Chief Donatus Ibor Ofem V. Obol Dennis Onen David & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Judgment of Honourable Justice Eyo E. Ita of Cross River State holding at the Ugep Judicial Division. The Suit giving rise to his appeal was initiated by the 1st Respondent via an Originating Summons filed on the 18th of July, 2011 with the Appellant as 1st Defendant and the 2nd ? 4th Respondents as 2nd – 4th Defendants.

Upon service of the Originating processes on the Appellant, he entered a conditional appearance and filed a Counter Affidavit contesting the merits of the case. The Appellant in lieu of demurer also filed a Motion on Notice questioning inter alia the locus standi of the 1st Respondent and also raised against the suit, the doctrine of estoppels per res judicata on the basis of a Calabar High Court Judgment in C/490/96 and Obubra High Court Judgment in HB/2/2000.

The 1st Respondent on the other hand filed an objection against the Appellants Motion in objection. The objections and the main action were consequently heard together on 16th July, 2013 and on the 18th of July, 2013, defendants thus “the trial Court found and

1

adjudged in favour of the claimant has no locus standi to institute this action against the 1st Defendant and other Defendants …”This objection is sustained and the Originating Summons is in consequence dismissed.” Even after judgment upholding the objection of the Appellant, the Learned trial Judge made an order of injunction against the Appellant.

Dissatisfied with the said order of injunction, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on the 15th August, 2013 with three Grounds of appeal incorporated thereto.

To argue the appeal, two issues were distilled for determination:

1. Whether the Learned trial Judge was not in error of Law to have ordered injunction either “for the benefit of the whole world” or otherwise against the Appellant after dismissing the 1st Respondent’s action?” (Ground 2).
2. In the face of the 1st Respondent reliefs 9, 10 and 11 at the trial Court, whether the Court’s injunctive order restraining the Appellant’s from parading himself as Obol Lopon of a non-existent Ekori if that will leave the society in peace.” Was apt? (Ground 1 & 3).”

It may be recalled that the 1st Respondent was deposed as

2

village Head of Ukweze and Clan Head of Epenti in Ekori community of Ekori Group of Clans in the Yakurr Local Government Area of Cross River State which village and Clan he comes from. On the other, the Appellant comes from Ukpawen village and Lekpankom Clan still in Ekori Community or Ekori Group of Clans in the Yakurr Local Government of Cross River State where he is the certificated village head and Clan Head, Ukpawen village and Lekpankom Clan were both created by the Cross River State (Clans creations) Law No. 1 of 1996 as replicated at A152 S/No. 13 item 23 of the said Law.

Historically and traditionally according to Learned Counsel, what now constitutes Ekori group of Clans was just one community headed by a traditional Ruler called OBOL LOPON OF EKORI. With the enactment of the Cross River State (Clans Enactment Law No. 1 of 1966, Ekori Community was divided into a number of villages and Clans with its people still acknowledging and recognizing the holder of the traditional stool of Obol Lopon of Ekori as the overall head. Since 1996, there hove been different phases of disputes between the Appellant and 1st Respondent over that stool of Obol

3

Lopon of Ekori and in the process and of the instance of the 1st Respondent, Agube J. (as he then was) in Suit No. HB/2/2000 had held consequent upon the Cross River State (Clans creation) Law that the traditional stool of Obol Lopon of Ekori is unknown to Law. Also in the cause of the spate of litigations between the Appellant and 1st Respondent, there was the 1st Respondent action in Suit No. C/490/96 that ended in a dismissal of his claim over that stool of the Obol Lopon of Ekori.