Prince Nwamunamma Ifeanyi Onyejekwe V. Nnanyelugo Fred Achebe Akunwata Fred Enweonwu & Ors (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

VICTOR AIMEPOMO O. OMAGE, J.C.A.

In this appeal against the judgment of P.N.C. Umeadi J. delivered on 29/4/2005, the court ruled thus “though no notice of discontinuance was found in the court’s file, inspite of that the court ruled that he is of the view that the suit was actually discontinued, and he could not explain how the notice took wings and flew.”

The ruling followed the content by affidavit evidence before the court below in which the applicant/appellant deposed that he did not file a notice of discontinuance of Suit NO.0/287/2002. He said no notice of discontinuance was filed by him on behalf of his client and none was served on the defendant/respondent. That the only document he filed on 19/6/02 was a notice to produce in the said suit. The respondents, 1, 3 to 12 insist that the appellant filed a notice of discontinuance on 19/6/02 to discontinue the suit against them that at the Government House at Awka, the plaintiff’s counsel in the presence of the plaintiff so informed the gathering. The respondents averred that the said notice of discontinuance was attached to the originating summons filed by one Amalunweze Odukwe, which said notice was attached to the said originating summons, saying it is because the appellant’s claim was discontinued that Amalunweze filed his own claim against the same respondent, Obi of Onitsha and other.

It is noteworthy to observe that none of the Respondents in suit No. 0/287/2002 said he was served by the bailiff of the court, of the notice of discontinuance and received the alleged notice of discontinuance. The learned trial court did not in his judgment asked for proof of service.

In the court below the plaintiff had issued a writ of summons in which he claimed the following:

(a) A declaration that the plaintiff Prince Nwamunamma Charles Ifeanyi Onyejekwe is the rightful Obi elect of Onitsha.

(b) A declaration that the selection of the 1st defendant as Obi of Onitsha is null and void, and of no effect whatsoever being in breach of custom and tradition of Onitsha and against the principles of fairness and equity.

(c) A declaration that the 1st defendant has not performed his father’s funeral rites in accordance with Onitsha custom and tradition his father being an Ozo titled man. Ozo being a traditional socio religious institution and as such his father is still alive in accordance with custom which fact disqualifies him from been an obiship aspirant.

(d) A declaration that the descendants of Oreobi who constitute Ogbendida ward of Umuezearoli Village Onitsha are precluded from producing Obi of Onitsha by reason of atrocious act of one of them Enendu a long time ago with their active support and connivance which resulted in a ban placed on them by the entire Onitsha community after which an oath was taken to solemnize it.

(e) An order setting aside the purported coronation rites performed by the 1st defendant as being a breach of Onitsha Custom and tradition.

(f) An order setting aside the purported installation of the Obi of Onitsha.

(g) A declaration that the 2nd defendant having neither been accepted nor approved by the Umuezechima Dynasty is not eligible to be Obi of Onitsha.

(h) An order compelling the 3rd to 11th Defendants to present the plaintiff to the 12th defendant for the purpose of coronation rites at Udo shrine and compelling the 12th defendant to confer the Udo rites on the plaintiff.

(i) Perpetual injunction etc.