Alhaji Isah T. Sokwo V. Joseph Daku Kpongbo & Ors (2008)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED, J.S.C.

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division delivered on 26th March, 2002. In the judgment, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by the appellant, who was also the appellant in that court and allowed the cross appeal of the respondents, who were also the respondents in that court. The appellant’s appeal at the court below was against the judgment of the High Court of Justice of Kogi State sitting at Dekina, delivered on 12th June, 2000. The appellant who was the plaintiff at the trial court suing for himself and on behalf of Akuba and Edigeshi Ruling Houses had brought an action against the respondents who were the defendants, claiming the following:-

“(a) A declaration that the appointment of the 1st defendant by the 2nd to 4th defendants as the Aguma of Bassa Kwomo land is unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect, the 1st defendant not being from any of two ruling clans/houses entitled to the stool nor was he adopted by the Akuba clan, whom it is his turn to produce the Aguma after the death of Aguma Joseph D. Alagani (that is the immediate past Aguma of Bassa) and moreso that the appointment patently violated provisions of law no.7 1992 of Kogi State on appointment and deposition of chiefs.

(b) A declaration that only the Akuba and Edigeshi clans/ruling houses are entitled by rotation to the stool of Aguma of Bassa Kwomo in Bassa Local Government Council.

(c) A declaration that by the custom and tradition of the Akuba and Edigeshi clans, it is Akuba clan/ruling house that should produce the present Aguma following the demise of late Joseph D. Alagani who was adopted as Edigeshi candidate even though he was/is not from Edigeshi clan.

(d) A declaration that the plaintiff is the one entitled to be appointed as the Aguma of Bassa having come from Akuba clan and duly nominated by the elders of the ruling house in line with custom of Bassa Kwomo.

(e) A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to be appointed as the Aguma of Bassa Kwomo and the 2nd – 4th defendants recommend, appoint and recognise the plaintiff as such.

(f) A declaration that the 2nd and 3rd defendants’ failure without just cause to consider the plaintiff’s application for the stool of Aguma and recommend him for appointment is unreasonable, illegal, unconstitutional and against the rule of natural justice.

(g) A perpetual injunction to restrain the 1st defendant from parading himself or holding himself out as the Aguma of Bassa Kwomo or from performing the function of Aguma of Bassa and the 2nd to 4th defendants from recognizing him or treating him as such.”

At the hearing of this action, the appellant testified in support of his claims and also called two other witnesses. In the course of their evidence, documents totaling twenty-one were tendered and admitted in evidence. The 1st respondent however called seven witnesses and tendered two documents in evidence, while the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents called no oral evidence, but relied on two documents in their defence.

The case of the appellant as plaintiff is that he is the only candidate entitled to be appointed as the Aguma of Bassa Kwomo after the death of the immediate occupant of that stool, Joseph Dodo Alagani, having been selected by his Akuba ruling house. The appellant contended that the filling of the vacant stool of Aguma of Bassa Kwomo, is the exclusive preserve of the members of the Akuba and Edigeshi ruling houses on the demise of the late Aguma Joseph Dodo Alagani. That Edigeshi ruling house having served its turn through the late Joseph Dodo Alagani, it was then the turn of the appellant’s Akuba ruling house to produce the successor to the throne because the Ist respondent who is neither a member of Akuba clan nor that of the Edigeshi clan, was not eligible since the stool of Aguma of Bassa Kwomo was a creation of Bassa Kwomo native laws and custom.

The case of the respondents as defendants at the trial court was that the stool of Aguma of Bassa Kwomo is not an exclusive preserve of Akuba and Edegeshi clans but that all members of the five clans of Akuba, Edigeshi, Arishamishi, Asheshama and Ozongulo, are eligible to be considered to fill the vacant stool. That the 1st respondent being a member of the Ozongulo clan, was rightly nominated and appointed to succeed late Joseph Dodo Alagani, asserting that the stool of Aguma of Bassa Kwomo was not a creation of Bassa Kwomo native law and custom but the creation of the colonial government.

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge in his judgment delivered on 12th June, 2000, found in favour of the appellant as plaintiff granting him part of the relief (a) claimed to the extent that the appointment of the 1st respondent/defendant by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents/defendants as Aguma of Bassa Kwomo, was declared unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect on the ground of the appointment having been made in violation of the provisions of section 3(2) of Law No.7 of 1992 of Kogi State on the Appointment and Deposition of Chiefs. The trial court also proceeded and granted the appellant the injunctive relief (g) sought by him against the respondents restraining the 1st defendant/respondent from parading himself or holding himself out as the Aguma of Bassa Kwomo or from performing the function of Aguma of Bassa Kwomo and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants/respondent from recognising him or treating him as such. The trial court however, refused to grant second part of the declaratory relief sought in relief (a), as well as other reliefs sought in (b), (c), (d) and (f) earlier quoted in full in this judgment.

Apparently, all the parties were not happy with the judgment of the trial court resulting in the appellant as plaintiff appealing against it and the respondents who were the defendants also cross appealed against it to the Court of Appeal Abuja which in its judgment delivered on 26th March, 2002, dismissed the appellant’s appeal and allowed the respondents’ cross appeal. The instant appeal is by the plaintiff/appellant who was not satisfied with the dismissal of his appeal by the court below.