Chief P. D. Inoma-biriya & Ors. V. Chief C.A.B. Omoni & Anor (1989)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KOLAWOLE, J.C.A. 

The appellants who were the plaintiffs at the Rivers State High Court in the Degema Judicial Division instituted this action against the defendants, the respondents in this appeal on November 12th,1985.

They claimed jointly and severally for:

(1) A declaration that the first defendant has ceased to be Amadabo of Ke with effect from March, 1980 and the Amadabo stool of Ke is now vacant.

(2) A perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from parading himself, or performing any function as the Amadabo of Ke.

(3) A perpetual injunction restraining the Government of the Rivers State from continued recognition of the first defendant as the Amadabo of Ke.

The plaintiffs and the second defendant filed their respective pleadings.

In paragraph 4 of the statement of defence of the second defendant, the Attorney-General of Rivers State of Nigeria, it was averred that:

“4. The 2nd defendant in further answer to all the claims of the plaintiffs will at or before the hearing of this suit raise by way of preliminary objection on a point of law the issue that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit by virtue of the provisions of the Chieftaincy Edict No.5 of 1978 particularly Section 18.”

Learned counsel for the first defendant, Chief Ruskin Jamabo, filed a motion under Order 29 rule 1 of the High Court Rules of Eastern Nigeria then applicable in the Rivers State on 5 May, 1985 praying that the suit be struck out for want of jurisdiction. Order 29 rule 1 provides that-

“Where a defendant conceives that he has a good legal or equitable defence to the suit, so that even if the allegations of the plaintiff were admitted or established, yet the plaintiff would not be entitled to any decree against the defendant, he may raise this defence by a motion that the suit be dismissed without any answer upon questions of fact being required from him.”

The objection and reply of Chief Jamabo and Mr. Peter-Kio respectively were taken on October 29, 1986. At the end of the arguments, the learned trial Judge, OPENE, J., adjourned to enable the office of the Attorney-General appear to address the court on the very important legal point on the ouster of the jurisdiction of the High Court by virtue of the provisions of section 18 of the Chieftaincy Edict No.5 of 1978.

Mr. Dick-Harry, a state counsel from the Ministry of Justice in the Rivers State, duly appeared at the invitation of the learned Judge on November 17th, 1986. He, like Chief Jamabo, submitted that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case pursuant to section 18 of the Chieftaincy Edict No.5 of 1978 because the cause of action arose in 1978 when Government recognized the first defendant.

The first defendant tendered Exhibit “A” the certificate of recognition of the first defendant by the Rivers State Government dated April 15th, 1979 to support his contention that the cause of action arose before the 1979 Constitution. Mr. Peter-Kio, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, contended however that the cause of action related to the misdeeds of the first defendant which arose between February 1980 and February 1982.