Mike Ezechukwu & Ors. V. Nze Edward Madukwe & Ors. (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the Anambra State High Court, Awka Judicial Division holden at Awka delivered on 11th December, 2006 by Hon. Justice Umegbolu Nri-Ezedi in suit No. A/98/2004.

A brief synopsis of the facts is hereby made as follows: On 1st February, 2003, the Anambra State Government through the Anambra State House of Assembly enacted the Anambra State Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Law 2002. As a consequence of the aforesaid law, the communities of the 1st set of Respondents were recogntzed as autonomous communities and listed in the schedule of the said law. On the 23rd March , 2004, the Anambra State House of Assembly enacted another law, known as the Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Repeal Law 2004, which repealed the Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Law 2002 and abolished the autonomous status of the communities recognized by

The 1st set of Respondents were aggrieved by the Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Repeal Law 2004, which abolished the autonomous status of their communities. Consequently the 1st set of Respondents as representatives of the various communities recognized as autonomous communities by the Anambra State Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Law 2002, instituted an action against the Anambra State House of Assembly and four others claiming the following reliefs:

(i) “A Declaration that the Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Repeal Law 2004 is not a law of the Anambra State House of Assembly and is consequently unconstitutional, null and void.

(ii) A Declaration that the provision of Section 2(2) of the Autonomous communities (Recognition) Repeal Law 2004 purporting to abolish the plaintiffs’ Autonomous Communities is unconstitutional, null and void.

(iii) A Declaration that the provisions of the Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Repeal Law 2004 abolishing/proscribing plaintiffs’ Autonomous Communities is ultra vires the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria guaranteeing to the citizens, Freedom of Association.

(iv) A Declaration that any repeal of the provisions of the Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Law 2002 cannot affect actions, act, duties and obligations done or created under or by virtue of that law before its repeal, as they affect the plaintiffs.

(v) An Order setting aside the Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Repeal Law 2004-

(vi) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their agents, servants and privies or howsoever from carrying out or putting into effect any or all the provisions of the said Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Repeal Law 2004, as they affect the plaintiffs.”

At the close of pleadings, the case proceeded to hearing. The plaintiffs called a single witness, who testified as PW1 and through whom a host of numerous documentary exhibits were tendered. PW1 was cross examined by the two set of defendants. Upon the close of the plaintiff s case, the two set of defendants intimated the court that they were not calling witnesses as they have nothing to urge on facts. Hence, learned senior counsel representing the plaintiffs and the learned counsel representing each set of defendants agreed to settle issues of law and address the court on the said issues. Consequently, written addresses were filed, exchanged and adopted. In a reserved judgment, delivered on the 11th December, 2006 the learned trial judge, gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, granting all the reliefs except the first one wherein he refused to declare that the Autonomous Communities (Recognition) Repeal Law 2004 as not a law of the Anambra State House of Assembly.

The appellants in the instant appeal acting for themselves and on behalf of Umueze Village, Isuofia, Aguata Local Government Area of Anambra State, applied for leave to appeal against the aforementioned judgment as interested parties. The said leave was duly granted by this court on 24th June, 2011. As a consequence of the said leave, the appellant’s notice of appeal dated 7th July, 2011 was filed in the registry of this court on 8th July, 2011. The said notice of appeal is predicated on four grounds of appeal. In compliance with the Rules of Court, briefs of arguments were filed and exchanged. The appellant’s brief of argument is dated 23rd July, 2011 and filed on the 5th August, 2011. The appellant’s reply brief dated 10th April, 2012 and filed 19th April 2012 but deemed properly filed on 25th April, 2012. The 1st to 16th Respondent’s brief of argument dated 8th November, 2011 was filed on the l4th November, 2011. The 2nd set of Respondents, did not file any brief of argument.

Mr. Ben Osaka leading Mr. B.A. Nzegwu for the 1st set of Respondents, stated that they raised a preliminary objection in their brief of argument. Learned counsel adopted arguments in respect of the preliminary objection as contained on pages 9 to 11 of their brief of argument, in urging the court to strike out the notice and ground of appeal filed by the appellants on grounds of incompetence. Mr. S.U.S. Mbanaso for appellants adopted arguments in response to the preliminary objection as contained on pages 2 to 5 of the appellant’s reply brief. Learned counsel urged the court to hold that the irregularity is cured by order 19 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011, because record of appeal had already been transmitted as of the time appellants were granted leave to appeal. Learned counsel urged the court to discountenance the preliminary objection, as it is hinged on technicality. As for the main appeal, Mr. S.U.S. Mbanaso for appellants adopted the appellant’s brief of argument and the reply brief, in urging the court to allow the appeal. Mr. Ben Osaka adopted the 1st to 16th Respondent’s brief in urging the court to dismiss the appeal. Miss Juliet Amasiatu for the 2nd set of Respondents, stated that they did not file any brief of argument.

The appellants submitted three issues for determination on page three of the Appellant’s brief. The said issues are hereby reproduced thus: