Chief Raymond D.ogolo & Ors V. Chief Paul D.fubara & Ors (2003)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

TOBI, J.S.C.

This is a fairly complicated appeal. It has to do with the paramount rulership of Opobo town known as the Amanyanabo of Opobo town.

P.W.1, Chief Paul D. Fubara, said that on 9th December, 1980 a Council of Chiefs meeting was held. The 3rd defendant, in that meeting, brought four bottles of gin and informed the Council that the 4th defendant had been selected as the Amanyanabo-elect of Opobo. The Council unanimously warned the 3rd defendant to see Kiepirima and Dappaye-Amakiri sections on such matters first. P.W.1 was also told that the Council was not prepared to discuss such matters until the final funeral ceremony of the late Amanyanabo, the ceremony of which burial was to end on 30th December, 1980. P.W.1 said that on 11th December, 1980, the 3rd defendant came to him and said that he had come to approach him and to inform him that an Amanyanabo-elect had been named. He made the approach because the 3rd defendant knew that P.W.1 told the 3rd defendant that the procedure was wrong and that he was going to summon a meeting of his people to discuss with them.

Before the meeting was summoned, they heard over the radio that an Amanyanabo-elect had been installed in Opobo. That was on 15th December, 1980.

There was also an advert in the Tide Newspaper announcing the election. The newspaper carried the photograph of the 4th defendant.

On the 17th December, 1980, the Council of Chiefs met and PW1 was asked to sign a document to induct the 4th defendant as the Amanyanabo of opobo. PW1 refused to sign the document. He walked out of the Council meeting.

Thereafter, the Kiepirima and Dappaye-Amakiri sections put up a refutal in the same newspaper. This was on the 21st December, 1980. 2nd defendant comes from Datu section. That section, according to P.W.1, made a publication dissociating themselves from whatever the 2nd defendant did or purported to have done on their behalf. The publication was in the Tide Newspaper. Thereafter the 1st set of plaintiffs waited whether there would be any peace move. When nothing to that effect happened, an action was brought by the 1st set of plaintiffs for themselves and representing the Dappaye-Amakiri section and the Kiepirima section of Opobo town.

The plaintiffs claimed against the defendants jointly and severally:-

(i) A declaration that under Opobo Customary Law the recognised traditional Kingmakers are the Dappaye-Amakiri and Kiepirima sections of Opobo Town.

(ii) A declaration that under Opobo Customary Law the 4th defendant has no right, title or interest to succeed to the headship of Opubo Main House of Opobo or to the office and dignity of the Amanyanabo of Opobo town.

(iii) A declaration that neither the Opobo Council of Chiefs nor the Jaja Executive Authority either alone or jointly is entitled to proclaim or install the 4th defendant or any other person the Amanyanabo of Opobo Town without the approval of the Dappaye-Amakiri and Kiepirima sections of Opobo Town.

(iv) A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants whether by themselves, servants, agents or otherwise howsoever from proclaiming, installing or holding out the 4th defendant as the Amanyanabo of Opobo Town and

(v) A perpetual injunction restraining the 4th defendant, whether by himself, servants, agents or otherwise howsoever from holding himself out as or acting in the office of Amanyanabo of Opobo Town.”

The case of the plaintiffs could be briefly summarised. The 4th defendant, Dandeson Mac Pepple is a son of Ezekiel Ogan and Violet Ogan, nee Epelle. Ezekiel Ogan, the father of the 4th defendant, came from Ama in Okrika. This makes the 4th defendant an Okrika man. According to Opobo native law and custom, the 4th defendant who is an Okrika man, is not qualified to be made an Amanyanabo of Opobo. Apart from the fact that 4th defendant is an Okrika man, the procedure for appointment as Amanyanabo of Opobo was not followed in the appointment of the 4th defendant. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the Kiepirima and Dappaye-Amakiri sections, being Kingmakers, must be involved in the appointment of the 4th defendant, as Amanyanabo, which was not the case.