It's Erroneous For Anybody to Say Itsekiris are the Owners of Warri - Okumagba | Omare 

Warri is peaceful... No sign of threat nor conflicts.

@@EstherSis-ky6xx Illiteracy seems to be a significant issue in urhobo enclaves of delta state. The Idudu vs Okumagba case is about a dispute over 218 acres of farmland, not ownership of Warri. Interestingly, even the farmland in question still recognizes the Olu of Warri's title to the land. It's surprising that some individuals from Urhobo, who were sent to Arise News, have continued to display illiteracy. Following some dispute, a case which finally got settled in the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC309/74 between Chief Ophisal Idudun and five others (for themselves and Ogitsi descendants of Okere, Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of the Olodi, Oki, and Ighogbadu family of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri) gave possessory title over 281.1 acres of farmland outside Okere to Daniel Okumagba and his kindred family. In fact, the judgment was specifically emphatic on the location of the farmland (page 12) thus: “I wish to make it clear that the evidence in the case shows very clearly that the Okere village is an entirely separate and removed settlement from the land in dispute.” This statement proves that Okere was not in dispute. These are the facts of the case: - Okere village/community land was not litigated on. - The Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust were brought in by Court order because of the issue of radical title involved. - Since the defendants did not counter-claim, there was no challenge to the radical title. - It is Idimi-Sobo that is in the proceedings, not Okere Urhobo, not Okere Urhobo Clan, and not the Okere Urhobo Kingdom that it has progressively become. - The judgment vested no radical title in the Urhobo family but gave possessory right to occupy 281.1 acres of farmland, outside the Okere settlement. The Itsekiri won both possessory and radical ownership to almost all the lands in Warri - except the Okumagba avenue, where Okumagba won the possessory right, while the radical title still resides with the Olu. SC/309/74 was won by the Okumagba family against the Itsekiri. But it is clear that they won only a possessory title - hear the Supreme Court.. “The averments in the Plaintiff amended statement of claim was based on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments of the defendants’ statement of defense and evidence give a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership of land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants are not counter claim for title to land (SC 309/74). Emphasis for clarity! Since Okumagba did not counter claim to title, it means the title to the land still remains with the Olu, while the Okumagba family had only the possessory title. All the other cases within Warri -W/44/1941, W3/1949; W/44/1941; SC 93/98 and so many others gave both possessory and radical title to the Olu of Warri. Thus, from the legions of litigation, only the Itsekiri had both radial and possessory ownership to all the lands in the Warri minus Okumagba layout, where Olu has the radical title, but the Urhobo enclave in Okere had the possessry rights. Itsekiri’s are the owners of warri. By Lord_of_Warri on 𝕏 (Twitter).

Ijaws own Warri. Itsekeri are settlers

@@user-pf3uj2hf3yNana of Itsekiri,

​​@@user-pf3uj2hf3yUrhobo owns Warri why are u saying Ijaws only owns warri abi u want make I leave 5 fingers for ur chest?

Blame Chief Awolowo, who took it upon himself to change the title of olu of Itsekiri to olu of warri

Yeah

@mathewetchie257 And he rules over where? Social media kingdom 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Olu of Itsekiri

Rubbish talk by a known land thief. So you don carry port Harcourt talk enter here too. Like Warri, Ijaws own nothing in Port Harcourt too. The places you named are all Ikwerre territory. Ijaws started claiming ownership of PH township after they stole Ibo houses in the area as "abandoned properties" after the civil war. You think say we no know? Go there and talk rubbish make Ibos kick your sorry butts.

@@AlaskaSL202 Illiteracy seems to be a significant issue in urhobo enclaves of delta state. The Idudu vs Okumagba case is about a dispute over 218 acres of farmland, not ownership of Warri. Interestingly, even the farmland in question still recognizes the Olu of Warri's title to the land. It's surprising that some individuals from Urhobo, who were sent to Arise News, have continued to display illiteracy. Following some dispute, a case which finally got settled in the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC309/74 between Chief Ophisal Idudun and five others (for themselves and Ogitsi descendants of Okere, Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of the Olodi, Oki, and Ighogbadu family of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri) gave possessory title over 281.1 acres of farmland outside Okere to Daniel Okumagba and his kindred family. In fact, the judgment was specifically emphatic on the location of the farmland (page 12) thus: “I wish to make it clear that the evidence in the case shows very clearly that the Okere village is an entirely separate and removed settlement from the land in dispute.” This statement proves that Okere was not in dispute. These are the facts of the case: - Okere village/community land was not litigated on. - The Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust were brought in by Court order because of the issue of radical title involved. - Since the defendants did not counter-claim, there was no challenge to the radical title. - It is Idimi-Sobo that is in the proceedings, not Okere Urhobo, not Okere Urhobo Clan, and not the Okere Urhobo Kingdom that it has progressively become. - The judgment vested no radical title in the Urhobo family but gave possessory right to occupy 281.1 acres of farmland, outside the Okere settlement. The Itsekiri won both possessory and radical ownership to almost all the lands in Warri - except the Okumagba avenue, where Okumagba won the possessory right, while the radical title still resides with the Olu. SC/309/74 was won by the Okumagba family against the Itsekiri. But it is clear that they won only a possessory title - hear the Supreme Court.. “The averments in the Plaintiff amended statement of claim was based on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments of the defendants’ statement of defense and evidence give a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership of land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants are not counter claim for title to land (SC 309/74). Emphasis for clarity! Since Okumagba did not counter claim to title, it means the title to the land still remains with the Olu, while the Okumagba family had only the possessory title. All the other cases within Warri -W/44/1941, W3/1949; W/44/1941; SC 93/98 and so many others gave both possessory and radical title to the Olu of Warri. Thus, from the legions of litigation, only the Itsekiri had both radial and possessory ownership to all the lands in the Warri minus Okumagba layout, where Olu has the radical title, but the Urhobo enclave in Okere had the possessry rights. Itsekiri’s are the owners of warri. By Lord_of_Warri on 𝕏 (Twitter).

They fell from heaven abi?

Good question

Itsekiri people belongs to the swamp that why their original king title is ogiemen

​@@45media85 They own swamp.

@@tojuirone1997 Illiteracy seems to be a significant issue in urhobo enclaves of delta state. The Idudu vs Okumagba case is about a dispute over 218 acres of farmland, not ownership of Warri. Interestingly, even the farmland in question still recognizes the Olu of Warri's title to the land. It's surprising that some individuals from Urhobo, who were sent to Arise News, have continued to display illiteracy. Following some dispute, a case which finally got settled in the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC309/74 between Chief Ophisal Idudun and five others (for themselves and Ogitsi descendants of Okere, Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of the Olodi, Oki, and Ighogbadu family of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri) gave possessory title over 281.1 acres of farmland outside Okere to Daniel Okumagba and his kindred family. In fact, the judgment was specifically emphatic on the location of the farmland (page 12) thus: “I wish to make it clear that the evidence in the case shows very clearly that the Okere village is an entirely separate and removed settlement from the land in dispute.” This statement proves that Okere was not in dispute. These are the facts of the case: - Okere village/community land was not litigated on. - The Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust were brought in by Court order because of the issue of radical title involved. - Since the defendants did not counter-claim, there was no challenge to the radical title. - It is Idimi-Sobo that is in the proceedings, not Okere Urhobo, not Okere Urhobo Clan, and not the Okere Urhobo Kingdom that it has progressively become. - The judgment vested no radical title in the Urhobo family but gave possessory right to occupy 281.1 acres of farmland, outside the Okere settlement. The Itsekiri won both possessory and radical ownership to almost all the lands in Warri - except the Okumagba avenue, where Okumagba won the possessory right, while the radical title still resides with the Olu. SC/309/74 was won by the Okumagba family against the Itsekiri. But it is clear that they won only a possessory title - hear the Supreme Court.. “The averments in the Plaintiff amended statement of claim was based on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments of the defendants’ statement of defense and evidence give a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership of land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants are not counter claim for title to land (SC 309/74). Emphasis for clarity! Since Okumagba did not counter claim to title, it means the title to the land still remains with the Olu, while the Okumagba family had only the possessory title. All the other cases within Warri -W/44/1941, W3/1949; W/44/1941; SC 93/98 and so many others gave both possessory and radical title to the Olu of Warri. Thus, from the legions of litigation, only the Itsekiri had both radial and possessory ownership to all the lands in the Warri minus Okumagba layout, where Olu has the radical title, but the Urhobo enclave in Okere had the possessry rights. Itsekiri’s are the owners of warri. By Lord_of_Warri on 𝕏 (Twitter).

