Daniel J. Matinja & Ors. V. The Military Administrator, Plateau State & Ors. (1998)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

EDOZIE, J.C.A. 

This appeal stemmed from the dispute over the selection of a successor to the Ogoma Pangana which is the stool of a chiefdom comprising three communities, viz., Amo, Buji and Jere communities in Bassa Local Government Area of Plateau Slate. The stool became vacant following the death on 19/4/93 of the last incumbent Mallam Akinfa Kaduwa. In an election exercise conducted on 19/11/93, Bawa Samba (5th defendant/respondent) from Amo was selected the successor. Thereafter, a set of 15 persons from Jere community after obtaining the leave of the court below to sue for themselves and as representatives of the Jere community on 17/8/94 commenced an action before the Plateau State High Court, Jos in suit No. PLD/194/94 against the respondents herein as defendants challenging the validity and legality of the election of the successor and the Legal Notice No.5 of 1991 on the strength of which the selection was made. In their reaction, the defendants/respondents raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the plaintiffs in that suit had no locus standi and that the action was incompetent. The objection was heard by Naron J, who in a ruling delivered on 22/9/95 upheld the objection and accordingly struck out the action.

Thereupon, another set of people from the same Jere community herein appellants as plaintiffs commenced another action viz suit No. PLD/J641/95 culminating in this appeal. The action was against the respondents herein as defendants in which they (appellants) also challenged the validity and legality of the selection of a successor to the Ogomo Pangana and the validity of the instrument of the selection. As adumbrated in their statement of claim, they sought for the following reliefs:

(a) A declaration that the Plateau State Legal Notice of 1991 – the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law Cap 20) is a nullity and of no effect whatsoever as the plaintiffs who are substantially affected by the operation of the said Gazette were neither party to its codification nor was their consent thereto obtained, hence the name was not made according to law.

(b) A further declaration that the selection of Mr. Bawa Sambo, i.e. the fifth defendant, having been done contrary to the valid custom, tradition and unwritten constitution of the Pangana chiefdom was illegal, unconstitutional null and of no effect whatsoever.

(c) A further declaration that pursuant to the unwritten constitution, tradition and custom of the Pangana chiefdom it is the right and turn of the plaintiffs in accordance with customary principles of rotation of the stool of Ogomo Pangana applicable in the chiefdom to produce a qualified candidate for the immediate ascension of the throne of the Ogomo Pangana.

Alternatively

An order directing the first, second and third defendant herein to set in motion a machinery for the selection and installation of a new Ogomo Pangana in accordance with the relevant laws, customs and tradition of the chiefdom.”

The defendants/respondents in response filed a joint statement of defence dated 19/1/96 followed by a notice of preliminary objection dated 23/1/96 praying for the dismissal of the plaintiffs’/appellants’ suit on the following grounds.

“1. That the plaintiffs did not comply with a statutorily mandatory condition precedent before bringing this action against the 3rd defendant.

2. The plaintiffs lack the locus standi to institute and maintain this suit.
3. That the plaintiffs are estopped from relitigating on the subject matter of this suit same having been litigated upon by the same parties before a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction and no appeal has been lodged against the court’s decision which, consequently, is still valid, subsisting and binding on the parties.”

In support or the notice of objection, one Joseph Gosim a litigation clerk in the Ministry of Justice, Jos swore to an affidavit of eight paragraphs.

While the notice of preliminary objection was still pending, the plaintiffs/appellants by a motion on notice dated 30/1/96 prayed the court for an order or orders, to wit.

“(a) Granting applicants leave to amend their joint statement of claim as per the amended copy of the same attached to the affidavit and marked Exhibit ‘A’ and to deem same as duly filed and served.”

An affidavit of 8 paragraphs in support of the motion to amend the statement of claim was sworn to by Limah Mamman, as administrative secretary in the law firm of Solomon Umoh Esq, counsel to the plaintiffs/appellants, On 26/2/96, both the plaintiffs/appellants’ motion for amendment and the defendants/respondents’ notice of preliminary objection came up for hearing before Ahinche J. As to what transpired in court, the minutes of the proceedings read thus: