Joseph Jideofor Enwezor V. Joseph Okwudili Onyejekwe & Anor (1964)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADEMOLA, C.J.N.

The appellant, who was the plaintiff in the High Court of the Onitsha Judicial Division, on the 21st March, 1963, brought an action against the respondents. His Writ of Summons reads as follows:

“(1) A declaration that the Plaintiff is the Obi of Onitsha duly appointed and installed in accordance with Native Law and Custom etc.

(2) As alternative to (1) above, a declaration that the first Defendant is not the Obi of Onitsha in accordance with Native Law and Custom and

(3) An Injunction restraining the first Defendant from acting as or otherwise holding himself out as the Obi of Onitsha.”

Earlier, the plaintiff/appellant had unsuccessfully contested the vacant stool of Obi of Onitsha; he lost to the first defendant/ respondent, who has now been recognised as the Obi of Onitsha by the Eastern Nigeria Government, after the Executive Council had considered the Report submitted by the Sole Commissioner who was appointed to enquire into the rights of the several claimants to the vacant stool.

The second defendant/respondent was sued as the Minister who was responsible for Chieftaincy Affairs. On the service of the Writ on this respondent, a Notice of Motion was filed on his behalf praying the High Court of Onitsha Division to strike out the case for want of jurisdiction. In this objection reliance was placed on Sec. 4(3) of the Chiefs Law, No. 9 of 1960. After hearing arguments on the issue, in a considered judgment on the 25th April, 1963, the learned Judge ruled that the Court is without jurisdiction to grant the declaration sought and struck out the case.

The plaintiff appealed to this Court on the Order made by the Judge striking out the case. There were nine grounds of appeal filed but it is unnecessary to set out any of them.

Against this appeal, the second respondent on the 28th October, 1963, filed a Notice of Objection to hearing of the appeal by this Court. It contains two grounds which are as follows:

“1. That the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court to hear the appeal has been expressly taken away by Section 158(4) of the Constitution of the Federation which came into force on the 1st of October, 1963.

2. That no useful purpose will be served by hearing the appeal in view of the fact that any ruling of this Honorable Court in favour of the appellant would be ineffective in view of the provision of Section 80 of the Constitution of Eastern Nigeria which came into effect on the 1st day of October, 1963. Judgment in favour of the appellant (if any) will not have the effect of conferring on the Court below the very jurisdiction which is denied it by the aforesaid Constitution of Eastern Nigeria.”

Arguing the objection, the learned Solicitor-General, Eastern Nigeria, for the second respondent, submitted that it is not competent for this Court to look into the matter as it is purely a chieftaincy matter, which has been excluded from the jurisdiction of courts by Sec. 158(4) of the Constitution of the Federation dated the 1st October, 1963, and Sec. 80 of the Constitution of Eastern Nigeria which came into effect on the same date, namely the 1st October, 1963.

Now, Sec. 158(4) of the Constitution of the Federation reads:

“(4) Where immediately before the date of the commencement of this Constitution any proceedings on appeal from a decision of the Federal Supreme Court are pending or any right to bring such proceedings has accrued, the proceedings or right shall abate on that date in so far as any question for determination in the relevant proceedings is