Look my dear it's just a question of time the yorubas will lose Kwara completely just like Ijaws and Urhobos will lose Wari to Itsakiris....If they don't Change the Olu of Wari to Olu of Itsakiri.....please think of the future generations. And save them from misunderstanding one another.

@@augustineasoegwu6359 they are keeping the pressure on them..they have started changing the name to Wado city..which if you check, 90percent of the city is named wado city, with the only 10percent of the itsekiri part still carrying the name warri on sign post.. its a smart way of showing who owns the town.. I just came off the Christmas vacation and was amazed seeing sign post with the name wado city everywhere.

That isn’t true the name has always been Olu of Warri

Illiteracy seems to be a significant issue in urhobo enclaves of delta state. The Idudu vs Okumagba case is about a dispute over 218 acres of farmland, not ownership of Warri. Interestingly, even the farmland in question still recognizes the Olu of Warri's title to the land. It's surprising that some individuals from Urhobo, who were sent to Arise News, have continued to display illiteracy. Following some dispute, a case which finally got settled in the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC309/74 between Chief Ophisal Idudun and five others (for themselves and Ogitsi descendants of Okere, Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of the Olodi, Oki, and Ighogbadu family of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri) gave possessory title over 281.1 acres of farmland outside Okere to Daniel Okumagba and his kindred family. In fact, the judgment was specifically emphatic on the location of the farmland (page 12) thus: “I wish to make it clear that the evidence in the case shows very clearly that the Okere village is an entirely separate and removed settlement from the land in dispute.” This statement proves that Okere was not in dispute. These are the facts of the case: - Okere village/community land was not litigated on. - The Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust were brought in by Court order because of the issue of radical title involved. - Since the defendants did not counter-claim, there was no challenge to the radical title. - It is Idimi-Sobo that is in the proceedings, not Okere Urhobo, not Okere Urhobo Clan, and not the Okere Urhobo Kingdom that it has progressively become. - The judgment vested no radical title in the Urhobo family but gave possessory right to occupy 281.1 acres of farmland, outside the Okere settlement. The Itsekiri won both possessory and radical ownership to almost all the lands in Warri - except the Okumagba avenue, where Okumagba won the possessory right, while the radical title still resides with the Olu. SC/309/74 was won by the Okumagba family against the Itsekiri. But it is clear that they won only a possessory title - hear the Supreme Court.. “The averments in the Plaintiff amended statement of claim was based on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments of the defendants’ statement of defense and evidence give a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership of land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants are not counter claim for title to land (SC 309/74). Emphasis for clarity! Since Okumagba did not counter claim to title, it means the title to the land still remains with the Olu, while the Okumagba family had only the possessory title. All the other cases within Warri -W/44/1941, W3/1949; W/44/1941; SC 93/98 and so many others gave both possessory and radical title to the Olu of Warri. Thus, from the legions of litigation, only the Itsekiri had both radial and possessory ownership to all the lands in the Warri minus Okumagba layout, where Olu has the radical title, but the Urhobo enclave in Okere had the possessry rights. Itsekiri’s are the owners of warri. By Lord_of_Warri on 𝕏 (Twitter).

@@agent6521 Shut up! It was Awolowo that changed it to Olu of Warri because the Urhobos voted against him. That was in 1952. Itsekiri king has always been Olu of Itsekiri until Awolowo changed it.

Rufai is not biased. Can't you see that the interview is incomplete in terms of representation. Victor was just beating about the bush and quoting a judgement he knows nothing about. I'm sure he'll be surprised when he reads the judgment in detail

@@mathewetchie257they had interview Mr Ariyo Robbinson alone without any Urhobo or Ijaw alongside.and they never complained that that interview was not complete so why are they making it an issue.Rufai is just being an idiot.

@eyimofeonuwaje5014 Itsekiris own Okere and Ekurede Urhobo? So Olu of Warri rule over them or the Orosuen of Okere? Are you mad or just stupid? There is no Itsekiri town inside WARRI TOWNSHIP!

Merogun, pessu, IYARA and odion all belongs to the agbarha Urhobo and okere-Urhobo.

You guys keep lying everywhere. There was never a time when we have Olu of Itsekiri, except in your shallow minds and understanding. There was an interregnum for 88years in the Kingdom, and when a new Olu came in, your greedy leaders wanted the name changed to Olu of Itsekiri. As that was not the status quo, they lost. The name has always been Olu of Warri and will remain so. A confused Okumagba and Omaretseye, who were saying half a truth on national television can continue to deceive all of you on the boundaries of Warri, using Warri Township as a decoy. The Olu is Olu of Warri and not Olu of Warri Township.

@NoritzCouture-s3j Urhobo is the OWNER OF THEIR OWN TOWNS INSIDE WARRI TOWNSHIP! Ijaws are the OWNERS OF THEIR OWN TOWN INSIDE WARRI TOWNSHIP! Mr Oga MUMU, the Warri TOWSHIP you see today was formed by BRITISH who simply MERGED EXISTING TOWNS BELONGING TO URHOBOS AND IJAW! That is what they are telling you that your small coconut head cannot understand!

@@ck-sl3kt Crappy rendition by a known land thief. No be only Warri. When you finish with Itsekiri, you will go and fight Binis in Ovia, then Ibibios in Obolo, then Ibos in Iguocha, Bonny, Opobo and Nembe, then Urhobos in Okere and Sapele, then Yorubas in Ilaje and Lagos, then Eppie Atissas in Yenogua etc. Na you go tire Warri is Itsekiriland, period.

All of you over there in that niger delta are all nothing but troublemakers. Don't point to itsekiri people alone. You all are possessed.

Is itsekiri the owner of Asaba,? Why would Itsekiri asked to move the capital from Warri to Asaba? Common sense should let everyone know who influenced that decision... The IBO's are the one you should accused of moving the capital from Warri to Asaba. In what way did the movement of state capital to Asaba benefit the Itsekiri people? Hatred has blinded you all. I grow up with Ijaws coming to live in our house when the cone from the riverine areas to write exams.. My dad was kind to them. But you guys burnt down of house and almost killed my father if he couldn't escape... Itsekiri was not prepared for War because we never plan to fight with the Ijaws.. But you guys invaded the Itsekiri land in the time of peace... Just imagine been in your house and suddenly armed robbers came in to rob and kill will you be able to defend yourself or fight? .... You guys killed innocent children and pregnant women and committed all kinds of atrocities and evil the Itsekiri people will never dream of committing the against the Ijaws... Without no serious reason.... The only person that benefited from that fight against Itsekiri is Tompoli your leader and his family.... Maybe you benefited little if you are a close friend of Tompolo or his worker... Itsekiri did not take anything from you people, its you the Ijaws that want to join with the Urhobos to take what Itsekiri has... I'm sure you know about the nation of Israel, the Arab countries surrounding Israel wants to take the land that God gave to Israel since centuries ago... The Arab nations are so many but Israel is just a small nation but the Arabs could not... The Arabs will not be able to... Go ahead and telling your children to hate Itsekiri for stupid reasons ... Plant the seed of discord and hatred that will never do anyone good... At the end of the day you will not only go to hell but you will also lead your children to hell for building hatred in the children that are supposed to be innocent. Jesus says all haters are murders and the will go to hell...1John 3:15. The only people who should be saying we will never forgive are the Itsekiris... Itsekiri people should never forgive the Ijaws for the innocent blood they shared because Itsekiri never came to attack you but you traveled through almost all their villages to attack and killed the people unexpectedly.... But we have forgiven the Ijaws.. You burnt down my father's house, I have forgiven you... We still love the Ijaws because God created us and put us together because He knows we can live in peace... We are not afriad of the Ijaws.. Point of correction, we didn't expect war from you then, but it better not happen in the future again that ijaws will go and attack the Itsekiris because we won't travel on water to fight you but we will stay in our house and destroy all Ijaws villages and all there...( don't ask me how)... People no longer fight war with plenty soldiers and guns and the rest,.. Ones beaten, lesson learnt. Please throw away your hatred and embrace LOVE because you can only see clearly through the eye of love... Be wise my friend... Warri is big enough to occupy everyone... Everybody should stay in their place.. Preach love!

