Mohammed Husseni & Anor V. Mohammed Ndejiko Mohammed & Ors (2014)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.S.C. 

Subscribed on the Writ of Summons issued at the High Court of Justice of Kwara State, Ilorin Judicial Division on the 26th day of November, 1991 and reproduced as paragraph 34 of the Statement of Claim, are the Respondents’ (then plaintiffs) claims against the appellants (then defendants):

“34. WHEREOF the Plaintiffs claim against the defendants jointly and severally as follows:

(1) A declaration that the 1st defendant under the age long custom and tradition of Zambufu has no right whatsoever to ascend the throne as the Zhitsu of Zambufu.

(2) A declaration that under the native law and custom relating to the selection and appointment of Zhitsu of Zambufu, the 1st defendant’s family is not a ruling house in Zambufu.

(3) A declaration that the appointment and/or turbaning of the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant on or about the 12th day of November, 1991- as the Zhitsu of Zambufu is illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever as same is against the age long custom and tradition Zambufu relating to and in connection with the appointment of Zhitsu of Zambufu.

(4) A declaration that the 1st plaintiff is the duly selected and appointed Zhitsu of Zambufu Traditional Councillors or Kingmakers in accordance with the custom and tradition of Zambufu relating to and in connection with the selection and appointment of Zhitsu of Zambufu.

(5) An order commanding and/or directing the 2nd defendant to turban or install the 1st plaintiff as the duly selected and appointed Zhitsu of Zambufu by the majority of Zambufu Traditional Councillors or Kingmakers.

(6) A perpetual injunction restraining the:

(i) defendant from parading or presenting himself as the Zhitsu of Zambufu;

(ii) 2nd defendant, his servants, agents, privies or any person or persons however from recognising, dealing or relating with the 1st defendant as the Zhitsu of Zambufu.”

In their Statement of Defence, the defendants (now appellants) denied the material averments in the Statement of Claim, concluding at paragraph 29 of the Statement of Defence thus:

“29. Whereof the defendants pray that the plaintiffs’ claim be dismissed with costs.”

At the conclusion of trial and after a review of the entire case, the learned trial Judge Adebara J., concluded thus: