice to one is an injustice to all!

You are a liar

REUBEN E , what is the meaning of Okeren Koko in Ijaw?

Uba Okerenghigho means the camp of an old man. The word has no meaning in Ijaw language. Even if you add the corrupted Koko to it, it still has no meaning in Ijaw language

What is the meaning of Okeren in Ijaw? okeren is a derivative of the Yoruba word "Okurin" which means man. Ghigho means old.

Gbaramatu is a fraudulent Kingdom. You cannot have a Kingdom within another Kingdom. The Olu of Warri, Ikenwoli Abiloye is the paramount ruler of the entire land people and waters in warri Kingdom. Any other Kingdom is a fraud

Any Itsekiri fighting Yoruba on Naira land is not an Itsekiri. They are avatars posing as Itsekiri on naira land. Itsekiri is a sub tribe of Yoruba. A Lagos Yoruba man will understand Itsekiri easily better than other Yoruba dialect. According to Musiwa, Itsekiri is not a minority ethnic group. Itsekiri is a part of the larger Yoruba ethnic group. Omadinor people are pure Yorubas. Other Itsekiri mixed up but Omadinor people are direct descendant of Lenuwa, the King of Ode in Ijebu land.

Ijaws should present any document to show that they are not tenant as they claim. Why is it taking them decades to provide evidence

It is not attachee matter. You can't separate the Itsekiris from Yorubas. The Illajes are Yorubas like itsekiris. Itsekiri did not borrow the language. It's their ancestral language. From the judgement above, the people of Omadinor said they migrated from Ode in Yoruba Land to Omadinor over 500 years ago

They should relocate to Bayelsa if the can't live as tenant

o recent facts established by evidence or admitted by both sides. 8. The learned trial Judge erred in law and on the facts in relying on the evidence of the Acting Secretary of the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees and Exhibits ''D1'' ''D15'' when, (a) The evidence was inconsistent with the averments in the Statement of Claim and with the evidence of the plaintiff's principal witness 1, Chief E. E. Sillo. (b) There was no plea suggesting that the Olu of Warri as Head or representative of the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees had any right title or interest in the land in dispute or acted as agents for the plaintiffs in relation to this land, and accordingly, evidence on those matters should not have been admitted and in any case such evidence is obviously untrue and/or of no weight. IN THE ALTERNATIVE 9 The plaintiffs claim ought to have been dismissed because, (a) On their own evidence and on the pleadings they have no possessory title to the land claimed by them against the defendants. (b) There is no evidence to support the claim for rent and in any event on the facts alleged the said claim is mis-conceived; the land over which injunction is claimed is not identified on the plans Exhibits ''A'' and ''A1'' in a manner capable of identification on the grounds; and (c) As the claim for injunction is ancillary to the claim for possessory title it must also fail on the ground that the claim for possessory title cannot stand. Chief Williams, learned counsel for the appellants, chose not to argue grounds 1 and 2 separately, but to refer to the issues of facts raised in them as appropriate when arguing the other grounds. He did not argue ground 5 which must, therefore, be deemed to have been abandoned. In arguing grounds 3 and 4 together, Chief Williams contended that the judgment (Suit No. W/29/51) was tendered, not the plan tied to it, as Exhibit "C" in the present case, but that the parties in that case were not the same as those in this appeal and the plan used in that case was tendered as Exhibit 1. He submitted that proof of an exhibit in a previous suit can be established only in accordance with Section 96(1) of the Evidence Act (Cap.62), and that the learned trial Judge in treating Exhibits "A" and "A1" as proof of what was in dispute in Exhibit "C" should have asked for a certified true copy which under Section 96(2)(c) is alone admissible as secondary evidence of a public document as is the judgment in question. He cited Obadina Family & Ors. v. Ambrose Family & Ors. SC. 169/68 delivered on 31/1/69 in support, and submitted that Exhibits "A" and "A1" should have been disregarded by the learned trial Judge, and that that would have left a serious gap in the plaintiffs' case. Chief Williams then made the alternative submission that, even if the learned trial Judge were right in looking at the plans (Exhibits "A" and "A1", what he would find would be the area marked red without a plan to identify it precisely. It is his view that no declaration of title could be made in respect of such an area, and cited Sowa v. Senabor 11 NLR 82, at p. 85; and Kwadzo v. Adiei 10 WACA 74. Under grounds 6 and 7, Chief Williams argued that, it being common ground that the defendants were in possession of the land Okenrenghigho claimed by the plaintiffs, both sides attempted to establish their claim by traditional evidence but that the learned trial Judge preferred that of the plaintiffs even though those in possession should be deemed to be owners and recent acts should be considered in deciding ownership; Kojo v. Bonsie (1957)1 WLR 1223 at p.1226, 1227; also Adenie v. Ovegbade (1964) 1NLR 26 in which Bonsie was adopted. We note, however, that Adenie relates entirely to family land and two sections of the same family were in dispute as to portions of it, so that the cases cited are not in pan materia. Chief Williams next argued that Exhibit "C" cannot operate as an estoppel since the appellants were neither parties or privies to it. We think that the judgment Exhibit "C" is admissible and was rightly admitted by the learned trial Judge, to establish acts of possession on the part of the plaintiffs and not to sustain a plea of estoppel or res judicata: see Abadi v. Catholic Mission (1935) 2 WACA 380, at pp. 381 and 383. As to the payments of rents, Chief Williams submitted under ground 8 that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the defendants ever paid rent to them, and that there was no plea suggesting that the Olu of Warri as Head or representative of the Itsekiri Community or the Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees had any right, title or interest in the land in dispute or acted as agents for the plaintiffs in relation to this land; accordingly, evidence as to those matters should have been rejected by the court either as false or as of no weight. Chief Williams strongly contended that this evidence is inconsistent with the plaintiffs' pleadings and is in fact not raised by the pleadings, and that the learned trial Judge should have ignored it. He cited Bada v. Chairman L.E.D.B SC. 501/65 delivered on June 3, 1967, and M.P.C. v. Thomson Organisation SC. 192/67 in support of the proposition that evidence as to a point not pleaded goes to no issue, that the Judge in the instant case should not have had regard to the rent receipts tendered in evidence, and that payment of rent to the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust is no evidence against the defendants 'since the Olu of Warri is not a party to the present appeal. In arguing ground 9, Chief Williams submitted that the injunction should not have been granted since the radical title is in the Olu. In any case, the expression "Possessory title" is a term of art in real property law, and, in his submission, it is apt to be confusing and misleading as a basis for a declaration by a court of law; according to Jowitt's "Dictionary of English Law" Vol. 1 p. 1370 (1959 Edn.), "possessory title: denotes, inter alia "squatter's title". The Olu of Warri should have been joined with the Omadinor people to bring the action for a declaration of title simpliciter. As to the claim of an injunction, it is Chief Williams's contenfton that it should not have been granted in the absence of a plan showing precisely the area in question. In reply, Chief Awolowo made three submissions of a general nature. The first is that the land in dispute is identifiable and was indeed identified by the