@@OkeAgbagbaraDivine Illiteracy seems to be a significant issue in urhobo enclaves of delta state. The Idudu vs Okumagba case is about a dispute over 218 acres of farmland, not ownership of Warri. Interestingly, even the farmland in question still recognizes the Olu of Warri's title to the land. It's surprising that some individuals from Urhobo, who were sent to Arise News, have continued to display illiteracy. Following some dispute, a case which finally got settled in the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC309/74 between Chief Ophisal Idudun and five others (for themselves and Ogitsi descendants of Okere, Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of the Olodi, Oki, and Ighogbadu family of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri) gave possessory title over 281.1 acres of farmland outside Okere to Daniel Okumagba and his kindred family. In fact, the judgment was specifically emphatic on the location of the farmland (page 12) thus: “I wish to make it clear that the evidence in the case shows very clearly that the Okere village is an entirely separate and removed settlement from the land in dispute.” This statement proves that Okere was not in dispute. These are the facts of the case: - Okere village/community land was not litigated on. - The Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust were brought in by Court order because of the issue of radical title involved. - Since the defendants did not counter-claim, there was no challenge to the radical title. - It is Idimi-Sobo that is in the proceedings, not Okere Urhobo, not Okere Urhobo Clan, and not the Okere Urhobo Kingdom that it has progressively become. - The judgment vested no radical title in the Urhobo family but gave possessory right to occupy 281.1 acres of farmland, outside the Okere settlement. The Itsekiri won both possessory and radical ownership to almost all the lands in Warri - except the Okumagba avenue, where Okumagba won the possessory right, while the radical title still resides with the Olu. SC/309/74 was won by the Okumagba family against the Itsekiri. But it is clear that they won only a possessory title - hear the Supreme Court.. “The averments in the Plaintiff amended statement of claim was based on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments of the defendants’ statement of defense and evidence give a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership of land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants are not counter claim for title to land (SC 309/74). Emphasis for clarity! Since Okumagba did not counter claim to title, it means the title to the land still remains with the Olu, while the Okumagba family had only the possessory title. All the other cases within Warri -W/44/1941, W3/1949; W/44/1941; SC 93/98 and so many others gave both possessory and radical title to the Olu of Warri. Thus, from the legions of litigation, only the Itsekiri had both radial and possessory ownership to all the lands in the Warri minus Okumagba layout, where Olu has the radical title, but the Urhobo enclave in Okere had the possessry rights. Itsekiri’s are the owners of warri. By Lord_of_Warri on 𝕏 (Twitter).

Is dominating ownership? Think again. So if I own a land and you are my tenant and you have 50 children while staying in my house, does that make you the owner. 😂

@@mathewetchie257 The ownership is clearly clarified in my statement. No time for time wasters.

@@mathewetchie257 As long as the tenant and the 50 children all pay you rent then you make more money. Also as landlord you can ask your tenant to pack and go if he brought 50 children to your house isn't it? If you can't sack your tenant then it is likely he is not your tenant, agreed? You know madness is defined as a state when you tell yourself lies over and over until you start believing that lie to be true. I guess you did not know your Olu rented the land he built his palace from his Urhobo landlords. Do you?

I wonder

Check what happened to the nation of Israel... The Arab nations that surround them are their enemies... You have made yourself an enemy of the of someone who is not interested in being your enemy... Thank God Is real is still so strong and thriving today... We are peace loving and don't live in hate... Hatred is sin . please repent...

You people have no truth. Just a pervasion of history, na today we know una!

You people have no truth. Just a pervasion of history, na today we know una!

Good question

@@joeebisan5796 Coz sincerely d Itsekiris are irrelevant in d scheme of things as far as warri is concerned they are far far minority

Because I am a minority, therefore I am not relevant. Nigeria is not a country of law and order

@@45media85 Na why they call it minority no relevance jux remain where u are and be doing ur thing don't cross ur boundaries or else u get disgraced and pushed out

😂 I'll give you another article to read. You've been reading the wrong piece

Dear Mr Victor Okumagba stop misleading the public with your misrepresentation of facts. Allow me to school you on the so called Idundun vs Okumagba case as to wether it relates or not to the ownership of Warri. OKERE AND IDIMI SOBO LITIGATION Unfortunately, what used to be a union of brothers and sisters have for some years now been set more or less asunder by internal strife instigated by largely selfish interests. The Itsekiri of Okere and the Urhobo of Idimi-sobo in Okere co-existed peacefully as one entity until 1927 when Chief Okumagba-Eboh, the fourth in line of the Idama descendants, strayed and attempted to take possession of the land given them by the Itsekiri. This attempt was, however, thwarted by Nikoro, the then Olare Aja of Okere. In suit No. 784/27 held at the then Warri Native Court, Chief Okumagba-Eboh was ordered to pay the sum of five pounds as rent to the Ogitsi family (and therefore to the Itsekiri). An appeal was later lodged by Okumagba-Eboh in the Warri Native Court of Appeal and there setting aside the issue of rent, a new twist was introduced into the case: the question of economic (rubber) trees. The Court President ruled that when the rubber trees were ripe (mature) and sold for money, the Idimi-sobos should pay the sum of five pounds per annum for sacrifice to Ogitsi (a prominent grandson of Ekpen, the founder of Okere). This case was again revisited in 1942 (reference Suit No. W/14A/1942) held at the Magistrate Court of Warri Magisterial Area on 7th January, 1943 before His Lordship William Roland Awunor-Renner. In his judgement, the Magistrate stated inter alia, and we quote, “It is not disputed that the land belongs to the Ogitsi family. There is ample evidence that the defendant/respondent (Okumagba-Eboh for Idimi-sobo) and his ancestors have been on the land for generations. In fact he and his father were born on this land and for him (Okumagba-Eboh) to be removed, it was necessary for the plaintiffs/appellants (Chief Omatsone Tsegbeyeri Awani and Regbeti Popo for Ogitsi-Ekpen family) to prove such grave misconduct, acts and omissions, which would make him (Okumagba-Eboh) liable in law and equity to be dispossessed of the land…” The other major litigation was suit No. W/48/68 (SC309/74) in respect of the so-called “Okumagba Layout” of recent years. It is noteworthy that in spite of all odds, the Supreme Court did not grant Olodi, Oki and Ighogbadu families of Idimi-sobo radical title to the land in question. Gani Fawehinmi Chambers, acting as counsel to the Olare Aja of Okere and all Okere people, pointed out as follows in an advertised reaction to a July 1, 1992 write-up by Benjamin Okumagba published in the Guardian: “The judgement of the Supreme Court referred to in the write-up (Idundun & Ors v. Okumagba & Ors [SC 309/74] delivered on 8th October, 1976 and reported in (1976) 1 N.M.L.R. 200, [1976] 10 S. C. 227) did not grant title or ownership of the land in dispute in that case to the respondents therein represented by DANIEL OKUMAGBA & ORS. “The Supreme Court made it clear in pages 201 and 229 respectively of the above-stated reports where it stated as follows:- The averments in the plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim and the evidence adduced in support showed clearly that the claim was based partly on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments in the defendants’ statement of defence and the evidence given by them in support gave a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership on the land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage, however, that the defendants did not counterclaim for title to the land.” He concluded that “… it is trite law and beyond any legal argument that no court has power or jurisdiction to grant to a party a relief he did not claim. In essence, that judgement dismissed the claims as framed which covered only 281.1 acres but did not grant title to the land in dispute to the defendants therein i.e. Daniel Okumagba & Others”. Obviously, the Olodi, Oki and Ighogbadu families did not ask for radical title to the land because they could not have done so, conscious as they were of the outcome of previous relevant litigations and, more importantly, the fact that it was not their ancestral land. But on the basis of that Supreme Court judgment of 1976 that granted them merely a possessory title to 281.1 acres of land in Idimi-Sobo, they have since then sought to prise themselves from the larger Okere Community, preferring instead to refer to themselves as belonging to an Okere-Urhobo clan which later metamorphosed to “kingdom”. Through political intrigue and maneuvers with a complicit political class in Delta State, they succeeded in the early 2000s in procuring the title of Orosuen and having it gazetted by the State government as their king even when they manifestly have no kingship tradition. Nevertheless, the Okere people remain resolute in their rejection of this scheme and do not recognize any other traditional title in their land than the Olare Aja who is the Ogieboro of all Okere. OTHER RELEVANT LEGAL CORRELATES In the case of Ometan versus Dore (Suit No. 25/26), Ometan, an Urhobo man from Agbassa, said under cross-examination that Itsekiri people own Okere. Another Urhobo man, Okandeji, also testified in the said case that Okere is Itsekiri land. The Deed of Lease over the land presently occupied by the Federal Prisons in Okere was entered into between the people of Okere (Itsekiri) on the one hand and the government of Nigeria on the other hand.

