Etubom Ekpo Effiom & Ors V. Chief Effiom Eyo Okon (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.C.A.

The Respondent as plaintiff in the lower Court, a certificated Village Head of Ekpene Tete Village in Akpabuyo L.G.A. of Cross River State, commenced an action for himself and on behalf of the people of his village against the defendants now appellants, claiming as follows:-

“(a) A declaration that the plaintiff is the certificated village head of Ekpene Tete Village in Akpabuyo L.G.A.

(b) A declaration that the plaintiff as village head has a statutory duty to manage the economic resources of Ekpene Tete village as a trustee for the benefit of the entire village.

(c) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, thugs, servants, representatives from interfering with the plaintiff functions as the village head of Ekpene Tete in Akpabuyo L.G.A.

(d) N20, 000,000 being general damages against the defendants jointly and severally for interfering with the right of the plaintiff as village head.”

Upon service on them of the writ of summons the appellants as defendants entered a conditional appearance and followed this up with a notice of preliminary objection on two grounds, namely:

(1) Want of locus standi; and

(2) Commencement of the suit in a wrong judicial division.

The learned trial judge ruled that the respondent as the certificated village head of Ekpene Tete, has locus standi to sue with the authority of the Village Council.

Aggrieved by the said ruling the defendants, now appellants, appealed on two grounds:

“(1) The learned trial Court erred in law when it held that the plaintiff has the locus to maintain this suit with the authority of the Village Council over the management and control of a palm plantation in which title is held in trust by 1st Defendant for the families of late Obong Tete’s children.

(2) The plaintiff was duly served with Defendant’s motion papers but failed to react to all the averments contained in the Defendants affidavit in support of the preliminary objection.”

In the brief of argument deemed filed on 13.3.08 learned Counsel for the appellant formulated the following issues for the Court to resolve: