Chief Etim Ofongekpe V. The Governor of Akwa Ibom State & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

The present appeal is against the ruling of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, delivered on October 22, 2013 in Suit No. HU/S/34/2012. By ruling in question, the Court below, Coram Ekaele Obot J. refused the appellant’s application, seeking a prerogative order of certiorari, for want of sufficient particulars.

BACKGROUNG FACTS
In the Year 2006, the Appellant was selected by the Kingmakers of Utu Nsehe Village, in Etim EKPO LGA of Akwa Ibom State, to be the head of the said Village. On May 11, 2007, consequent upon his selection by the Kingmakers, the Appellant was conferred by the 1st Respondent with a certificate of recognition, as the Village Head of Utu Nsehe Village

?Whereupon, the Appellant proceeded to perform his assignment as the Village Head of the said Utu Nsehe village for five years. However, on September 7, 2012, the Appellant received a letter from the 1st Respondent purportedly withdrawing the earlier cognition accorded thereto as the Village Head. Thus, having been dissatisfied with the withdrawal of Certificate of

1

recognition thereof, the Appellant filed an application in the Court below, seeking the following reliefs:
1. AN ORDER GRANTING LEAVE to the applicant to apply for order of judicial review of certiorari bringing the decision and order of the Government of Akwa Ibom State contained in the order dated 12th day of August, 2012 withdrawing appellant recognition as village Head of Utu Nhese Etim EKPO Local Government of Akwa Ibom State hereto attached in to this Court for the purpose of being quashed.
2. AND ANY OTHER ORDER (S) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in, the circumstance.

The application is predicated upon six grounds and 11 paragraphs affidavit, personally deposed to by the Appellant himself. Attached to the affidavit, are various Exhibits – A – G2, respectively.

On May 22, 2013, when the said application came up for hearing, the learned counsel adopted the submissions contained in the respective written addresses thereof, thus resulting in adjourning the application to July 10, 2013 for ruling. Eventually, the vexed ruling was delivered by the Court below on October 22, 2013, to the following conclusive effect:
“In

2

conclusion, I agree forth the learned counsel for the 1st, 3rd Respondent that the prerogative order of the writ of certiorari does not avail the applicant in the instant application.
In this light I do not have any difficulty in requesting this application – This application is therefore refused for want of sufficient particulars.?
See pages 95 – 101, of the record.

The notice of appeal, filed on November 20, 2013, is contained at pages 102 – 105 of the record, duly transmitted on February 17, 2014. The Appellant’s brief of Argument was filed on February 26, 2014. That of the Respondent was filed on February 8, 2015, but deemed properly filed and served on January 15, 2016, respectively.

The Appellant’s brief spans a total of 9 pages. At page 2 thereof, four issues have been formulated for determination, viz:
“Issue one:
Whether the decision contained in the Ruling of Honourable Justice Ekaette Obot in suit No. HU/MISC/342/2012 was erroneous or contrary to law.
Issue Two:
Whether the Ruling was a miscarriage of justice.
Issue Three:
Whether the Ruling was against the weight of evidence.
Issue

3

Four:
Whether the learned trial Judge erred in law when he failed to acknowledge the denial of fair hearing to the appellant who was not heard before the withdrawal of the certificate of recognition.”

The first issue was canvassed at pages 2 – 6 of the brief, to the effect that the decision contained in the vexed ruling was erroneous or contrary to the law. The reasons being that (i) paragraph 4 (ix) of the facts relied upon (page 24 of the Record), and paragraph 9 of the verifying affidavit (page 29 of the record) are to the effect that the Appellant was not invited by any of the Respondents to answer questions concerning any case instituted against him in respect of the office as village Head; (ii) he was not also invited to appear before the chieftaincy inspite community to answer any charge against him. See paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the Respondent 1st ? 3rd Respondents collected affidavit. That it is the duty of the Respondents to produce the proceedings of the committee before the Court. See Section 115 (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011; (iii) That the 4th Respondent did not file any collected affidavit to the appellant’s application. Thus,