Cite the Supreme Court case that said so 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 all supreme courts case declared ijaws and urhobo’s tenants wards cards is political not land ownership

We all know that itsekiri have no land

Itsekiri are Yoruba blood and behave like Yoruba people. Always claiming people land.

Urhobo

@@ezimdanielchukwunwike531 Urhobos✅

@@ezimdanielchukwunwike531 Illiteracy seems to be a significant issue in urhobo enclaves of delta state. The Idudu vs Okumagba case is about a dispute over 218 acres of farmland, not ownership of Warri. Interestingly, even the farmland in question still recognizes the Olu of Warri's title to the land. It's surprising that some individuals from Urhobo, who were sent to Arise News, have continued to display illiteracy. Following some dispute, a case which finally got settled in the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC309/74 between Chief Ophisal Idudun and five others (for themselves and Ogitsi descendants of Okere, Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of the Olodi, Oki, and Ighogbadu family of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri) gave possessory title over 281.1 acres of farmland outside Okere to Daniel Okumagba and his kindred family. In fact, the judgment was specifically emphatic on the location of the farmland (page 12) thus: “I wish to make it clear that the evidence in the case shows very clearly that the Okere village is an entirely separate and removed settlement from the land in dispute.” This statement proves that Okere was not in dispute. These are the facts of the case: - Okere village/community land was not litigated on. - The Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust were brought in by Court order because of the issue of radical title involved. - Since the defendants did not counter-claim, there was no challenge to the radical title. - It is Idimi-Sobo that is in the proceedings, not Okere Urhobo, not Okere Urhobo Clan, and not the Okere Urhobo Kingdom that it has progressively become. - The judgment vested no radical title in the Urhobo family but gave possessory right to occupy 281.1 acres of farmland, outside the Okere settlement. The Itsekiri won both possessory and radical ownership to almost all the lands in Warri - except the Okumagba avenue, where Okumagba won the possessory right, while the radical title still resides with the Olu. SC/309/74 was won by the Okumagba family against the Itsekiri. But it is clear that they won only a possessory title - hear the Supreme Court.. “The averments in the Plaintiff amended statement of claim was based on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments of the defendants’ statement of defense and evidence give a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership of land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants are not counter claim for title to land (SC 309/74). Emphasis for clarity! Since Okumagba did not counter claim to title, it means the title to the land still remains with the Olu, while the Okumagba family had only the possessory title. All the other cases within Warri -W/44/1941, W3/1949; W/44/1941; SC 93/98 and so many others gave both possessory and radical title to the Olu of Warri. Thus, from the legions of litigation, only the Itsekiri had both radial and possessory ownership to all the lands in the Warri minus Okumagba layout, where Olu has the radical title, but the Urhobo enclave in Okere had the possessry rights. Itsekiri’s are the owners of warri. By Lord_of_Warri on 𝕏 (Twitter).

Urhobos-Okpe owns Sapele any other tribe na tenant.

@@benjaminemmanuel1818 Sharp💯✅

Why are you crying

@@Ikedaniel Illiteracy seems to be a significant issue in urhobo enclaves of delta state. The Idudu vs Okumagba case is about a dispute over 218 acres of farmland, not ownership of Warri. Interestingly, even the farmland in question still recognizes the Olu of Warri's title to the land. It's surprising that some individuals from Urhobo, who were sent to Arise News, have continued to display illiteracy. Following some dispute, a case which finally got settled in the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC309/74 between Chief Ophisal Idudun and five others (for themselves and Ogitsi descendants of Okere, Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of the Olodi, Oki, and Ighogbadu family of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri) gave possessory title over 281.1 acres of farmland outside Okere to Daniel Okumagba and his kindred family. In fact, the judgment was specifically emphatic on the location of the farmland (page 12) thus: “I wish to make it clear that the evidence in the case shows very clearly that the Okere village is an entirely separate and removed settlement from the land in dispute.” This statement proves that Okere was not in dispute. These are the facts of the case: - Okere village/community land was not litigated on. - The Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust were brought in by Court order because of the issue of radical title involved. - Since the defendants did not counter-claim, there was no challenge to the radical title. - It is Idimi-Sobo that is in the proceedings, not Okere Urhobo, not Okere Urhobo Clan, and not the Okere Urhobo Kingdom that it has progressively become. - The judgment vested no radical title in the Urhobo family but gave possessory right to occupy 281.1 acres of farmland, outside the Okere settlement. The Itsekiri won both possessory and radical ownership to almost all the lands in Warri - except the Okumagba avenue, where Okumagba won the possessory right, while the radical title still resides with the Olu. SC/309/74 was won by the Okumagba family against the Itsekiri. But it is clear that they won only a possessory title - hear the Supreme Court.. “The averments in the Plaintiff amended statement of claim was based on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments of the defendants’ statement of defense and evidence give a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership of land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants are not counter claim for title to land (SC 309/74). Emphasis for clarity! Since Okumagba did not counter claim to title, it means the title to the land still remains with the Olu, while the Okumagba family had only the possessory title. All the other cases within Warri -W/44/1941, W3/1949; W/44/1941; SC 93/98 and so many others gave both possessory and radical title to the Olu of Warri. Thus, from the legions of litigation, only the Itsekiri had both radial and possessory ownership to all the lands in the Warri minus Okumagba layout, where Olu has the radical title, but the Urhobo enclave in Okere had the possessry rights. Itsekiri’s are the owners of warri. By Lord_of_Warri on 𝕏 (Twitter).

@@AlaskaSL202 Illiteracy seems to be a significant issue in urhobo enclaves of delta state. The Idudu vs Okumagba case is about a dispute over 218 acres of farmland, not ownership of Warri. Interestingly, even the farmland in question still recognizes the Olu of Warri's title to the land. It's surprising that some individuals from Urhobo, who were sent to Arise News, have continued to display illiteracy. Following some dispute, a case which finally got settled in the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC309/74 between Chief Ophisal Idudun and five others (for themselves and Ogitsi descendants of Okere, Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of the Olodi, Oki, and Ighogbadu family of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri) gave possessory title over 281.1 acres of farmland outside Okere to Daniel Okumagba and his kindred family. In fact, the judgment was specifically emphatic on the location of the farmland (page 12) thus: “I wish to make it clear that the evidence in the case shows very clearly that the Okere village is an entirely separate and removed settlement from the land in dispute.” This statement proves that Okere was not in dispute. These are the facts of the case: - Okere village/community land was not litigated on. - The Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust were brought in by Court order because of the issue of radical title involved. - Since the defendants did not counter-claim, there was no challenge to the radical title. - It is Idimi-Sobo that is in the proceedings, not Okere Urhobo, not Okere Urhobo Clan, and not the Okere Urhobo Kingdom that it has progressively become. - The judgment vested no radical title in the Urhobo family but gave possessory right to occupy 281.1 acres of farmland, outside the Okere settlement. The Itsekiri won both possessory and radical ownership to almost all the lands in Warri - except the Okumagba avenue, where Okumagba won the possessory right, while the radical title still resides with the Olu. SC/309/74 was won by the Okumagba family against the Itsekiri. But it is clear that they won only a possessory title - hear the Supreme Court.. “The averments in the Plaintiff amended statement of claim was based on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments of the defendants’ statement of defense and evidence give a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership of land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants are not counter claim for title to land (SC 309/74). Emphasis for clarity! Since Okumagba did not counter claim to title, it means the title to the land still remains with the Olu, while the Okumagba family had only the possessory title. All the other cases within Warri -W/44/1941, W3/1949; W/44/1941; SC 93/98 and so many others gave both possessory and radical title to the Olu of Warri. Thus, from the legions of litigation, only the Itsekiri had both radial and possessory ownership to all the lands in the Warri minus Okumagba layout, where Olu has the radical title, but the Urhobo enclave in Okere had the possessry rights. Itsekiri’s are the owners of warri. By Lord_of_Warri on 𝕏 (Twitter).

