Chief Sampson Akpan Mkpedhm V. The Governor Of Akwa Ibom State & Ors (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Plaintiff now Appellant commenced the action in Suit No. HKN/6/2005 at the Ikono Judicial Division of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State by writ of summons filed on 21/2/2005. The claims of the appellant against the respondents were as follows:

“(a) A declaration that the Traditional Rulers (withdrawal of recognition from Chief Sampson Akpan Mkpedem) order 1995 dated 3rd October, 1995 being obtained by fraud, deceit and misrepresentation is null and void and of no effect whatever.

(a) A declaration that Chief Sampson Akpan Mkpedem the plaintiff was wrongfully removed from office as the Village Head of Nkara Obio village by fraud, deceit and misrepresentation.

(c) An order setting aside the said Traditional Rulers (withdrawal of Recognition from Chief Sampson Mkpedem) order, 1995 dated 3rd October 1995.

(d) An order restoring the said Chief Sampson Akpan Mkpedem to the position of Village Head of Nkara Obio village in Ndiya in Ikono Local Government Area.

(e) An order consequently removing and/or deposing Chief Sunday Otung Udo as the Village Head of Nkara Obio village and canceling the certificate of recognition as village head of Nkara Obio in Ndiya Clan in Ikono Local Government Area wrongly issued to Sunday Otung Udo, the 5th Defendant.

(f) An order of the court directing that the plaintiff Chief Sampson Akpan Mkpedem be paid the arrears of his stipends due with effect from 3rd October, 1995 to the date of restoration as the village head of Nkara Obio Village, Ndiya Clan, Ikono Local Government Area, Akwa Ibom State.”

Upon service of the said Writ of Summons all the defendants entered appearance by their counsel who filed memorandum of appearance on their behalf. On 4/4/2005, the plaintiff filed his statement of claim which was served on all the defendants. The 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants filed a joint statement of defence on 4/5/2005. The Statement of Defence is dated 20/4/2005 (See pages 38-40 of records). On 7/6/2005 a motion dated 3/6/2005 on behalf of 3rd Defendant praying for an order was filed

“dismissing plaintiff’s Suit No. HKN/6/2005 as it constitutes a serious abuse of court’s process in that plaintiff has commenced in 1997 Suit No. HT/20/97 with the similar reliefs against the defendants and same were dismissed.”

The application was supported by an affidavit of 15 paragraphs to which were annexed several Exhibits namely the Statement of Claim in Suit No. HT/20/97 marked Exh. ‘A’, Motion to dismiss Suit HT/20/97 for being statute barred marked Exh. ‘C’, Notice of Appeal against decision in Suit No. HT/20/97 marked Exh. ‘D’ and judgment in Appeal No. CA/C/90/99 marked Exh. ‘E’ which affirmed the lower court’s decision in HT/20/97 and Statement of Claim in Suit No HKN/6/2005 marked Exhibit ‘F’.

The motion was opposed by the Plaintiff who filed a 15 paragraph affidavit in opposition and annexed the Amended Statement of Claim marked Exh. ‘A’.

The motion was argued and in a reserved ruling delivered on 20/2/2006 the learned trial Judge observed as follows at page 158 of the records:

“I cannot explain what informed the plaintiff that an action that was time barred in 1997 would cease to be time barred in 2005.”