Chief Lawrence O. Ngbongha & Ors V. Chief Gabriel A. Ebak & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A. 

The 1st to 3rd Appellants filed an action in the High Court of Cross River State, Obubra together with Chief Obaji O. Erim, Michael A. Ejim, Francis O. Ebingha and Orim Ogobi. The 4th to 7th to original Appellants filed an Affidavit dissociating themselves from the suit.

On the 6th July 2009, the Respondents filed their defence together with a Counter-Claim. The Counter-Claim then joined the 4th-6th Appellants as Defendants to the Counter-Claim on the 22nd October, 2010. Also the 1st-5th original Defendants brought an application to join the 7th to 19th Respondents and same was granted by the lower Court.

Thereupon, hearing on the matter commenced. However, while the hearing of the matter was going on, the 4th Respondent as the OHORODO of Okum started parading and functioning as such. As a result of this, the Appellants filed a Motion on Notice on 10th August 2010 seeking orders to restrain the 4th Respondents from so parading himself or functioning as the Ohorodo of Okum.

After hearing the Motion on Notice, the Learned trial Judge delivered its ruling

1

on the 15th November 2010 and ordered for the accelerated hearing of the case rather than restraining the 4th Respondent. Thereafter, the hearing of the matter continued until Judgment was delivered on the 21st March 2012 dismissing the reliefs of the Appellants and granting the Counter-Claim of the Respondents except for damages which the Court did not award.

Against the said Judgment, the Appellants have filed this Appeal on the 20th April 2012 with four grounds of appeal. Four issues were distilled:
Issues for determination:
(1) “Whether the Learned trial Judge was right in upholding the selection and crowning of the 4th Respondent as the Ohorodo of Okum when the said selection and crowning took place during the pendency of the suit (Ground 2 of the grounds of appeal);
(2) Whether the trial Judge was not in grave error to have validated the appointment/selection and crowning of the 4th Respondent as the Ohorodo of Okum when none of the parties sought for such a relief (ground 4 of the grounds of appeal);
?(3) Whether the non-appearance of the 1st Claimant (Appellant) in Court to adopt his written statement an oath affected his

2

claim to the right of the 4th Appellant being properly crowned as the regent (Ground 3 of the grounds of appeal);
(4) Whether Exh. H relied on by the lower Court in recognizing the 4th Respondent as the regent actually recommended the 4th Respondent to be crowned as the regent (Ground 1 of the grounds of appeal).”

In arguing issue No. 1 above Mr. Agbor for the Appellants stated that the relief of the Appellants amongst other is:
An order restraining the Defendants (Respondents) their agents or assigns from interfering with the chieftaincy stool of Ohorodo of Okum”. The Appellants he stated led evidence in Court as per their pleadings in the statement of claim on the procedure of choosing a regent after which the chieftaincy stool of Ohorodo can be filled. Of greater importance is that it must be after the burial ceremonies of the deceased Ohorodo that the election and selection of now Ohorodo can be contemplated.

The Respondent made the same condition precedent in their Statement of Defence filed on the 6th July 2009 on the selection process of a new Ohorodo of Okum.

From the pleadings filed by both parties, the Learned trial

3