Abubakar Umar Bannuram & Ors V. Linus G. Hillary & Anor (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an Appeal against the Judgment of Honourable Justice J. F. Agya of the High Court of Justice Taraba State, sitting at Jalingo Division which Judgment was delivered on the 19th day of November, 2007 granting all the Reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs as per their Originating Summons.

It would be recalled that the 1st Plaintiff in the lower Court by way of Originating Summons dated the 14th day of February, 2006 commenced action in representative capacity for himself and on behalf of the seven Clans constituting the Ruling House/King makers of Winlau Community, Lau District of Lau Local Government Area of Taraba State against Abubakar Umar Danburam, Muri Emirate Council; the Chairman Lau Local Government Council; The Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs Taraba State; The Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Taraba State and the Governor of Taraba State as 1st – 6th Defendants respectively.

The Originating Summons was subsequently amended by a motion dated 10th day of May, 2007. In the Amended Originating Summons; the Plaintiffs sought for the determination of the following Questions:-

1. Whether having regards to the provisions of section 3(1) & 3(2) and section 4(1) (2), (3) and section 7 of the Chiefs’ (Appointment and deposition) Law Cap. 26, Laws of Taraba State of Nigeria, 1997, the Taraba State Executive Governor can validly appoint a third class chief to rule Lau Chiefdom without due regard to the prescribed methods of the Law on the appointment of a person to the throne?
2. Whether the appointment of the first Respondent as the third class Chief of Lau Chiefdom by the Executive Governor of Taraba State is not ultra vires, null and void, same not being in accordance with section 3(1) and (2); section 4(1), (2) and Section 7 of the Chiefs’ (Appointment and Deposition) Cap. 26 Laws of Taraba State of Nigeria, 1997?”

The Plaintiffs also sought for the following Reliefs:-

“1. A DECLARATION that the purported appointment of the first Defendant/Respondent as the third class Chief of Lau Chiefdom is not in compliance with the prescribed position of the Law.

“2. A DECLARATION that the appointment of the first defendant/Respondent as the Lau Chief by the fourth Defendant/Respondent was illegal, null and void.

“3. AN ORDER setting aside the purported appointment of the first Defendant/Respondent as the third class Chief of Lau Chiefdom by the 6th Defendant/Respondent over Taraba State Television and NTA on 3rd November, 2006.

“4. AN ORDER ejecting or vacating the first Defendant/Respondent from the Royal House pending the appointment of a new third class chief.

“5. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the first Defendant/Respondent by himself his privies, agents or/and heirs from parading himself as the third class Chief of Lau.”

In support of the Originating Summons, the Plaintiffs deposed to an Affidavit of Forty paragraphs to which were annexed a bundle of documentary Exhibits marked Exhibits (A) (B) and (C). Exhibit A is the Legal Instrument Constituting the Commission of inquiry to the newly created Chiefdoms and Districts in Taraba State, by the 6th Defendant Governor of Taraba State; Exhibit B, a Memorandum on the mode of selection of the 3rd Class Chief of Lau Chiefdom submitted to the Commission of Inquiry by the Winlau Community of which the 1st plaintiff is the Kuh Lau or Village Head of Winlau while Exhibit C is a photocopy of ‘The Mirror’ Newspaper vol. 2 of 3rd July, 2006, where the 6th Defendant/Appellant expressed his desire to follow due process in filling vacant traditional stools in the State and ensuring the people of the Chiefdoms that the Government would not impose any body on the people without due regard to the prescribed method.

Upon being served with the Originating Summons, the 1st – 6th Defendants filed a Joint Counter-Affidavit against the Originating Summons to which they annexed Exhibits I and 2 payment Vouchers of the Salaries of the 1st plaintiff for the months of November and December, 2006 which the 1st Plaintiff as the Village Head of Lau, refused, neglected or failed to collect till the time of initiating the proceedings now on Appeal. From what can be gathered in page 71 of the Records the Defendants/Appellants also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 2nd day of April, 2007.

Upon receipt of the Defendants’ Counter-Affidavit and Notice of preliminary objection, the 1st Plaintiff’s Further And Better Affidavit In support of The originating summons dated 11th of April, 2007 was filed on the same date whereof upon receipt thereof a Further Additional Counter- Affidavit was filed on the 13th of July, 2007 by Bawa Ahmed Esq. the counsel from the learned Attorney-General’s Office, who was handing the case leave having been granted earlier on the 17th of May, 2007 for the 2nd Plaintiff as a co-plaintiff in the suit to be joint.

On the 19th day of July, 2007 the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued the originating summons and the learned counsel for the Respondents replied thereto after arguing his preliminary objection and the case was adjourned to 31st July, 2007 for Reply Address. However, on the 30th day of July, 2007, the 1st plaintiff filed a FURTHER AND BETTER AFFIDAVTT IN RESPONSE TO THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFENDANTS with an annexure marked Exhibit ‘D’ which is the “WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY COUNSEL TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE NEWLY CREATED DISTRICTS, CHIEFDOMS/EMIRATES IN TARABA STATE. BARRISTER EMMANUEL HALLAN GOWON HOLDEN AT GEMBU ON 21ST JUNE 2006.” See page 164 – 273 of the Records. There were also Motions and counter Motions and after the interlocutory skirmishes, after which the Plaintiffs were granted leave to file their Further And Better Affidavits in response to the Additional counter-Affidavit of the Defendants and thereafter Mr. Nzarga for the Plaintiffs proceeded to reply to the preliminary objection of the Defendants as well as on points of raw arising from the Reply of the Defendants to the Arguments of the plaintiffs on the substantive case. The case was then adjourned to 26/9/07 for further Reply Address.