Joseph Dameng Mudun & Ors V. Monday Hassan Adanchi & Ors (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

By a writ of Summons dated and filed on 3rd of February, 2004 and a joint statement of claim dated 18th and filed on 19th March, 2004, the appellants, who were the plaintiffs before lower court claimed as follows:

(1a) A declaration that the Mudun House (family) is the only ruling House members of which are entitled to vie for the stool of the District Head (Makai) of Bokkos, in the Bokkos Local Government Area of Plateau State.

(1b) A declaration that the Mudun house (family) is a Ruling House members of which are entitled to vie for the stool of the District Head ) Makai) of Bokkos in the Bokkos Local Government Area of Plateau State.

(2) A declaration that the Mangu Emirate/Traditional Council (Modification of Native Law and Custom relating to the selection of the District Head of Bokkos District) Order, 1978 (P.S.L.G.L.N .2 of 1978) is not a valid Law.

(3) A declaration that the purported selection of the 1st Defendant as the District Head (Makai) of Bokkos District under the Mangu Emirate/Traditional Council (Modification of Nation Law and Custom relating to the selection of the District Head of Bokkos District) Order, 1978, P.S.L.G.L.N. of 1978, is null, void and of no effect whatsoever.

(4) A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from holding out or parading himself as the District Head (Makai) of Bokkos District, on the one hand, and, as well as restraining the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants from recognizing or dealing with him (1st defendant) as the District Head of Bokkos District.

(5) An order directing the 3rd and 4th defendants to EITHER insert the words “The Mudun Ruling House (family)” in the law, Order or Gazette relating to the selection of the District Head (Makai) of Bokkos District to be made forthwith.

(6) An order directing the 2nd defendant to conduct a fresh and proper selection of a person from the Mudun Ruling House (family) to fill the seat of the District Head (Makai) of Bokkos or to participate in any such selection.

(7) The cost of this action/suit.

The Writ of Summons and the joint statement of claim were served on the Defendants/Respondents. The 1st and 2nd defendants/Respondents challenged the competence of the suit by a motion on notice dated 10th July and filled on the 14th of July 2004 seeking for an order dismissing the suit against them on the ground that by operation of the Plateau State limitation Law No. 6 of 1988, same is statute barred. After hearing arguments from learned Counsel to the parties, the lower court ruled as follows on the 14th of December 2004 as could be found on pages 24 to 33 of the record of appeal. Specifically on page 30, the learned judge of the lower court ruled thus:

“From all the facts available both from the statement of claim of the Plaintiff/Respondents and facts deposed to in their Counter affidavit as well as the affidavit in support of the motion the cause of action arose in 1978. What happened in December, 2003 (i.e the selection), was the effect or result of the 1978 action-i.e. the enactment or otherwise referred to as Legal Notice No. 2 of 1978.”

On page 33 of the record of appeal, the learned judge of the lower Court concluded the ruling as follows:

“Looking at the writ of Summons this case as well as the statement of claim it is clear that dates have been indicated and it is the 1st – 2nd defendants/Respondents that have not gone outside those dates.