Chief Gabriel Ebak & Ors V. Chief (Ojukwa) Okey Ebey & Ors (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ONYEKACHI A. OTISI, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Cross River State, delivered on 15th November, 2010 in Suit No HU/Misc. 3/2010.

The Appellants and the 1st – 4th Respondents had been engaged in a feud over the Regency of Ohorodo of Okum Chieftaincy Stool. The Appellants alleged that the 1st – 4th Respondents had seized some emblems meant to be in the custody of the 3rd Appellant. In an attempt to gain hold of the other emblems, the Appellants alleged the 1st – 4th Respondents broke into the home of the 3rd Appellant, held him hostage until they successfully robbed him of the remaining emblems and some of his personal effects.

The 3rd Appellant reported to the police at the Divisional Police Headquarters, Obubra. While the police were investigating the incident, the Chairman of Obubra Local Government caused the State Police Headquarters Calabar to take over the case, leading to the arrest of the 1st – 5th Appellants, including the 3rd Appellant who was the complainant. The 3rd Appellant then further reported to the Zonal Police Command, Zone 6, Calabar. While the matter was still being investigated, the 1st – 4th Respondents filed an action to enforce their fundamental rights.

The 1st to 4th Respondents in their Statement in support of their application to enforce their fundamental rights, had described themselves as the kingmakers and Regent of the Ohorodo Chieftaincy Stool of Apiapum in Obubra Local Government Area of Cross River State. That the Appellants are disputing the capacity of the 1st to 4th Respondents and lay claim to the Chieftaincy title; and that this resulted in the 1st to 4th Respondents filing both criminal summons and civil summons in the High Court of Justice, Obubra in Suits Nos. HB/15/2008, and, HB/18/2009.

The case of the 1st to 4th Respondents in both suits is for a declaration that the 1st to 4th Respondents are entitled to the custody of the paraphernalia of the Chieftaincy Stool which they allege were illegally removed by the Appellants. That while these two suits were still pending, the Appellants connived with the 5th and 6th Respondents to effect the arrest and detention of the 1st to 4th Respondents on false allegation of robbery and stealing of the chieftaincy items the subject matter in HB/15/2008 and HB/18/2009.

That the arrest of the 1st to 4th Respondents took place on 6th August, 2009 of the premises of the Obubra High Court premises on the last sitting day of the High Court before proceeding on annual vacation. When the 1st to 4th Respondents were denied bail and transferred from Obubra to State Criminal Investigation Department, Calabar, they filed an application for enforcement of their fundamental rights. The application was heard and the trial court gave judgment in their favour. The Appellants, dissatisfied with the said judgment appealed.

In the Notice and Grounds of Appeal filed on 7/2/2011, the Appellants raised six Grounds of Appeal; and, sought an order, reversing the said judgment and orders of the lower court delivered on 15/11/2010; and dismissing the action of the Respondents.

The Appellants’ Brief of Argument, settled by K. U. Ejukwa, Esq. of counsel was filed on 19/5/2011. The Respondents’ Brief was filed by O.N. Agbor, Esq. of counsel on 8/7/2011, and deemed properly filed and served on 23/1/2013. The Appellants’ Reply Brief was filed on 4/2/2013.

These Briefs were adopted by respective Counsel on 6/11/2013. The 5th and 6th Respondents, who were served with the processes in this Appeal, did not file any Brief and were not represented by Counsel.

In the Appellants’ Brief, four issues have been distilled for determination as follows:

1. Issue 1 distilled from Grounds 5.

Whether the trial court rightly entered judgment without resolving the conflict in the parties’ affidavits on the crucial issue of who lodged the complaint to the Police upon which the Applicants were arrested and without making specific finding on the issue.

2. Issue 2 distilled from Grounds 1, 2 and 4.

On the facts and circumstances of this case, whether the 1st – 4th

Respondents established the violation of their fundamental human rights by the Appellants.