Hon. Chief Adolphus Ndunewe Wabara & Ors V. Chief Obioma Nnadede & Ors. (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

TIJJANI ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Abia State, Qoram S. N. Imo (J) sitting at the Ukwa Judicial Division delivered on the 26th day of June, 1996 in Suit No. HUK/109/96.

The Appellants as Plaintiffs in the lower Court instituted the said suit against the Respondents as Defendants claiming the following reliefs:

“(a) A declaration that the first Defendant is not entitled to occupy and/or sit on the traditional stool or throne of the Ezeship of the Ikwueke Autonomous community under the Native Law and Customs/Traditions of the Ikwueke Autonomous Community.

(b) A declaration that the presentation of the first Defendant as the Eze-elect of Ikwueke Autonomous Community to the second Defendant by the Ikwueke Council of Chiefs is NULL, VOID and INOPERATIIVE in law.

(c) An injunction restraining the second Defendant from presenting the first Defendant as the Eze-elect of Ikwueke Autonomous Community to the third Defendant for recognition.

(d) An injunction restraining the third and fourth Defendants, their servants, agents and privies or otherwise whosoever from accepting or recognising the first Defendant as the Eze-elect or Eze of the Ikwueke Autonomous Community.

(e) An injunction restraining the first Defendant from parading or presenting or representing or conducting himself in any manner whatsoever as the Eze-elect or Eze of the Ikwueke Autonomous Community.

(f) An injunction restraining the first, second, third and fourth Defendants, their servants, agents and/or privies or otherwise whosoever, jointly and severally, from parading, presenting, representing or conducting the first Defendant as the Eze-elect or Eze of the Ikwueke Autonomous Community.”

On the 3rd day of May, 1996 the 3rd and 4th Defendants/Respondents filed an application dated the 10th day of April, 1996 praying the Court to set aside the writ of summons in the suit aforesaid on the ground that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same as the 3rd Defendant/Respondent had not exercised the statutory duty or power conferred on him pursuant to the provisions of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Edict No. 8 of 1991. In other words that the suit was premature. (See page 56 of the Record of Appeal).

The Plaintiffs/Appellants on the 15th day of May, 1996 filed a thirty-one paragraph counter affidavit in opposition to the said application (See pages 59 – 63 of the record of appeal). 3rd and 4th Defendants/Respondents entered an unconditional appearance to the said suit and arguments for and against the preliminary objection were taken by the learned trial Judge.

In a reserved ruling, delivered on the 26/06/96 the leaned trial Judge held thus:

“I therefore hold that the action of the Plaintiffs/Respondents in instituting the action is incompetent. I hold that this suit is incompetent and premature. It is hereby ordered that the entire action be and is hereby struck out …”

Aggrieved by the said ruling, the Appellants approached this Court and filed a notice of appeal containing two grounds. The grounds shorn of their particulars are.