Mr. Joel Etipetip Ukwuyok & Ors. V. H.R.H. Festus Silas Ogbulu & Ors. (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

I. M. M. SAULAWA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Rivers State High Court of Justice, holden at Port-Harcourt, which was delivered on 26/6/04 by W.A. Chechey, J; in favour of the Respondents (Plaintiffs) against the appellants (Defendants).

The genesis of this appeal is traceable to 30/9/03. That was the date on which the Respondent filed a writ of summons along with a statement of claim thereof in suit No. PHC/1660/2003, thereby seeking the following 5 reliefs:

(a) A DECLARATION that the 1st Plaintiff is the Okan-Ama of Ibatirem Town, Andoni, having been properly selected, presented and installed the Okan-Ama of Ibotirem Town by the Ibotirem Town.

(b) A DECLARATION that the 2nd Defendant is not the Okan-Ama of Ibotirem Town by reason of the fact that he is not a member of any of the Ruling families of Ibotirem Town and having not been properly selected, presented and installed the Okan-Ama of Ibatirem Town.

(c) A DECLARATION that the Etipetip Ukwuyok family of Ibotirem Town is not the Royal family of Ibotirem Town.

(d) AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants or privies from parading the 2nd Defendant as the Okan-Ama of Ibotirem Town by whatsoever means possible.

(e) AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 2nd Defendant from parading himself as the Okan-Ama of Ibotirem Town either by hoisting any flag with the inscription of “Okan-Ama of Ibotirem Town” at any place, gathering or meetings or by whatever means possible.

Parties filed and exchanged pleadings thereof. The case accordingly proceeded to trial. The case relates essentially to chieftaincy stool known as Okan-Ama of Ibotirem town in Andoni Local Government Area of Rivers State. The 1st Respondent began his testimony on 17/4/04 as PW1. On 20/5/04, the Appellants were fore closed from further cross-examining the PW1 on the ground that:

“the Defendants have been given all the time since 19th April to conclude the cross-examination of PW1. ”

See page 54 of the Record.

The Respondents’ second and last witness was one John Saturday Eneyok, whose examination in Chief was recorded at pages 56 and 57 of the Record as PW2. The case was further adjourned to 24/5/04 for cross-examination of PW2. However, neither the Appellants nor their counsel appeared on that date. Not surprisingly, the learned trial judge fore-closed them from cross examining the PW2. The Respondents’ counsel accordingly closed the case for the Plaintiffs, there by resulting in the case being adjourned to 26, 27 and 31/5/04 “for defence or address.”

It is evident from the record, that when the case came up on those date, neither the Appellants, nor their counsel were in court. The record discloses, inter alia, the following:

Court: The records of the Court show that the Defendants were served with hearing notice in this matter on 24-5-04.