Chief Amadi Dike-ogu & Ors. V. Owhonda Frank Amadi & Ors. (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

GALADIMA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of Hon. Justice Ichendu (as he then was) dismissing the action of the plaintiffs, now the appellants herein.

The plaintiffs sued, inter alia, for a declaration that the defendants, now the respondents herein, are not chiefs of Rumueme community and therefore have no mandate to represent the said Rumueme Community at any level of responsibility and for injunction restraining the said defendants from holding themselves out as such.

The plaintiffs’ case at the trial court is set out in their 27 paragraphs further amended statement of claim dated 23rd September, 1996 on pages 169-173 of the record of this appeal. The defendants who were represented by two different counsels separately filed statement of defence. The 1st – 7th and 9th – 12th defendants filed 27 paragraphed statement of defence on pages 116 – 122 of the record while the 8th defendant filed a 21 paragraphed statement of defence on pages 127-139 of the record.

The appellants’ case can be summarised as follows: The appellants claim that they are Chiefs and indigenes of Rumueme Community while the respondents reside at Rumueme. They sued for themselves and on behalf of all other persons who purport to be members of Rumueme council of Chiefs, Elders and Owhor Holders.

Appellants claim that they are descendants of Ebara who for over 600 years ago, acquired the Rumueme area by conquest and moved his people there and have therefore become natives of the area. That the fact that the defendants are not indigenes of Rumueme has been so judicially pronounced by the River State High Court in suit No. PHC/64/84 and confirmed by the Court of Appeal in No. CA/PH/12/93 and reported in the Akaniwon v. Nsirim (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt.520) 255 and that since the founding of Rumueme, the traditional authority resides in Rumueme Council of Chiefs represented by the plaintiffs on record. Relying on a number of judgments and rulings more particularly the ruling of Court of Appeal sitting in Enugu in CA/E/40/86, they contended that under the Rumueme custom and tradition, no person has the right to arrogate to himself the position of a Chief or a representative of the Rumueme community except he is duly installed or appointed.

The respondents denied all the claims of the appellants and called three witnesses.

The learned trial Judge after examining these judgments and ruling, held that they do not advance appellants’ case in a claim of estoppel. The learned trial Judge, at page 256 of the record held thus:

“From all I have considered above, none of the preconditions for the application of the previous suits (i.e. exhibits P2, P3, P4, P5 and P7) pleaded by the plaintiffs in this suit is present. The law is that the plea of estoppels per rem judicatam will fail immediately any of the preconditions for its application is absent. See Cardoso v. Daniel (supra).”

After examining other aspects of the appellants’ case outside the rejected judgments and rulings, his Lordship finally held at page 273 of the record dismissing the appellants’ suit, thus:

“The final result is that the plaintiffs have failed to prove ‘this case against the defendants and accordingly, I hereby dismiss their claims in their entirety with costs in favour of the defendants which fix at N3,500.00.”

Aggrieved by this judgment, the plaintiffs originally filed one ground of appeal and later sought leave of the court to file 6 (six) additional grounds of appeal.

In compliance with the rules of this court, respective counsel filed and exchanged brief of argument on behalf of the parties.

In the appellants’ brief prepared by his counsel, W. Boms, Esq, deemed filed on 26/9/2002, the following six issues were formulated as arising for determination in this appeal.