Alhaji Abdullahi Shaibu v. Suleiman Audu & Ors (2023)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

The tussle in this matter is in respect of the Chieftaincy Stool of the Onu Ejefa of Enabo in Ankpa Local Government Area of Kogi State.

The appellant laid claim to being entitled to the stool. So, he instituted an action before the High Court of Kogi State in suit No. AHC/6/2012.

The 1st respondent herein, equally laid claim to the said Chieftaincy Stool of Onu Ejefa of Enabo and he equally instituted an action in suit No. AHC/8/2013 before the High Court of Kogi State.

Both actions were consolidated for hearing and the appellant was designated the 1st claimant, while the 1st respondent was the 2nd claimant in the consolidated suit.

After the cases were consolidated, the 2nd respondent herein, applied and was joined as the 3rd claimant in the consolidated suit. The matter proceeded to hearing, with each of the claimants adducing testimonial and documentary evidence.

The defendants, at the lower court, filed statements of defence but they did not adduce any evidence, consequent upon which their statements of defence were deemed as abandoned. So, the action was a straight shoot-out between the claimants as to who had made out a better case as to be entitled to judgment.

In its judgment which was delivered on 11th April 2018, the lower court dismissed the claims of the appellant and the 2nd respondent. In dismissing the case of the appellant who was the 1st claimant in the consolidated suit, the lower court conclusively held as follows at page 728 of the records of appeal:

I hold that it is not the turn of 1st claimants ruling house to take the stool.

The 1st claimant has failed to prove that his nomination was accepted by the kingmakers and more importantly that it is the turn of his ruling house to take the stool. The implication of his failure to prove these ingredients is that he has failed to prove his claim. His suit i.e. No. AHC/6/2012 is hereby dismissed.

In the same vein, in dismissing the case of the 2nd respondent, as 3rd claimant before it, the lower court conclusively held as follows at page 729 of the records of appeal:

It may be argued that the appointment of the 1st defendant who he claims does not come from a ruling house was the reason he came to court as a member of a ruling house.

I do not think that was sufficient as in my view and based on his reliefs and evidence, the 3rd claimant could have at best been a witness for the 1st claimant, his preferred candidate.

Bringing himself into the case as a party appears to me to be the efforts of a busy body. I see the 3rd claimant as a meddlesome interloper. He had nothing to prove in court on his own. In any case, his case was by his pleading and evidence, expected to swim or drown with that of the 1st claimant.