Anambra State Government & Anor V. Anambra State House Of Assembly & Ors. (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A. (Delivering the leading judgment)

The appeal herein is against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Anambra State, Awka Judicial Division, holden at Awka, delivered on 11th December, 2006 by Hon. Justice Umegbolu Nri-Ezedi in suit No.A/98/2004.

CA/E/305/2007

The facts culminating in this appeal can be compressed as follows: On the 1st day of February, 2003, the Anambra State Government through the 1st Respondent enacted the Anambra State Autonomous Community (Recognition) Law 2002. As a consequence of the aforesaid Law, the communities of the 4th to 19th Respondents were recognized as autonomous communities and were listed in the schedule to the said law. On the 23rd day of March, 2004 the 1st Respondent enacted another law namely, Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Repeal Law 2004, which repealed the Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Law 2002, and thus abolished/withdrew the autonomous status accorded to communities of 4th to 19th Respondents by the Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Law 2002.

The 4th to 19th Respondents were aggrieved by the Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Repeal Law 2004, which abolished the autonomous status accorded to their respective autonomous communities. The 4th to 19th Respondents as representatives of the various communities recognized as autonomous communities by the Anambra State Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Law 2002, instituted an action in the court below, as plaintiffs against the 1st Respondent.

Subsequently, on 11th April, 2005 to be precise, the plaintiffs sought for and were granted leave to join four additional defendants. The parties joined by leave of court were, Anambra State Government, Attorney General Anambra State, Hon. Mike Balonwu, Speaker Anambra State House of Assembly and the Clerk Anambra State House of Assembly, as 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants. See page 160 of the record.

In the action instituted in the lower court, the plaintiffs claimed for the following reliefs in paragraph 7 of their statement of claim, namely:

(i) “A Declaration that the Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Repeal Law 2004 is not a law of the Anambra State House of Assembly and is consequently unconstitutional, null and void.

(ii) A Declaration that the provision of Section 2(2) of the Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Repeal Law 2004 purporting to abolish the plaintiffs’ Autonomous Communities is unconstitutional, null and void.

(iii) A Declaration that the provisions of the Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Repeal Law 2004 abolishing/proscribing plaintiffs’ Autonomous Communities is ultra vires the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria guaranteeing to the citizens, Freedom of Association.

(iv) A Declaration that any repeal of the provisions of the Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Law 2002 cannot affect actions, act, duties and obligations done or created under or by virtue of that law before its repeal, as they affect the plaintiffs.

(v) An Order setting aside the Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Repeal Law 2004.

(vi) An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their agents, servants and privies or howsoever from carrying out or putting into effect any or all the provisions of the said Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Repeal Law 2004, as they affect the plaintiffs.”

At the close of pleadings, the case proceeded to hearing. The plaintiffs called a single witness, who testified as PW1 and through whom a host of numerous documentary exhibits were tendered. PW1 was cross examined by the two set of defendants. Upon the close of the plaintiff’s case, the two set of defendants intimated the court that they were not calling witnesses as they have nothing to urge on facts. Hence, learned senior counsel representing the plaintiffs and the learned counsel representing each set of defendants agreed to settle issues of law and address the court on the said issues. Consequently, written addresses were filed, exchanged and adopted.