Chief Chukwudebere Okolie (Eze Amuranama) & Ors V. Prof. Peter Ebigbo & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

In Suit No: HOU/5/2009 the Plaintiff?s Statement of Claim at Paragraphs 32 (1), (2), (3) and (4) was endorsed with the Plaintiff’s Claim as follows; Wherefore the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants as follows;

1. A Declaration that by the custom of the and tradition of the people of Amaofuo, it is the Plaintiffs Agwaonye Ruling House, as the most senior member and holder/custodian of Ofo (staff of Authority) of the founding father of Amaofuo, in Amaofuo Autonomous Community that is entitled to produce the Traditional Ruler (EZE) of the Autonomous Community .
2. A Declaration that by the custom and tradition of the people of Amaofuo the right to identify, select and appoint Eze-Elect for Amaofuo Autonomous Community for the Traditional Rulership (EZE-SHIP) throne is the traditional prerogative of the Plaintiff?s Umuagwaonye family.
3. A Declaration that the purported presentation of the 1st Defendant as the Eze-Elect of Amaofuo Autonomous Community in Oru West Local Government Area of Imo State by the 2nd to 11th Defendants is wrongful, contrary

1

to custom and tradition of the people of Amaofuo and therefore null and void, and of no effect whatsoever.

4.Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents cronies and cohorts from holding out or parading the 1st Defendant as the Eze-Elect or Traditional Ruler (EZE) of Amaofuo Autonomous Community in Oru West LGA of Imo State.

Pleadings were ordered, duly filed and exchanged by between parties. The facts of the case as disclosed by the pleadings may be summarized from the view point of the Appellant as follow:

The parties are natives of Amaofuo Autonomous Community in the Oru West L.G.A. of Imo State. As Claimants, the Appellant?s case is that right from the beginning of Amaofuo as a Community, there had been an age long custom and tradition which placed the Claimants? Agwaonye Ruling House as the most senior family unit and the holder/custodian of ofo (Staff of Authority) of the founding fathers of Amaofuo, makes them exclusively entitled to produce the Traditional Ruler (EZE) of the Autonomous Community. When therefore, the 1st Defendant was presented as Eze-Elect, this action now on Appeal to this Court

2

was instituted by the Claimant to declare the presentation of the 1st Defendant as the Eze-Elect of the Community as wrongful, contrary to custom and tradition of the people of Amaofuo and therefore null and void and of no effect whatsoever. The Appellant?s as Claimants, in the course of trial insisted that as a result of the premier position of their family in Ubaha, the Colonial Masters appointed Onyeka of their lineage as the Warrant Chief of the Community and Chief for Ubaha village of Amaofuo. The inference which the Appellants wanted the Court to draw from the above fact is that Amaofuo has long been in existence before acquiring its autonomous status in 1978 and that prior to 1978 it is the Claimants family as the most senior family in Ubaha that has been saddled with the responsibility of producing the EZE of their Amaofuo Community.

On the part of the Respondents as Defendants the Appellants? case at the Court below presented remarkable features to wit: Jumble of improbabilities, material inconsistencies and contradictions which no Court or Tribunal worth its salt will believe. Counsel contended that there were contradictions between

3

the Appellants? witnesses and their pleadings and between their witnesses. Worthy of mention too is that each witness contradicted himself on material facts. At the trial of the matter, the Appellants as Claimants called a total of five witnesses and tendered six (6) Exhibits marked as Exhibits C, D, D1, D2, F and G while the Defendants called three witnesses and tendered three (3) Exhibits marked as Exhibits A, B and H. Thereafter Counsel for both parties submitted their written addresses in which they addressed Court extensively and cited a plethora of authorities. The trial judge in his judgment dismissed the claims of the Claimants on the 16th day of September, 2013.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant as Claimant before the lower Court has appealed to this Court vide a Notice of Appeal filed on the 24th day of September, 2013. There are two (2) Grounds of Appeal which are reproduced without their particulars as follows;

GROUNDS OF APPEAL;