Prince A.I. Umejuru & Ors V. Chief F.P. Imordi & Ors (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.C.A.

The respondents who were the plaintiffs in the court below claimed against the defendants, now the Respondents as follows:

“1. A declaration in accordance with tradition; native law and custom and customs and usage of the Umuenyike Royal Family of Ali-Ogba, the 4th Plaintiff was duly selected, appointed and installed to the stool of Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuchi on 27th March, 1994.

2. A declaration that in accordance with the tradition, native law and customs and usages of the Umuenyike Royal Family of Ogba the 1st defendant is not and has not been validly selected, appointed and/or installed to the stool of Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi by the Umuenyike Royal Family and any such ceremony organized by the defendants is consequently null and void.

3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant by himself, servants, agents or privies from acting or parading himself as the reigning Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi.

4. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd defendants whether by themselves, servants, agents or privies from parading the 1st defendant as the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi.”

Simultaneously, with the filing of the application for the writ of summons on 19/5/95, the plaintiff filed a motion on Notice for an “order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, servants, agents or privies from launching or holding a launching or attempting to launch an Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi succession charter at Omoku or tradition, native law and customs and customs and Obrikom or otherwise acting as and or parading the 1st defendant as the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi of the Umuenyike Royal Family Ogba, pending the determination of the substantive suit.”

In the affidavit in support of the said motion, particularly paragraphs 5 and 7 thereof, the 1st plaintiff/applicant alleged inter alia that sometime in April 1994 the 1st defendant began parading himself as the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi, and that on 8/5/95, the defendants started making radio announcements on the Radio Rivers Radio Station that he (sic) is the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbehi appointed by the plaintiff and that he has already appointed his council of chiefs and has organized and would hold launching of Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi that succession charter at Omoku on 27/5/1995. The defendant in their counter-Affidavit denied the claim that the 4th Plaintiff was ever selected, appointed or installed as the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi by Umuenyike Royal Family and questioned the locus standi of the 1st plaintiff in the dispute, and affirmed, to the contrary, that it was in fact the 1st defendant that was in accordance with Ogba native law and custom as applicable to the parties duly selected presented and installed into that stool on 9/4/94 and 23/4/94 respectively. The plaintiffs through the 1st Plaintiff filed what they called a reply to the counter affidavit.

Argument on the motion began on 11/10/95. The RULING was given on 23/2/96 wherein the learned trial judge granted two reliefs to the plaintiff/respondents and consequently ordering as follows:

(1) That the Defendants/Respondents namely, Prince A.I. Umejuru, prince Allen Okrigwe and Lawrence Ogu, by themselves, servants, agents or privies are hereby restrained from launching, or holding a launching of an Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi succession charter at Obrikom or Omoku or elsewhere until the determination of this suit now pending in court.

(2) That the 1st Defendant/Respondent namely, Prince A.I. Umejuru is hereby restrained either by himself, servants, agents, privies or howsoever from parading himself as the Eze Ogba Nwadei Ogbuehi, pending the determination of this case.

(3) That each Plaintiff/Applicant enters into an undertaking in the sum of N5,000.00 (Five Thousand Naira) and to forfeit same to the Defendant/Respondents, if this suit is found either to be frivolous and or vexatious.

(4) That the matter be adjourned to 23/4/96 for mention.

Dissatisfied with the above decision, the plaintiffs caused a Notice of Appeal to be filed against the said decision on the 28/2/96. The 5 grounds upon which the appeal was premised is set out on the Notice of Appeal without their particulars were that: