Apostle (Chief) T. Bassey & Ors V. Chief Alex Ekeng & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellants in this appeal have filed an appeal against the Ruling delivered by S. M. Anjor, J, of the Akpabuyo Judicial Division of the Cross River State High Court on the 9th of June, 2014, wherein the Learned trial Judge granted orders of interlocutory injunction against the Appellants.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

The Respondents in this appeal who were Claimants at the trial Court, are members of Kparika Obasi Royal Family in Idundu Clan. The Appellants on the other hand, were members of Namburi Mboto Royal Family of Idundu Clan up to 2011 when that Royal Family was split into Edim Ita, Orok Asi Oqua and Otop Oqua Oyom Royal families.

The 1st Appellant was later selected by the Idundu Royal Fraternity in 2001 as the Ntoe-Elect of Idundu Clan. The 3rd, 4th and 5th Appellants were also selected as Village Heads of their respective villages all in Idundu clan. The Appellants occupied the above offices until the 24th of October, 2013 when the Respondents filed this suit praying for numerous reliefs as per their writ of summons and statement of claim. The

1

Appellants in turn filed their statement of defence.

The Respondents in addition, filed a motion on notice on the same 24/10/13 praying for orders of interlocutory injunction among which was to restrain the 1st Appellant from acting as the Clan Head-Elect of Idundu Clan, also there was a prayer to restrain the 3rd, 4th & 5th Appellants from acting as village Heads-Elect for their respective villages.

The Respondents later presented one Chief Francis Edim Imona as the Clan Head-Elect of the Idundu Clan.

After the filing of affidavit in opposition and further and Better Affidavit respectively, the application for interlocutory injunction was moved on the 13th of May, 2014. In a considered Ruling delivered on the 9th of June, 2014, the Learned trial Judge granted all the prayers sought by the Respondents. This appeal is predicated on that Ruling particularly the 2nd & 3rd orders of interlocutory injunction.

Learned counsel for the Appellants Eke E. Edem Esq. distilled one issue for determination at page 3 of his brief of Argument thus:

“Whether in the circumstances of this case the Learned trial Judge was right to grant orders of

2

interlocutory injunction to restrain the Appellants from continuing to act in their respective chieftaincy offices pending the determination of this suit.”