Abdullai Idris Oseku & Ors. V. The Minister Federal Capital Territory, Abuja & Ors. (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MARY U. PETER-ODILI, J.C.A.

The Plaintiff now Appellant took out a writ of summons against the Defendant/Respondent and claimed as follows as per the statement of claim:-

i. A declaration that the Kiba clan is one of the Ruling Houses in Abaji and are therefore entitled to aspire to the throne of Onah of Abaji and in particular entitled to participate in all the rites, necessary and customary to the nomination, selection and installation of whosoever occupies the throne of Onah of Abaji.

ii. A declaration that after the death of Alhaji Abdulahi Salihu on the 16th of February 1994, the Kiba Ruling House has a duty to present a prince for the consideration of the king makers as one of the Ruling Houses entitled to occupy the throne of Onah of Abaji.

iii. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, agents, successor, privies, nominees, assigns from nominating, appointing or turbaning any new or other Onah of Abaji without reference to or the consent of the Kiba Ruling House in accordance with the custom and tradition of Abaji.

Pleadings were exchanged, trial was heard and judgment given on the 21st of March 1996 dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim. Dissatisfied with the judgment and Order of I. H. Gummi J. (as he then was), the Plaintiffs have appealed to the Court of Appeal in the terms of the Notice of Appeal.

FACTS:-

From the Amended Statement of claim can be seen some of the averments of the Plaintiffs/Appellants that the plaintiffs are indigenes of Abaji of Gana Gana extraction, members of the Kiba Ruling House and resident at Abaji. That the 1st Defendant is the Minister in charge of Abuja with the power to approve and recognize the nominee to occupy the office of Ona of Abaji. Also stated that the 2nd defendant is the Head of Abaji Area Council, expected to attend the meeting at which an Ona is nominated and he would forward such recommendation to the 1st Defendant for approval.

That the 3rd to 5th Defendants are representatives of the three other ruling houses of Abaji being Ogede, Anuku and Adegema while the 6th Defendant is the Head of the kingmakers of Abaji. The Plaintiffs contended that they are members of the Kiba Ruling House of Abaji, as such they are entitled to participate in all the rites, meetings and deliberations that will lead to the nomination, selection and installation of any person as the Ona of Abaji. That with the demise of the last Ona from Anuku House, the Kiba Ruling House having been neglected for a very long time it is now their turn to present a prince for the vacant stool as Ona of Abaji.

The Plaintiffs further stated in pleadings that the first settlers in Abaji were the Ogede people, then Anuku, then Adegema and followed by kiba. That these four settlers agreed to have a leadership to protect their interests at all times and in the process set up the throne of Ona of Abaji and it was made rotational among the settlers. That when the Abaji people were attacked in war the Igbirras that is the ancestors of the third and fifth Defendants ran away and only the Hausa successfully resisted the invaders and were thus allowed to rule on two consecutive occasions. That their role as Ruling House had been established in the way materials were shared in Abaji in four equal parts to the four ruling House by Government. That there were documents to prove these assertions of theirs.

In their own version the 3rd – 6th Defendants asserted that there is no Ruling House known and styled or called Kiba Ruling House as the only Ruling Houses in Abaji are Ogede, Anuku and Adegema. That the stool of the Ona of Abaji is the exclusive preserve of the Egurras (Igwirra) only, a tribe to which the kiba or plaintiffs do not belong. That ascension to the stool or Ona of Abaji rotates between the three known Ruling Houses of Ogede Anuku and Adegema Ruling Houses in that order of seniority. Also that the Kibas not being members of any ruling house have no portion of land over which they exercise control as done by the three ruling houses. They further averred that Disa was the first Kiba settler who was conferred with the title of Yatsun only by then Ona because Disa being a very good blacksmith as most of the Kibas manufactured weapons which were used by the Egbura people of Abaji to fight wars and Disa was never an Ona. That Abaji has 7 kingmakers and not 8 as contended by the plaintiffs. That Kiba, not being a Ruling House is not entitled to the throne and as such cannot present a prince for enthronement. They further asserted that Atanze became Ona because his mother was a princess from Adegema Ruling House whose turn at the time it was to produce the next Ona and Adegema not having a competent or qualified prince or male child to occupy the stool of Ona and as is customary with the Egbura people not only of Abaji, the mother of Atanze who came from Adegema Ruling clan/house was given the opportunity to bring her son to be the Ona. That Atanze was appointed Ona on the understanding that when the rightful person comes, he (Atanze) would relinquish the office of Ona. That with Atanze operating in a callous way and maltreating people he was removed after three months and Tukura, the rightful person was appointed the next Ona.

The Appellants brief was filed on 15/8/98 and they formulated eight issues for determination which are as follows:-

1. What is the proper interpretation of the rules in Kojo v. Bonsie, Momodu v. Ojemen as it relates to this appeal.
2. Where contradictory evidence is given as to a particular set of facts which of them is to be relied on? Oreana court believe a witness who has given contradictory evidence on any other matter.
3. Is Exhibit P1 worthless? If not what is its proper role in this matter?
4. Whether the fact that a custom has been breached can ground a finding that it does not exist.
5. Whether or not Kiba ruling House is an existing ruling House in Abaji on the state of the evidence before the trial court.
6. Can a Judge rely on evidence not pleaded to arrive at a decision?
7. Can a trial Judge reach a conclusion without giving reason (5) for such decision?
8. What is the degree and type of evidence required to ground a declaration as to an existing customary rule or law.

The 1st Respondent in their Brief of Argument filed on 26/9/01 and deemed filed on the same day adopted the issues raised by the Appellants. The 2nd Respondent in their brief filed on 26/2/02 and deemed filed on 4/6/02 adopted the issues as framed by the Appellant. The 3rd – 6th Respondents Brief was filed on 5/2/01 and deemed filed on 26/2/01 and deemed filed on 26/9/01 also adopted the issues as distilled by the Appellant. There is no gainsaying that I would utilise the issues as framed by the Appellant.

ISSUE NO 1 &. 2