You are disillusioned. There has never been anytime Itsekiris lay claim to Ethiope West. Show one proof of you have any. It has always been Urhobos and Ijaws laying false claims.

@@techwork... Illiteracy seems to be a significant issue in urhobo enclaves of delta state. The Idudu vs Okumagba case is about a dispute over 218 acres of farmland, not ownership of Warri. Interestingly, even the farmland in question still recognizes the Olu of Warri's title to the land. It's surprising that some individuals from Urhobo, who were sent to Arise News, have continued to display illiteracy. Following some dispute, a case which finally got settled in the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC309/74 between Chief Ophisal Idudun and five others (for themselves and Ogitsi descendants of Okere, Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of the Olodi, Oki, and Ighogbadu family of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri) gave possessory title over 281.1 acres of farmland outside Okere to Daniel Okumagba and his kindred family. In fact, the judgment was specifically emphatic on the location of the farmland (page 12) thus: “I wish to make it clear that the evidence in the case shows very clearly that the Okere village is an entirely separate and removed settlement from the land in dispute.” This statement proves that Okere was not in dispute. These are the facts of the case: - Okere village/community land was not litigated on. - The Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust were brought in by Court order because of the issue of radical title involved. - Since the defendants did not counter-claim, there was no challenge to the radical title. - It is Idimi-Sobo that is in the proceedings, not Okere Urhobo, not Okere Urhobo Clan, and not the Okere Urhobo Kingdom that it has progressively become. - The judgment vested no radical title in the Urhobo family but gave possessory right to occupy 281.1 acres of farmland, outside the Okere settlement. The Itsekiri won both possessory and radical ownership to almost all the lands in Warri - except the Okumagba avenue, where Okumagba won the possessory right, while the radical title still resides with the Olu. SC/309/74 was won by the Okumagba family against the Itsekiri. But it is clear that they won only a possessory title - hear the Supreme Court.. “The averments in the Plaintiff amended statement of claim was based on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments of the defendants’ statement of defense and evidence give a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership of land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants are not counter claim for title to land (SC 309/74). Emphasis for clarity! Since Okumagba did not counter claim to title, it means the title to the land still remains with the Olu, while the Okumagba family had only the possessory title. All the other cases within Warri -W/44/1941, W3/1949; W/44/1941; SC 93/98 and so many others gave both possessory and radical title to the Olu of Warri. Thus, from the legions of litigation, only the Itsekiri had both radial and possessory ownership to all the lands in the Warri minus Okumagba layout, where Olu has the radical title, but the Urhobo enclave in Okere had the possessry rights. Itsekiri’s are the owners of warri. By Lord_of_Warri on 𝕏 (Twitter).

@okoturo It seems your parents told you lies. Or they showed you some old court judgements like Itsekiri is doing now about 10 wards even when there is now a supreme court judgement regarding the wards? Itsekiri problem is that they tell themselves lies over and over while hoping the lies will be true. Who will call himself Olu of Warri when he has no jurisdiction or rule over any of the towns that made up Warri Township? Only a mad people do things like that.

@@ck-sl3kt You just come to type rubbish! Go to ur father's adk them if there was a case instituted by your ancestors against OLU of warri and the itsekiri people. Again ask them what was the out come. Do you think the judgment will not come out to the public? If truly your father's own WARRI why was there no kingdom or King before 2006? Answer this if you are not foolish like your ancestors . Ur father's failed in the court couldn't provide evidence of ownership what will happen to the judgment that say your father's are tenants in Warri? Blood will blow it's a promise

Illiteracy seems to be a significant issue in urhobo enclaves of delta state. The Idudu vs Okumagba case is about a dispute over 218 acres of farmland, not ownership of Warri. Interestingly, even the farmland in question still recognizes the Olu of Warri's title to the land. It's surprising that some individuals from Urhobo, who were sent to Arise News, have continued to display illiteracy. Following some dispute, a case which finally got settled in the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC309/74 between Chief Ophisal Idudun and five others (for themselves and Ogitsi descendants of Okere, Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of the Olodi, Oki, and Ighogbadu family of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri) gave possessory title over 281.1 acres of farmland outside Okere to Daniel Okumagba and his kindred family. In fact, the judgment was specifically emphatic on the location of the farmland (page 12) thus: “I wish to make it clear that the evidence in the case shows very clearly that the Okere village is an entirely separate and removed settlement from the land in dispute.” This statement proves that Okere was not in dispute. These are the facts of the case: - Okere village/community land was not litigated on. - The Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust were brought in by Court order because of the issue of radical title involved. - Since the defendants did not counter-claim, there was no challenge to the radical title. - It is Idimi-Sobo that is in the proceedings, not Okere Urhobo, not Okere Urhobo Clan, and not the Okere Urhobo Kingdom that it has progressively become. - The judgment vested no radical title in the Urhobo family but gave possessory right to occupy 281.1 acres of farmland, outside the Okere settlement. The Itsekiri won both possessory and radical ownership to almost all the lands in Warri - except the Okumagba avenue, where Okumagba won the possessory right, while the radical title still resides with the Olu. SC/309/74 was won by the Okumagba family against the Itsekiri. But it is clear that they won only a possessory title - hear the Supreme Court.. “The averments in the Plaintiff amended statement of claim was based on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments of the defendants’ statement of defense and evidence give a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership of land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants are not counter claim for title to land (SC 309/74). Emphasis for clarity! Since Okumagba did not counter claim to title, it means the title to the land still remains with the Olu, while the Okumagba family had only the possessory title. All the other cases within Warri -W/44/1941, W3/1949; W/44/1941; SC 93/98 and so many others gave both possessory and radical title to the Olu of Warri. Thus, from the legions of litigation, only the Itsekiri had both radial and possessory ownership to all the lands in the Warri minus Okumagba layout, where Olu has the radical title, but the Urhobo enclave in Okere had the possessry rights. Itsekiri’s are the owners of warri. By Lord_of_Warri on 𝕏 (Twitter).

@@agent6521 We will see how far this ur propaganda will take u. U think going under every comment to spill trash will save u and make people bliv ur lies?

@@emmanuelskilful2489 slaves that came to our lands wants to take it from us

​@@emmanuelskilful2489you're scared of being educated. Read the trash first let's see. You are the ones spreading lies.

Illiteracy seems to be a significant issue in urhobo enclaves of delta state. The Idudu vs Okumagba case is about a dispute over 218 acres of farmland, not ownership of Warri. Interestingly, even the farmland in question still recognizes the Olu of Warri's title to the land. It's surprising that some individuals from Urhobo, who were sent to Arise News, have continued to display illiteracy. Following some dispute, a case which finally got settled in the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC309/74 between Chief Ophisal Idudun and five others (for themselves and Ogitsi descendants of Okere, Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of the Olodi, Oki, and Ighogbadu family of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri) gave possessory title over 281.1 acres of farmland outside Okere to Daniel Okumagba and his kindred family. In fact, the judgment was specifically emphatic on the location of the farmland (page 12) thus: “I wish to make it clear that the evidence in the case shows very clearly that the Okere village is an entirely separate and removed settlement from the land in dispute.” This statement proves that Okere was not in dispute. These are the facts of the case: - Okere village/community land was not litigated on. - The Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust were brought in by Court order because of the issue of radical title involved. - Since the defendants did not counter-claim, there was no challenge to the radical title. - It is Idimi-Sobo that is in the proceedings, not Okere Urhobo, not Okere Urhobo Clan, and not the Okere Urhobo Kingdom that it has progressively become. - The judgment vested no radical title in the Urhobo family but gave possessory right to occupy 281.1 acres of farmland, outside the Okere settlement. The Itsekiri won both possessory and radical ownership to almost all the lands in Warri - except the Okumagba avenue, where Okumagba won the possessory right, while the radical title still resides with the Olu. SC/309/74 was won by the Okumagba family against the Itsekiri. But it is clear that they won only a possessory title - hear the Supreme Court.. “The averments in the Plaintiff amended statement of claim was based on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments of the defendants’ statement of defense and evidence give a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership of land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants are not counter claim for title to land (SC 309/74). Emphasis for clarity! Since Okumagba did not counter claim to title, it means the title to the land still remains with the Olu, while the Okumagba family had only the possessory title. All the other cases within Warri -W/44/1941, W3/1949; W/44/1941; SC 93/98 and so many others gave both possessory and radical title to the Olu of Warri. Thus, from the legions of litigation, only the Itsekiri had both radial and possessory ownership to all the lands in the Warri minus Okumagba layout, where Olu has the radical title, but the Urhobo enclave in Okere had the possessry rights. Itsekiri’s are the owners of warri. By Lord_of_Warri on 𝕏 (Twitter).

@@agent6521 Stop going everywhere propagating ur lies Itsekiris lives in d riverine areas not d main warri town and Itsekiris are far far minority in the entire warri area

@@agent6521 You are getting smaller and you don't leant. Soon Itsekiri will go into extinction. No sense to understand that Warri belongs to Urhobos and Ijaws. The constant struggle of Itsekiris to try get some part of Warri is what is shrinking Itsekiris till tomorrow. Almost all Itsekiri communities are gone. Imagine if Itsekiris were sensible to keep their king in Ode Itsekiri and use Chevron oil money to develop that place? Do you know what Itsekiri would have been today? Itsekiris lack common sense

@@agent6521 Why write all these many things here, come Arise tv you no gree come na comment section you won for form lawyer,

​@@emmanuelskilful2489Itsekiri owns Warri. Continue crying

@@AlaskaSL202 Illiteracy seems to be a significant issue in urhobo enclaves of delta state. The Idudu vs Okumagba case is about a dispute over 218 acres of farmland, not ownership of Warri. Interestingly, even the farmland in question still recognizes the Olu of Warri's title to the land. It's surprising that some individuals from Urhobo, who were sent to Arise News, have continued to display illiteracy. Following some dispute, a case which finally got settled in the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC309/74 between Chief Ophisal Idudun and five others (for themselves and Ogitsi descendants of Okere, Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of the Olodi, Oki, and Ighogbadu family of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri) gave possessory title over 281.1 acres of farmland outside Okere to Daniel Okumagba and his kindred family. In fact, the judgment was specifically emphatic on the location of the farmland (page 12) thus: “I wish to make it clear that the evidence in the case shows very clearly that the Okere village is an entirely separate and removed settlement from the land in dispute.” This statement proves that Okere was not in dispute. These are the facts of the case: - Okere village/community land was not litigated on. - The Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust were brought in by Court order because of the issue of radical title involved. - Since the defendants did not counter-claim, there was no challenge to the radical title. - It is Idimi-Sobo that is in the proceedings, not Okere Urhobo, not Okere Urhobo Clan, and not the Okere Urhobo Kingdom that it has progressively become. - The judgment vested no radical title in the Urhobo family but gave possessory right to occupy 281.1 acres of farmland, outside the Okere settlement. The Itsekiri won both possessory and radical ownership to almost all the lands in Warri - except the Okumagba avenue, where Okumagba won the possessory right, while the radical title still resides with the Olu. SC/309/74 was won by the Okumagba family against the Itsekiri. But it is clear that they won only a possessory title - hear the Supreme Court.. “The averments in the Plaintiff amended statement of claim was based on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments of the defendants’ statement of defense and evidence give a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership of land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants are not counter claim for title to land (SC 309/74). Emphasis for clarity! Since Okumagba did not counter claim to title, it means the title to the land still remains with the Olu, while the Okumagba family had only the possessory title. All the other cases within Warri -W/44/1941, W3/1949; W/44/1941; SC 93/98 and so many others gave both possessory and radical title to the Olu of Warri. Thus, from the legions of litigation, only the Itsekiri had both radial and possessory ownership to all the lands in the Warri minus Okumagba layout, where Olu has the radical title, but the Urhobo enclave in Okere had the possessry rights. Itsekiri’s are the owners of warri. By Lord_of_Warri on 𝕏 (Twitter).

@giwahakeem858 sorry you were scammed. You never asked them which Warri? Did you?

@@chineduvictortoby5124 Illiteracy seems to be a significant issue in urhobo enclaves of delta state. The Idudu vs Okumagba case is about a dispute over 218 acres of farmland, not ownership of Warri. Interestingly, even the farmland in question still recognizes the Olu of Warri's title to the land. It's surprising that some individuals from Urhobo, who were sent to Arise News, have continued to display illiteracy. Following some dispute, a case which finally got settled in the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC309/74 between Chief Ophisal Idudun and five others (for themselves and Ogitsi descendants of Okere, Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of the Olodi, Oki, and Ighogbadu family of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri) gave possessory title over 281.1 acres of farmland outside Okere to Daniel Okumagba and his kindred family. In fact, the judgment was specifically emphatic on the location of the farmland (page 12) thus: “I wish to make it clear that the evidence in the case shows very clearly that the Okere village is an entirely separate and removed settlement from the land in dispute.” This statement proves that Okere was not in dispute. These are the facts of the case: - Okere village/community land was not litigated on. - The Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust were brought in by Court order because of the issue of radical title involved. - Since the defendants did not counter-claim, there was no challenge to the radical title. - It is Idimi-Sobo that is in the proceedings, not Okere Urhobo, not Okere Urhobo Clan, and not the Okere Urhobo Kingdom that it has progressively become. - The judgment vested no radical title in the Urhobo family but gave possessory right to occupy 281.1 acres of farmland, outside the Okere settlement. The Itsekiri won both possessory and radical ownership to almost all the lands in Warri - except the Okumagba avenue, where Okumagba won the possessory right, while the radical title still resides with the Olu. SC/309/74 was won by the Okumagba family against the Itsekiri. But it is clear that they won only a possessory title - hear the Supreme Court.. “The averments in the Plaintiff amended statement of claim was based on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments of the defendants’ statement of defense and evidence give a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership of land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants are not counter claim for title to land (SC 309/74). Emphasis for clarity! Since Okumagba did not counter claim to title, it means the title to the land still remains with the Olu, while the Okumagba family had only the possessory title. All the other cases within Warri -W/44/1941, W3/1949; W/44/1941; SC 93/98 and so many others gave both possessory and radical title to the Olu of Warri. Thus, from the legions of litigation, only the Itsekiri had both radial and possessory ownership to all the lands in the Warri minus Okumagba layout, where Olu has the radical title, but the Urhobo enclave in Okere had the possessry rights. Itsekiri’s are the owners of warri. By Lord_of_Warri on 𝕏 (Twitter).

What it’s true please?

