Architect Hudu Ibrahim Mamonu & Anor V. Joseph D. Mato Dikat & Ors (2019)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

AMIRU SANUSI, J.S.C.

The present appeal emanated from the judgment of Jos division of Court of Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “the lower or Court below”) which was delivered on the 26th day of January, 2012, which partially allowed the appeal of the appellant against the judgment of the Plateau State High Court (the trial Court) in suit No.PLD/J/285/2005 delivered on 13th April, 2006.

At the trial Court, the 1st and 2nd Respondents, as plaintiffs, instituted an action by writ of Summons against the other ten defendants seeking the under listed declaratory reliefs: –

1. A DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant is not a member of Gadai Ruling House of Pyern Chiefdom and therefore not eligible to contest the throne of Sum-Pyem.

ii. A DECLARATION that only adult male members of the Gadai Ruling House of Sum-Pyem are eligible for selection to the throne of Sum-Pyem.

iii. A DECLARATION that for the purpose of filing the present vacancy in the stool of Sum-Pyem only the plaintiffs contest

iv. A DECLARATION that the kingmakers, to wit, 2nd-12th Defendants can only nominate, select, or vote for a person who is a member of Gadai Ruling House.

1

A DECLARATION that the selection of an eligible candidate to the throne of Sum-Pyem can only be in accordance with Plateau State gazette contained in Legal Notice No. 1 of 1992, dealing with appointment and deposition of chiefs (appointment of Sum-Pyem) Order, 1992 and dated 23rd April, 1992 (as amended).

vi. A DECLARATION that the purported selection of the 1st Defendant by the 2nd – 12th Defendants in Mangu Local Government Secretariat on 17th May, 2004, is unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.

vii. A DECLARATION that the exclusion of the 13th Defendant among the traditional selector and the purported selected exercise of Sum-Pyem held in Mangu Local Government Secretariat on 17th May, 2004, is constitutional, unlawful, null, void and of effect whatsoever.

viii. A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 2nd -12th Defendants from nominating, selecting, voting or electing the 1st Defendant as the Sum- Pyem.

ix. A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 1st Defendant, his offspring or any other person claiming through him from contesting and or ascending the stool

2

of Sum-Pyem or parading himself or holding out himself as the Sum-Pyem or in any other manner meddling in or interfering with the affairs of the chieftaincy stool of Sum-Pyem.