Chief L.O.K. Bob-manuel & Ors V. Chief A.b. Briggs & Ors (2003)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

O. UWAIFO, J.S.C. 

The respondents, Briggs (Oruwari) House, were the plaintiffs at the trial court. From their statement of claim, they aver that they represent one of the four main autonomous groups of Houses in Abonnema town in Rivers State. The three others are Jack (Iju) House, Georgewill (Otayi) Group of Houses and Manuel (Owukori) Group of Houses. The town of Abonnema had been governed, and remains so, by the consensus of the four paramount chiefs representing the four Houses as their heads respectively. The stools of Briggs, Jack, Georgewill and Manuel were created and made heads and paramount chiefs of their respective War-Canoe Houses many years before the founding of Abonnema on 16 June, 1881. The above-stated facts are contained in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the statement of claim.

The respondents then further narrated what appears to be the cause of action which led to the present suit. The volume of the pleadings of both parties as contained in the statement of claim, the statement of defence and reply by the plaintiffs is quite substantial. The relevant averments in the statement of claim for the purposes of this appeal go as follows:

“11. The first defendant was elected to succeed late Chief Clement I. G. Bob-Manuel who was on the stool of Manuel (Owukori) group of Houses of Abonnema.

12. The presentation of the first defendant by the defendants to the Abonnema Council of Chiefs and the Abonnema Community, and his installation were scheduled to be on 24th December, 1988, and invitation cards were printed and distributed to invitees.
13. The said invitation cards from the defendants contained words and inscriptions which described and styled the first defendant as ‘H.R.H the Amayanabo of Abonnema.’ The said invitation card will be founded upon at the hearing of this Suit.
14. When the Chiefs of the Briggs House received the said invitation card the interpolation thereon ascribing the first defendant as ‘H.R.H. the Amayanabo of Abonnema’ was observed, and promptly, a protest letter dated 20th December, 1988 addressed to the 2nd defendant and copied to the Secretary, Abonnema Council of Chiefs, Abonnema, was sent and delivered to the defendants.
15. In that letter referred to above, the plaintiffs pointed out to the defendants that there was no royal family in Abonnema and that the town was administered jointly by the consensus (sic)of the four equal and paramount Heads. That since the Rivers State Government has set up a panel for the Reclassification of Chiefs, the defendants’ action was calculated to pre-empt Government decision. The plaintiffs will rely on the said letter at the trial and NOTICE is hereby given to the defendants and Chief W. K. Bob-Manuel in particular who is the Secretary of the Chiefs Council to produce the original at the trial.
16. The defendants replied by a letter dated 20th December, 1988 that they were going to install a new Amayanabo and nothing short on 24th December, 1988. The plaintiffs shall rely on the said letter.
17. In order to foist an unconstitutional innovation on Abonnema which was quite anathema to Kalabari custom and constitution and Abonnema in particular, the defendants printed a special brochure entitled ‘Coronation of Chief Lawrence Opubenibo Karibi Bob-Manuel as the Head of the Manuel (Owukori) Group of Houses and Amayanabo of Abonnema Saturday, 24th December, 1988’.
18. In the said printed special brochure, the defendants falsified the histories of Abonnema and Kalabari. The said brochure will be relied upon at the hearing of this Suit.
19. The four groups of houses as stated above in paragraph are equal in status and not subject to one another except to the Amayanabo of Kalabari to whom all Kalabari (including Abonnema) owe allegiance.”

Based essentially on the above averments which show the nature of the grievance, the respondents claimed as follows:

“1. Declaration that there had never been a title known as ‘H.R.H. The Amayanabo of Abonnema’ from the founding of Abonnema in 1881 till date.

2. Declaration that the purported installation of Chief Lawrence Opubenibo Karibi Bob-Manuel as ‘H.R.H. The Amayanabo of Abonnema’ on the 24th December, 1988 is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. A perpetual injunction restraining Chief Lawrence Opubenibo Karibi Bob-Manuel from parading himself as ‘H.R.H. The Amayanabo of Abonnema’ and the defendants, their servants, agents and supporters from calling or styling the 1st defendant as such.

4 Declaration that the Briggs (Oruwari) House founded the town of Abonnema and the first settlers, and on merit and of right, best qualified to produce the ‘Amadabo’ or ‘Amayabo’ of Abonnema.”

The appellants as defendants responded to some of the averments above in a manner to join issue with the respondents on the very vital matter over which they seek reliefs. Apart from joining issue in regard to paragraphs 8, 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 and 19 of the statement of claim, the appellants pleaded in paragraph 9(i) of their statement of defence –

“Even though Abonnema comprises 4 main autonomous groups there is selected from amongst them a leader known as the Amayanabo but later retitled Amadabo. That person has always come from the Manuel house and no other. Automatically the Amayanabo stool also takes precedence in anything in Abonnema. After the Amayanabo stool comes Briggs (Oruwari), followed by Georgewill before Jack. This order of precedence has always been observed since the founding of Abonnema, and it is so known throughout Kalabari land.”

It would appear that at least the issues whether in Abonnema the stool is Amayanabo or Amadabo, whether Bob-Manuel House takes precedence over others and occupy the stool perpetually as of right and whether the stool of Amadabo is occupied by consensus of the four Houses.

But the appellants brought a motion to have the case dismissed or struck out principally, from the argument, on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it because

(a) The Abonnema Chieftaincy stool matter was concluded before the 1979 Constitution came into being,

(b) The Rivers State Chieftaincy Edict, 1978, section 18, ousted the jurisdiction of the court by virtue of the relevant provision in the 1963 Constitution in regard to matters pertaining to recognised chieftaincy; and

(c) The controversy over the stool in Abonnema arose before the 1979 Constitution came into operation with no retrospective effect to alter the consequences of what had taken place. On 21 April, 1994, Ungbuku, C.J. granted the motion and struck out the suit on the basis that the court lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine it. The Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division set aside the decision of the trial court on the ground that the ouster clause in the 1978 Edict ceased to have effect at the inception of the 1979 Constitution.