You are saying shit

Fact

Illiteracy seems to be a significant issue in urhobo enclaves of delta state. The Idudu vs Okumagba case is about a dispute over 218 acres of farmland, not ownership of Warri. Interestingly, even the farmland in question still recognizes the Olu of Warri's title to the land. It's surprising that some individuals from Urhobo, who were sent to Arise News, have continued to display illiteracy. Following some dispute, a case which finally got settled in the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC309/74 between Chief Ophisal Idudun and five others (for themselves and Ogitsi descendants of Okere, Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of the Olodi, Oki, and Ighogbadu family of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri) gave possessory title over 281.1 acres of farmland outside Okere to Daniel Okumagba and his kindred family. In fact, the judgment was specifically emphatic on the location of the farmland (page 12) thus: “I wish to make it clear that the evidence in the case shows very clearly that the Okere village is an entirely separate and removed settlement from the land in dispute.” This statement proves that Okere was not in dispute. These are the facts of the case: - Okere village/community land was not litigated on. - The Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust were brought in by Court order because of the issue of radical title involved. - Since the defendants did not counter-claim, there was no challenge to the radical title. - It is Idimi-Sobo that is in the proceedings, not Okere Urhobo, not Okere Urhobo Clan, and not the Okere Urhobo Kingdom that it has progressively become. - The judgment vested no radical title in the Urhobo family but gave possessory right to occupy 281.1 acres of farmland, outside the Okere settlement. The Itsekiri won both possessory and radical ownership to almost all the lands in Warri - except the Okumagba avenue, where Okumagba won the possessory right, while the radical title still resides with the Olu. SC/309/74 was won by the Okumagba family against the Itsekiri. But it is clear that they won only a possessory title - hear the Supreme Court.. “The averments in the Plaintiff amended statement of claim was based on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments of the defendants’ statement of defense and evidence give a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership of land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants are not counter claim for title to land (SC 309/74). Emphasis for clarity! Since Okumagba did not counter claim to title, it means the title to the land still remains with the Olu, while the Okumagba family had only the possessory title. All the other cases within Warri -W/44/1941, W3/1949; W/44/1941; SC 93/98 and so many others gave both possessory and radical title to the Olu of Warri. Thus, from the legions of litigation, only the Itsekiri had both radial and possessory ownership to all the lands in the Warri minus Okumagba layout, where Olu has the radical title, but the Urhobo enclave in Okere had the possessry rights. Itsekiri’s are the owners of warri. By Lord_of_Warri on 𝕏 (Twitter).

What about the Itsekiri?

@@Ikedaniel Itsekiris own Ode Itsekiri, a village in the sea, which they changed to Warri and then pretend it is same Warri as Warri Township

@@ck-sl3kt😂😂

@fatfarmers7360 Oga don't go there because Ginuwa lived and died at Ijala. He never stepped a foot on Warri Township. Unless you mean Ijala is the Warri Kingdom? I bet you did not know that Ginuwa also never reached even Ode Itsekiri which is the ancestral home of Itsekiris. Ginuwa never met Itsekiri people or even reached their town which is Ode Itsekiri. It was Ijijen who went to Ode Itsekiri and colonized the Itsekiri people and made himself their Olu. He lived and died there at Ode Itsekiri. Learn your history. If you mean Ode Itsekiri or Ijala is the Warri, then no one is disputing that with you. But don't bring your stupidity to Warri TOWNSHIP which is Urhobo and Ijaw town

Which history school you go 😂😂😂

@@ck-sl3kt Why are you people always claiming every "township" are as yours? What is it with land thieves and townships? Like Warri, Ijaws own nothing in Port Harcourt too. But they started claiming ownership of PH township after they stole Ibo houses in the area as "abandoned properties" after the civil war. You think say we no know? Warri township belongs to Itsekiri people only. If you want to own a township, go to Bayelsa and build one or simply forget it.

@@ezimdanielchukwunwike531 Nothing like Wurri don't be dvmb

Wado city

@@charlesdamijo4003 Illiteracy seems to be a significant issue in urhobo enclaves of delta state. The Idudu vs Okumagba case is about a dispute over 218 acres of farmland, not ownership of Warri. Interestingly, even the farmland in question still recognizes the Olu of Warri's title to the land. It's surprising that some individuals from Urhobo, who were sent to Arise News, have continued to display illiteracy. Following some dispute, a case which finally got settled in the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC309/74 between Chief Ophisal Idudun and five others (for themselves and Ogitsi descendants of Okere, Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of the Olodi, Oki, and Ighogbadu family of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri) gave possessory title over 281.1 acres of farmland outside Okere to Daniel Okumagba and his kindred family. In fact, the judgment was specifically emphatic on the location of the farmland (page 12) thus: “I wish to make it clear that the evidence in the case shows very clearly that the Okere village is an entirely separate and removed settlement from the land in dispute.” This statement proves that Okere was not in dispute. These are the facts of the case: - Okere village/community land was not litigated on. - The Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust were brought in by Court order because of the issue of radical title involved. - Since the defendants did not counter-claim, there was no challenge to the radical title. - It is Idimi-Sobo that is in the proceedings, not Okere Urhobo, not Okere Urhobo Clan, and not the Okere Urhobo Kingdom that it has progressively become. - The judgment vested no radical title in the Urhobo family but gave possessory right to occupy 281.1 acres of farmland, outside the Okere settlement. The Itsekiri won both possessory and radical ownership to almost all the lands in Warri - except the Okumagba avenue, where Okumagba won the possessory right, while the radical title still resides with the Olu. SC/309/74 was won by the Okumagba family against the Itsekiri. But it is clear that they won only a possessory title - hear the Supreme Court.. “The averments in the Plaintiff amended statement of claim was based on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments of the defendants’ statement of defense and evidence give a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership of land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants are not counter claim for title to land (SC 309/74). Emphasis for clarity! Since Okumagba did not counter claim to title, it means the title to the land still remains with the Olu, while the Okumagba family had only the possessory title. All the other cases within Warri -W/44/1941, W3/1949; W/44/1941; SC 93/98 and so many others gave both possessory and radical title to the Olu of Warri. Thus, from the legions of litigation, only the Itsekiri had both radial and possessory ownership to all the lands in the Warri minus Okumagba layout, where Olu has the radical title, but the Urhobo enclave in Okere had the possessry rights. Itsekiri’s are the owners of warri. By Lord_of_Warri on 𝕏 (Twitter).

@@Ikedaniel Illiteracy seems to be a significant issue in urhobo enclaves of delta state. The Idudu vs Okumagba case is about a dispute over 218 acres of farmland, not ownership of Warri. Interestingly, even the farmland in question still recognizes the Olu of Warri's title to the land. It's surprising that some individuals from Urhobo, who were sent to Arise News, have continued to display illiteracy. Following some dispute, a case which finally got settled in the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC309/74 between Chief Ophisal Idudun and five others (for themselves and Ogitsi descendants of Okere, Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of the Olodi, Oki, and Ighogbadu family of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri) gave possessory title over 281.1 acres of farmland outside Okere to Daniel Okumagba and his kindred family. In fact, the judgment was specifically emphatic on the location of the farmland (page 12) thus: “I wish to make it clear that the evidence in the case shows very clearly that the Okere village is an entirely separate and removed settlement from the land in dispute.” This statement proves that Okere was not in dispute. These are the facts of the case: - Okere village/community land was not litigated on. - The Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust were brought in by Court order because of the issue of radical title involved. - Since the defendants did not counter-claim, there was no challenge to the radical title. - It is Idimi-Sobo that is in the proceedings, not Okere Urhobo, not Okere Urhobo Clan, and not the Okere Urhobo Kingdom that it has progressively become. - The judgment vested no radical title in the Urhobo family but gave possessory right to occupy 281.1 acres of farmland, outside the Okere settlement. The Itsekiri won both possessory and radical ownership to almost all the lands in Warri - except the Okumagba avenue, where Okumagba won the possessory right, while the radical title still resides with the Olu. SC/309/74 was won by the Okumagba family against the Itsekiri. But it is clear that they won only a possessory title - hear the Supreme Court.. “The averments in the Plaintiff amended statement of claim was based on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments of the defendants’ statement of defense and evidence give a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership of land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants are not counter claim for title to land (SC 309/74). Emphasis for clarity! Since Okumagba did not counter claim to title, it means the title to the land still remains with the Olu, while the Okumagba family had only the possessory title. All the other cases within Warri -W/44/1941, W3/1949; W/44/1941; SC 93/98 and so many others gave both possessory and radical title to the Olu of Warri. Thus, from the legions of litigation, only the Itsekiri had both radial and possessory ownership to all the lands in the Warri minus Okumagba layout, where Olu has the radical title, but the Urhobo enclave in Okere had the possessry rights. Itsekiri’s are the owners of warri. By Lord_of_Warri on 𝕏 (Twitter).

Because they are not up to a million in Delta state

James ibori and Emmanuel oduaghan

They play with your head, you hear ?​@@AlaskaSL202

Dr. Emmanuel Eweta Uduaghan is a itsekiri man the worst governor in Delta State a governor that said is archivement in 8 years in Delta state is to make pregnant women born in hospital 🏥 .then we have okowa the biggest Thief after ibori this Thief that was arrested

​@@jahmanonah-nq2otUduaghan is from Itsekiri while ibori is Uhrobo. Okows is Anioma and the present ,SHERIFFF is Uhrobo. What about Ijaws. ??

Not true sir. Ijaws own the Warri GRA area

@@Godslove535 Bro, Any proof? I ask because nobody believes Ijaw land claims anymore. The reason is that they want to own everything in the coastal areas and hem everyone else in whether Itsekiri, Urhobo, Bini, Igbo, Ibibio, Yoruba etc. and I want to know why. This behaviour is what wrecked Warri and was responsible for the abandonment of Port Harcourt seaport by importers after the war. The concept of live and let live seems completely alien to them wherever you find them. I am yet to see any thriving city built by them anywhere, but they are quick to claim part-ownership leading to internecine struggles.

Ndi biafla face your Front.

@@Nengit Off point. Prove that Ijaws own even one square inch of Urhobo/Itsekiri land called Warri and I will sell you a bridge. As for Biafra, forget it mate, hell will freeze over before Ijaws are admitted into Biafra. This is not 1967 you know and this time around, your application to join will be totally rejected. Who wants work shy, cantankerous trouble makers reaping where they did not sow, no thanks?

Sut up! What is the meaning of Ogbe-Ijoh? Who named the place? If you learn to know the history behind the name, then you will understand why the man said Itsekiri and Ijaw own Warri TOWNSHIP!

@oneserosanigbiaye5870 No Itsekiri in Warri TOWNSHIP! Take note! That Itsekiris change the name of their village from Ode Itsekiri to Warri is their own cup of tea!

@@oneserosanigbiaye5870 Illiteracy seems to be a significant issue in urhobo enclaves of delta state. The Idudu vs Okumagba case is about a dispute over 218 acres of farmland, not ownership of Warri. Interestingly, even the farmland in question still recognizes the Olu of Warri's title to the land. It's surprising that some individuals from Urhobo, who were sent to Arise News, have continued to display illiteracy. Following some dispute, a case which finally got settled in the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC309/74 between Chief Ophisal Idudun and five others (for themselves and Ogitsi descendants of Okere, Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of the Olodi, Oki, and Ighogbadu family of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri) gave possessory title over 281.1 acres of farmland outside Okere to Daniel Okumagba and his kindred family. In fact, the judgment was specifically emphatic on the location of the farmland (page 12) thus: “I wish to make it clear that the evidence in the case shows very clearly that the Okere village is an entirely separate and removed settlement from the land in dispute.” This statement proves that Okere was not in dispute. These are the facts of the case: - Okere village/community land was not litigated on. - The Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust were brought in by Court order because of the issue of radical title involved. - Since the defendants did not counter-claim, there was no challenge to the radical title. - It is Idimi-Sobo that is in the proceedings, not Okere Urhobo, not Okere Urhobo Clan, and not the Okere Urhobo Kingdom that it has progressively become. - The judgment vested no radical title in the Urhobo family but gave possessory right to occupy 281.1 acres of farmland, outside the Okere settlement. The Itsekiri won both possessory and radical ownership to almost all the lands in Warri - except the Okumagba avenue, where Okumagba won the possessory right, while the radical title still resides with the Olu. SC/309/74 was won by the Okumagba family against the Itsekiri. But it is clear that they won only a possessory title - hear the Supreme Court.. “The averments in the Plaintiff amended statement of claim was based on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments of the defendants’ statement of defense and evidence give a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership of land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants are not counter claim for title to land (SC 309/74). Emphasis for clarity! Since Okumagba did not counter claim to title, it means the title to the land still remains with the Olu, while the Okumagba family had only the possessory title. All the other cases within Warri -W/44/1941, W3/1949; W/44/1941; SC 93/98 and so many others gave both possessory and radical title to the Olu of Warri. Thus, from the legions of litigation, only the Itsekiri had both radial and possessory ownership to all the lands in the Warri minus Okumagba layout, where Olu has the radical title, but the Urhobo enclave in Okere had the possessry rights. Itsekiri’s are the owners of warri. By Lord_of_Warri on 𝕏 (Twitter).

@@ck-sl3kt you are a big mumu itsekiri has 20 communities in Warri township 😂

@@agent6521 In which Warri Township? Please name the Itsekiri towns that are inside the Warri TOWNSHIP! I dare you!

​@@agent6521what are you saying the full warri is very hard to see itsekiri house in warri how can you say yuroba people have land in warri itsekiri is Yoruba

@@emmanuelskilful2489 Illiteracy seems to be a significant issue in urhobo enclaves of delta state. The Idudu vs Okumagba case is about a dispute over 218 acres of farmland, not ownership of Warri. Interestingly, even the farmland in question still recognizes the Olu of Warri's title to the land. It's surprising that some individuals from Urhobo, who were sent to Arise News, have continued to display illiteracy. Following some dispute, a case which finally got settled in the Supreme Court as Suit No. SC309/74 between Chief Ophisal Idudun and five others (for themselves and Ogitsi descendants of Okere, Warri) and Daniel Okumagba (for himself and on behalf of the Olodi, Oki, and Ighogbadu family of Idimisobo, Okere, Warri) gave possessory title over 281.1 acres of farmland outside Okere to Daniel Okumagba and his kindred family. In fact, the judgment was specifically emphatic on the location of the farmland (page 12) thus: “I wish to make it clear that the evidence in the case shows very clearly that the Okere village is an entirely separate and removed settlement from the land in dispute.” This statement proves that Okere was not in dispute. These are the facts of the case: - Okere village/community land was not litigated on. - The Olu of Warri and the Itsekiri Communal Land Trust were brought in by Court order because of the issue of radical title involved. - Since the defendants did not counter-claim, there was no challenge to the radical title. - It is Idimi-Sobo that is in the proceedings, not Okere Urhobo, not Okere Urhobo Clan, and not the Okere Urhobo Kingdom that it has progressively become. - The judgment vested no radical title in the Urhobo family but gave possessory right to occupy 281.1 acres of farmland, outside the Okere settlement. The Itsekiri won both possessory and radical ownership to almost all the lands in Warri - except the Okumagba avenue, where Okumagba won the possessory right, while the radical title still resides with the Olu. SC/309/74 was won by the Okumagba family against the Itsekiri. But it is clear that they won only a possessory title - hear the Supreme Court.. “The averments in the Plaintiff amended statement of claim was based on traditional evidence and partly on acts of ownership. The averments of the defendants’ statement of defense and evidence give a completely different version of the traditional evidence. The defendants also testified as to their acts of ownership of land in dispute. It must be pointed out at this stage that the defendants are not counter claim for title to land (SC 309/74). Emphasis for clarity! Since Okumagba did not counter claim to title, it means the title to the land still remains with the Olu, while the Okumagba family had only the possessory title. All the other cases within Warri -W/44/1941, W3/1949; W/44/1941; SC 93/98 and so many others gave both possessory and radical title to the Olu of Warri. Thus, from the legions of litigation, only the Itsekiri had both radial and possessory ownership to all the lands in the Warri minus Okumagba layout, where Olu has the radical title, but the Urhobo enclave in Okere had the possessry rights. Itsekiri’s are the owners of warri. By Lord_of_Warri on 𝕏 (Twitter).