Dumbili Nwadiajuebowe V. Col. C. D. Nwawo (Rtd.) & Ors (2003)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal by the 4th defendant/appellant against the ruling of Hon. Justice M. C. U. Odita sitting in the Asaba High Court of Delta State in suit No. A/115/95. Therein, the plaintiffs claimed as follows in the writ of summons:

A. A declaration that Onicha-Olona is a chiefly society and the Obiship stool of Onicha-Olona vested in Ogbe-Obi based on rotational succession (by selection among the Royal Houses (Ebos) of Idumu Ogbele, Ugbe/Ikpase, Idumu lyi and Ozo-Alumona based on a democratic rulership showing structure and kindred that have, under Onicha-Olona customary law, remained intact and of consanguinary affinity.

B. A declaration that a hereditary system of primogeniture is alien to Onicha-Olona custom, culture and tradition.

C. A declaration that the Okpalabuisi system signifies gerontocracy which emerged from the development of the Ichi Nmo that produced Nkpalor class is an indicum of the criterion for the selection and appointment of Nze Ogbe to terminate as Onihe next to the Obi of Onicha-Olona vis-a-vis the Onicha-Olona royal stool.

D. Restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants by perpetual injunction from selecting, appointing, approval of  appointment, recognising, installing and grading of the 4th, 5th and 6th defendants and their servants, agents, privies of house ever as Obi of Onicha-Olona.

By a motion of notice dated the 12th of September, 1996, the plaintiffs, as applicants prayed for an order for interlocutory injunction –
(i) restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants/respondents from selecting, appointing, approval of appointment, recognizing, installing and grading of the 4th, 5th and 6th defendants and their servants, agents, privies or howsoever as Obi of Onicha-Olona, pending the determination of the suit.

(ii) restraining in particular, the 4th defendant/respondent, now appellant by interlocutory injunction from holding himself out or parading himself as the Obi of Onicha-Olona or acting or behaving as the Traditional ruler of Onicha-Olona or the people of Onicha-Olona, or permitting himself to be called or addressed or greeted Doh-Baa (as contained in DSLN No.6 of 1996 but which greeting is alien to Onicha-Olona customary law) or exercising the functions, powers, duties, rights and responsibilities of an Obi of Onicha-Olona, pending the determination of the suit.

After arguments by counsel for the parties, the lower court granted the injunctive orders sought on 30/1/97. The learned trial Judge held as follows-
Accordingly, I hereby grant the application and order of interlocutory injunction as follows:
(i) restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants/respondents, from selecting, appointing, approval of appointment, recognizing, installing and grading of the 4th, 5th and 6th defendants/respondents and their servants, agents, privies or howsoever as Obi of Onicha-Olona, pending the determination of the suit.

(ii) restraining in particular the 4th defendant/respondent from holding himself out or parading himself as the Obi of Onicha-Olona or acting or behaving as the Traditional ruler of Onicha-Olona or permitting himself to be called or addressed or greeted Doh-Baa (contained in DSLN No.6 of 1996 but which greeting is alien to Onicha-Olona customary law) or exercising the functions, powers, duties, rights and responsibilities of as Obi of Onicha-Olona pending the determination of this suit

It is against this ruling that the appellant has appealed to this court on four grounds of appeal. The grounds without their particulars are as follows:
1) The learned trial Judge erred in law when he restrained the 1st, 2nd & 3rd defendants/respondents from selecting, appointing, approval of appointment, recognising, installing and grading of the appellant as Obi of Onicha-Olona pending the determination of the suit, when the acts complained of by the plaintiffs/applicants have been completed or carried out.

2) The learned trial Judge erred in law in granting the application for interlocutory injunction when there were no materials by way of affidavit evidence as to what irreparable loss or damage, the plaintiffs’ would suffer if the said injunction was not granted.

3) The learned trial Judge erred in law in granting the injunction when the balance of convenience is on the side of the 4th defendant/appellant.

4) The learned trial Judge erred in law when he granted the application for injunction, when the plaintiffs/applicants’ had no locus standi to institute same.