Azaki Padawa & Ors V. Agmada Jatau (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUHAMMAD, J.C.A. 

The plaintiff was suing for himself and on behalf of the Jatau family of the Kabulu (Zangniyi) Ruling House of New Kulo village. His claim before the trial court (Nasarawa State High Court of Justice holden at Keffi) were stated as per paragraph 21 of the statement of claim.

They read as follows:

“WHEREOF the plaintiff for himself and on behalf of the Jatau Family of Kabulu (Zangniyi) Ruling House of New Kula claims against the defendant jointly and severally:

A. A Declaration:

i. That the Kabulu (Zangniyi) Ruling House of New Kulo is the rightful Ruling House to present a chieftaincy candidate for the New Kulo Village and not the Galla (Zakwoyi) Ruling House;

ii. That Awyebwi Jatau of the family of the Kabulu (Zangniyi) Ruling House is the rightful chief (Ward Head) of New Kulo Village, having been selected and installed in accordance with the custom and tradition of the people of Kulo;

iii. That the subsequent purported selection and installation of the 1st defendant is wrongful, contrary to the custom and tradition of the Kulo people and therefore null, void, and of no effect;

iv. That the correspondents (letter) of the Toto Local Government Council dated the 21st day of May, 1992, which in effect supports the 1st defendant is ill-founded, erroneous, null, and of no effect;

v. That the decision of the 11th defendant in support of the 1st defendant is ill-founded, baseless, erroneous, null, void and of no effect;

B. A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st to the 9th defendants by themselves and as representatives of the Galla (Zakwoyi) Ruling House, the 10th and 11th defendants, their servants, subordinates, agents, privies, representatives and all or any body or bodies claiming to act for and on their behalf from portraying the 1st defendant as chief of New Kulo Village of Toto Local Government Areas, Plateau State.”

The case was filed against the defendants. The record of appeal shows that two of the defendants died leaving nine of them. Toto Local Government and Toto Traditional Council became the 8th and 9th defendants who, hitherto, appeared as numbers 10 and 11 respectively, on the writ of summons. In course of the proceedings, learned Counsel for the 8th and 9th defendants on the 28th day of October, 1997, told the trial court (orally) that he had a very short application in which he prays as follows:

“We have made concerted effort to be briefed by our client such efforts yielded no result. In the circumstances, we have no option than to withdraw from the matter. This is even moreso that we have not even filed a memorandum of appearance in the matter.”

The trial court obliged him in the following words: