Chief Obioma O. A. Mgboji & Ors V. Chief C. B. C. Ajuzieogu & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Abia State contained in the Ruling of the Honourable Justice C. C. Thomas Adiele delivered on 30th day of July, 2012.The Appellants had by Paragraph 27 of their Amended Statement of Claim prayed the Lower Court as follows:

27. WHEREFORE THE PLAINTIFFS jointly and severally claim as follows:

i) A DECLARATION that the 1st Plaintiff is the duly selected and accepted person by the Umumgboji Village and the Obuda Aba Community as the ULELU II of Obuda Aba Community according to Custom and Tradition of the Obuda Aba people.

ii) AN ORDER directing the Defendants to recognize him as such and to set the machinery in Motion for his presentation, recognition and issuance of Staff of Office in accordance with the relevant Laws in Abia State.

iii) A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 2nd – 5th Defendants from presenting and or recognizing any other person than the 1st Plaintiff as the ULELU II of Obuda Aba Community

By a Motion dated 8th day of June, 2010 and filed on the same date the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents sought

for the dismissal in limine at the Lower Court for lack of jurisdiction to hear or determine the suit. The grounds upon which the application was based were stated as follows:

(a) That before contesting for the Ezeship stool, the 1st Claimant/Respondent refused, failed or neglected to comply with the provisions of:

i) Section 7(6) (d) of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law, Cap 10, Vol. 1, Laws of Abia State of Nigeria, 1991 – 2000;

ii) Rules 0442 (b) and 04422 of the Abia State Public Services Rules; and

iii) Section 5(h) of the Constitution of Obuda, Aba Autonomous Community, 2000 and Article 31(h) of the Amendment Constitution of Obuda, Aba Autonomous Community, 2008.

(b) That the Statement of Claim as filed by the Plaintiffs/Respondents did not disclose any cause of Action against the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants/Applicants;

(c) That this Suit is Premature;

(d) That the Claimants/Respondents have no Locus Standi to institult this Suit and