learned trial Judge. Even though the defendants filed three statements of defence, not once did they deny the plans; both parties are never in doubt as to be identity of the land in dispute, all they bandied about being the name by which the land is called by each side; the location is the same on both sets of plans, A and A1 and B and B1. And the boundaries of the land are as thus described in Reece, J's judgment in Exhibit "C": ".................... a parcel of land situate at Omadinor bounded on the north by lands of Binikrukrus and Dagboros on the south by Escravos river on the west by Nana river and on the east by land of Obode, the extent of which is said to be more fully described and delineated in a plan. The plan was put in evidence as Exhibit 1. There was also a claim for 300 pounds damages for the defendants' interference with the fishing rights of the plaintiffs and preventing the plaintiffs from collecting rents from the tenants using the said land." Chief Awolowo's second submission is that the learned trial Judge is right in preferring the plaintiffs' evidence of traditional history of the land in dispute to that of the defendants. The plaintiffs made positive averments as to their own traditional history whereas the defendants were tary in admitting Akpata as their common ancestor. The first plaintiff did not agree that Akpata was a relation of Owezuibiri, but was definite that the land was granted to Akpata and his followers to settle in after their migration from Ijaw areas. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted in the third place that the plaintiffs had over the years exercised persistent and consistent acts of ownership over the land in dispute. The plaintiffs' contention is that, of all the inhabitants of Okenrenghigho, it was only the Ijaws as customary tenants who stopped paying rents since 1929; moreover, these Ijaw tenants even went on to collect rents from other tenants. The first plaintiff explained in detail in the court below the various steps taken by them to assert their rights of ownership, including the previous land suits they successfully brought against those of their tenants who had attempted to deny their title to portions of their land. Chief Awolowo pointed out that the area in Exhibit "C" is a larger one than the area now in dispute and embraces the latter in its totality. The boundaries of the land are the same as shown on the plan, Exhibit 1. He submitted that contrary to the argument by Chief Williams that no declaration to title should have been granted in the absence of a plan of the land in dispute, there is abundant authority for the view that a plan is not always a necessity, so long as the identity of the land can otherwise be ascertained to the satisfaction of the court. We think that there is merit in this submission. In Alhaji Etiko v. Aroyewun (1959) 4 FSC 129, at p. 130, we had occasion to observe as follows: "There is, however, no dispute as to the identity of the land with which this case is concerned and E.O. Griffin from whom the plaintiff bought, gave evidence identifying the land which Griffin then sold under Exhibit "E" with the land in dispute. Thus, even if as alleged in ground 2, the trial Judge's use of the plan attached to the Statement of Claim was wrong (as to which I am by no means satisfied), there was ample other evidence identifying the land claimed with what the respondent bought. There being no difficulty about identifying the land in dispute it was open to the court below, to grant the declaration sought without basing the declaration on a plan. The order granting the plaintiff a declaration was, however, based on the plan attached to Exhibit "E" and not on Exhibit "A", and I cannot see anything wrong with that in view of Griffin's evidence." Again, in Garba v. Akacha (1966) NMLR. 62, at p. 64, we said: "In Ebileetc.v. Onwugbonu (1) a Federal Supreme Court case decided on 21st June, 1963 the court said: "I do not share the view that a plan is an absolute necessity in every land case..........In the present case..................it is abundantly clear from the record of proceedings in that court that the parties were agreed on the land in dispute, its features and its area." In the case before us we have no doubt that both parties and the trial court knew precisely what piece of land was in dispute. That is the criterion. We therefore find no merit in this ground of appeal." It now remains for us to consider the objection raised by the appellant to the grant by the lower court of a declaration of a "possessory title" to the plaintiffs in respect of the land in dispute. It is worthy of note that the Writ of Summons speaks of "possessory title" and that the Statement of Claim avers that the plaintiffs' ancestors exercised maximum rights of ownership and possession over the said land". Also, counsel for the plaintiffs, in his final address before the trial court, expressed himself thus: "The radical title is in the Olu of Warri. We claim possessory title. What claim amounts to is mesne profits. The defendants are there with our permission. The court can declare that they pay us something yearly. We want an injunction to restrain the defendants from collecting rents from the tenants and depriving us of our rights." In his ruling, the learned trial Judge used the expressions "acts of ownership and possession" exercised by the plaintiffs and "a declaration of possessory title" of ownership". It thus seems clear that the use of the expression "possessory title in their Writ of Summons was employed by the plaintiffs either because they had already conceded the radical title to the Olu or because they were really pre-occupied with asserting their claim under customary law to receive the rent or profit therefrom. We are of the view that neither the wording of the relief sought nor the learned trial Judge's use of the expression "possessory title" is apt, and that the declaration should not have been granted in those terms. We think that all the learned trial Judge wanted to grant was a re-affirmation of the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs to the land which he found to have been granted in at least Openly and Deny This Obvious Facts. previous judgment. We will accordingly dismiss this appeal and affirm the judgment of Obaseki, J., in the High Court, Warri, in Suit No. W/30/1962 delivered on October 3, 1969, except that the declaration will be one for "possessory title". We award costs assessed at N125 to the respondents in this appeal. Let The Ijaws Of Gbaramatu