Chief Michael Uwegba & Ors V. The Attorney-general, Bendel State, Nigeria & Ors (1985)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

Ajose-Adeogun, J.C.A.

In an action instituted at the High Court of Bendel State holden at Sapele, the plaintiffs (now Appellants herein) were claiming, as endorsed in their amended writ of summons, the following reliefs:-

(a) A declaration that in accordance with the age-long tradition, native law, custom, the usages and the Constitution of the Agbon Clan, the tenure of office of the Otota of Agbon terminates automatically on the demise of the Ovie of Agbon subject to his remaining in office until the next Ovie and the next Otota are named and installed; the next Ovie and the next Otota are named and installed;

(b) A declaration that in accordance with the tradition, native law, custom, the usages and the Constitution of the Agbon Clan, when an Otota dies before the Ovie, it is the right of the said deceased Otota’s sub-clan to elect a new Otota to hold office for the duration of the life of the Ovie;

(c) declaration that the sub-clan entitled to provide a candidate or candidates to fill the vacant office of the Otota of Agbon is the Kokori sub-clan;

(d) A declaration that the purported Chieftaincy Declaration made by the Chieftaincy Committee of the Western Urhobo District Council on 4th January, 1962 relating to the Otota of Agbon Chieftaincy is irregular, wrong, unconstitutional, null and void, and contrary to the age-long tradition, native law, custom, the usages and the Constitution of the Agbon Clan and should be set aside;

(e) A declaration that the directive of the Governor-in-Council of Bendel State contained in a letter No. CH.506/351 dated 13th April, 1982 from the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs requesting the Kingmakers to consider the nomination of the 4th Defendant as the Otota of Agbon is irregular, illegal, unconstitutional, incompetent, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(f) A declaration that the 4th defendant has not been duly appointed as the Otota of Agbon as required by law and that the purported approval of the alleged appointment of the 4th defendant as the Otota of Agbon by the 2nd defendant as published in the Bendel State Legal Notice No.4 of 1982 dated 26th May, 1982 is irregular, wrongful, illegal, contrary to the customary law, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect and should be set aside;

(g) The plaintiffs claim perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants, agents or privies or howsoever otherwise from taking any action or any steps on the said purported Chieftaincy Declaration 1962 or on the said letter dated 13th April, 1982;

(h) The plaintiffs also claim perpetual injunction restraining:-

(a) the 1st, 2nd, 3rd defendants by themselves their servants, agents or privies or howsoever otherwise from installing or recognizing or taking any steps in recognizing or installing or causing to be installed or recognized the 4th defendant as the Otota of Agbon and

(b) restraining the 4th defendant by himself, his servants, agents or privies or howsoever otherwise from holding himself out as the Otota of Agbon or wearing any regalia of the Otota of Agbon or permitting himself or taking any steps to be installed or recognized as Otota of Agbon or performing or causing to be performed any act or function of or ceremony connected with his installation as the Otota of Agbon.”

At the end of a full trial during which both parties gave evidence in support of their respective pleadings, the learned trial Judge, the Hon. Justice D.I. Akenzua, in his judgment delivered on 9th May, 1984, dismissed the entire claim of the plaintiffs. Substantial costs were also awarded in favour of each of the four defendants who are now the Respondents herein. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment, the Plaintiffs/Appellants filed this appeal.

Incidentally, the Appellants, all of whom were said to be Senior Chiefs, sued in a representative capacity for and on behalf of Agbon Council of Chiefs. Apart from the first three Respondents who were government functionaries, the fourth Respondent, Chief James Ogboko Edewor was sued in his personal capacity. It was his alleged appointment in May 1982 as the Otota of Agbon by the 2nd Respondent that sparked off the controversies which led to the case in hand. There may be cause to refer to the issue of Appellants’ representative capacity later in this judgment.