Chief M. O. Abbi V. Chief (Pro) J.J.T. Princewill & Ors (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

EJEMBI EKO, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

On 19th December, 2005 Hon. Justice J. M. Kobani of the Rivers State High Court delivered his ruling in the application of the Appellant, as the named Plaintiff for himself and as representing the King Abbi Royal House and the Kingmakers of the Kalabari Kingdom, Buguma, which sought an order restoring the status quo of the parties as at 29th March, 2000 when the suit was commenced, The target of the restorative injunction sought was the purported installation and recognition of the 1st Defendant/Respondent as the Amanyanabo of Kalabari on the 23rd March 2002, which were done not only during the pendency of the suit but also inspite of the order of Interlocutory Injunction made on 31st July, 2000.

The order made on the said 31st July,2000 restrained all parties to the suit from taking any step in furtherance of and/or in selecting, electing, anointing and/or installing any person whatsoever as the Amanyanabo of Kalabari without the consent, knowledge and participation of all the parties in the suit and all the Chiefs of Abbi Royal House Council of Chiefs, the Karibo Group of Houses, the Buguma Council of Chiefs and the Kalabari National Assembly (se Kobiri) or any other affected body or bodies or Houses or Group of Houses pending the peaceful resolution of the dispute between the parties themselves or the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

The learned trial Judge refused to restore the parties to the status quo as at 29th March, 2000 and ordered that the status quo to maintain by the parties was “the status quo as at today” (i.e 19th December, 2005). That status quo was the status quo altered by the purported Installation and recognition of the 1st Defendant/Respondent as the Amanyanabo of Kalabari on the 23rd March, 2002 during the pendency of the suit and the subsistence of the interlocutory Injunction granted on the 31st July, 2000. In effect the ruling of 19th December, 2005 had reversed the order made on 31st July, 2000. No party asked for the review of that order made on the 31st July, 2000.

The learned trial Judge at page 292 of the Record, In his Ruling, acknowledged the subsistence of the order of Interlocutory Injunction when he held that the restraining order of 31st luly, 2000 did not lapse with the case starting de novo”. This appeal is against the ruling delivered by the learned trial Judge on 19th December, 2005.

The approach adopted by the learned trial Judge in the ruling is one of a peace-maker rather than that of a judicial officer. He had prefaced the ultimate ruling with a doctrine of necessity. At page 296 he had stated that “It must be recognized that what is regular in principle may not always be expedient” Proceeding on this line he stated thereafter as follows:-

“From the affidavit evidence and Exhibit A and B, it is safe to belief that the parties or at least an overwhelming majority desire a peaceful settlement of this dispute. That is so because on the face of the records both parties are all chiefs of the Abbi Royal House of Buguma and King makers of Kalari Kingdom. As such they know that only one of them can be King at any one time, no matter the degree of acrimony. That is why it is desirable for the parties to resolve the dispute themselves so that there would be no victor and no vanquished.

The application seeks a restoration of the status quo as at 29th March, 2000 almost 6 years ago. Going back almost 6 years in time is not likely to ensure lasting peace. It used to be said that Judges should apply the law to the law to the letter and damn the consequences.

Oputa, JSC (Rtd) however, in his judicial Lectures 1990 page 41 had these words of caution.

A decision that can be regarded as legally and theoretically correct but which in reality will set the work place ablaze can not be regarded as mature decision.

To this, I would add that law is not an end in itself but only a means to an end which is justice, peace, order and good government.

In consonance with that view of law and in the circumstances of this case, a 6 year retreat into history is not likely to conduce to the law not being an end in itself. I believe it will be more in consonance with reality to take cognizance of the distinguishing features of this case and make progress therefrom. I refuse to make an order that will take the Kalabari Kingdom back to the 20th Century when the rest of the World is taking giant strides into the 21st Century.

Rather than order a return to status quo as at 29th March, 2000, I order that the status quo as at today (i.e 19th December, 2005) be maintained while the parties make a more determined effort to fashion out an acceptable settlement of the dispute or put their case before the court for a determination on the merits. For avoidance of doubt, this is not a declaration of any body as the Amanyanabo of Kalabari as that was not the issue for determination in this application. For the above reasons this application fails.

Not satisfied with this Ruling the Appellants, as the Plaintiff/Applicants filed their Notice of appeal on 23rd December, 2005 with two grounds of appeal. They did not file the Appellant’s Brief of Argument within the time prescribed by the Rules of this court. However, on 22nd December, 2008 they brought an application for enlargement of time within which to file the brief. The application was granted on 5th October, 2010, and the Appellants’ Brief settled by E.C. Ukala, SAN and filed on 22nd December, 2008 was deemed filed and served on the same 5th October, 2008. The Respondents did not file any Brief of Argument. on the said 5th October, 2010 the appeal was set down for hearing on 11th April, 2011. The Respondents, though aware of the adjourned date, were not in court for hearing of the appeal. On the said 11th April, 2011 Dr. O. Ikpeazu, SAN, who had taken over from E.C. Ukala, SAN as Appellants’ counsel, merely identified the Appellants ‘ Brief and thereafter adopted it as the Appellants’ argument in the appeal and then urged that the appeal be allowed.