Mr. Moses Bunge V. The Governor Of Rivers State & Ors (2006)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGUNTADE, J.S.C.

This was a chieftaincy dispute, which would appear to have first reared its head several years ago. It became the subject of litigation on 31-3-80 when the appellants for and on behalf of Otari village community of Abua, Rivers State commenced by writ of summons a suit against the respondents as the defendants. The 3rd to 6th defendants were sued as the representatives of Agana family of Omalem, Abua, River State. The plaintiffs claimed for the following:

1. A declaration that sections 18 and 19 of Edict No.5 of 1978 are void, ultra vires and contrary to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979.
2. A declaration that in Abua clan which was historically and traditionally a monarchy the highest chieftaincy title by Abua Customary Law and tradition is the Oda-Abuan.
3. A declaration that the findings of Tamuno Committee is not recognising Oda-Abuan as the highest Chieftaincy title by Abua Customary Law and tradition is null and void.
4. A declaration that the title of the Oda-Abua or the highest Chieftaincy title in Abua clan is a monarchy and hereditary.
5. A declaration that the only family that can present the Oda-Abua or highest Chieftaincy title in Abua is the Agba family of Otari.
6. A declaration that OTARI Village is the Traditional Headquarters of Abua clan.
7. An injunction restraining the 3rd and 4th defendants from parading themselves as and performing or containing (sic) to perform any of the functions of the Oda-Abuan and that of his Prime Minister.

The parties filed and exchanged pleadings after which the suit was tried by Okor J. The parties tendered several documents in order to show that the history of the chieftaincy in dispute favoured one and not the other. It is fair to say that the suit was fought largely on documentary evidence. In a judgment spanning 88 foolscap pages the trial Judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety. The plaintiffs were dissatisfied and brought an appeal against the judgment of the trial court before the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt Division. (i.e. the court below). The court below, on 30-4-2001, in a unanimous judgment dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal. Still aggrieved, the plaintiffs have come before this court on a final appeal. In their appellants’ brief, the plaintiffs identified the issues for determination in the appeal as these:

1. Having agreed to the crucial issue of fact that Obunge or Obunga of appellant was at a time the King or head Chief of Abua contrary to the finding of the trial Judge, coupled with the admission of the original 3rd respondent that he is a priest together with the content of exhibit E’, was the Court of Appeal right to have dismissed appellants’ appeal
2. Did the lower court consider all the issues raised in the appeal to the court
3. How relevant were the contradictions of PW1 and PW2 to the central issues for determination having regard to the finding of the lower court as well as the admissions made by the respondents during the trial
4. Was there any basis to compare the case put forward by appellants as its like a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury but signifying nothing’ when from the finding that Obunge of appellants was at a time king of Abua, appellants made a good case

The 1st and 2nd respondents raised one issue for determination, which reads:

Whether the lower court, in affirming the judgment of the trial court, correctly evaluated the evidence contained in the documentary exhibits received at the trial and whether it arrived at a just decision on the burning issues in contest between the parties.

The 3rd to 6th respondents formulated for determination one issue which in substance is similar to the issue raised by 1st and 2nd respondents above.

Before a consideration of the issues, it is helpful to have an understanding of the facts pleaded by the parties in their pleadings. In their further amended statement of claim, the plaintiffs pleaded that they were from Otari village of the Abua clan; and that the said Abua clan had from time immemorial been governed by a king or head chief known as and called Oda Abuan who had his seat at Otari village. It was pleaded that succession to the title had always been hereditary and restricted to the plaintiffs’ Agba family. Obunge, from plaintiffs’ Agba family who reigned till 18/3/27 had on 2/12/1896, signed a treaty with the British Crown. Each village in the Abua clan is administered by a village head known as Uwema. The Uwema is assisted by a Juju Priest. The Uwemas and their Juju Priests carried out the orders of the king or Oda Abuan. The Oda-Abuan had a Plime Minister who hailed from Otari village. The office of the Prime Minister is also hereditary. The British crown paid annual subsidy to king Obunge till he died: and even after his death, his children got such subsidy. By the Abua tradition, the Oda-Abuan had a Juju Priest who performed all sacrificial rites as directed by the Oda Abuan. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Juju Priest to the Oda Abuan could become the Oda Abuan. During the reign of king Obunge, Chief Amiofori was his Prime Minister while Ogida was his Juju Priest. Ukwu, 3rd defendant’s grandfather was the son of Ogida. He became a member of the native court and like his father before him became a Juju Priest and married one of the daughters of king Obunge, the Oda Abuan. Under Abua tradition, no Juju Priest could become Uwema or village head.

The 3rd defendant was the grandson of Ogida, a Juju Priest to Oda Abuan. About 1930, the 3rd defendant falsely represented to the then District Officer, Mr. Talbot that he was a priest king. King Obunge died in 1927 and was succeeded by his son King Oyaghiri Obunge who died on 11/5/31 having reigned for 3 years. On 19-3-77, Chief Kale Obunge became the Oda Abuan. The 4th defendant was never a chief in the Abuan clan. It is not in accord with Abua custom and tradition for someone who was not previously, a chief to be appointed the Uwema of Ogbo-Abua. The 3rd and 4th defendants were the descendants of Ogida who had been a Juju Priest. The Tamuno committee which was set up by the 1st defendant to grade chieftaincies erroneously accorded recognition to the title of Uwema Abua. Between 1931 and 1977, the 3rd defendant manipulated the colonial administration into accepting that the 3rd defendant’s family was the source of the kingship. The plaintiffs therefore claimed as earlier set out in this judgment.

The facts pleaded by the 1st and 2nd defendants in their further amended statement of defence may be paraphrased as stated hereunder:

1. The 3rd defendant is the clan head of the Abua clan recognised by the 1st and 2nd defendants whilst the 4th defendant is a 3rd class Chief within the Abua clan.
2. The traditional title of the king of Abua clan is and was known as Uwema of Abua and the kingship stool of the clan was hereditary.

3 The 1st and 2nd defendants recognised the 3rd defendant because of his hereditary linage from Ukwu Ogida who ruled from 1880 – 1939 and who was from Agana Royal Family.

4. The members of the 3rd defendant’s community in 1977 applied to the defendant to accord official recognition to the 3rd defendant as the Uwema of Abua.
5. Only members of the Agana Royal Family could be the head of the Abua clan.
6. The dispute between the Obunge and Ukwu families as to which of them was entitled to be king is spelt out in a document dated 1/11/32 and numbered 146/26/
7. The British colonial Government in 1921 recognised the claim of the 3rd defendant’s family.

The 3rd and 4th defendants in their 3rd further amended statement of defence pleaded the following facts:

1. The 3rd and 4th defendants belonged to the Royal Agana Family. The name and title of the head chief of Abua clan is Uwema Abua and not Oda Abuan.
2. Otari village has never been the seat of the king but the 3rd defendant’s Omalem village.
3. The king or paramount ruler of Abua clan has always been from the 3rd defendant’s Agana Royal Family and members of the said family had been Uwema Abua in succession.
4. Succession to the kingship or Uwema Abua by tradition is hereditary.
5. The plaintiffs’ Obunge family was a pan of the Agba family which hailed from Agba Idole in Ikwerre District and being later settlers could not qualify to be Uwema Abuan
6. As regard the 1896 treaty pleaded by the plaintiffs, Obunge was not the rightful king of Abua.
7. King Obunge was paid 40pounds annually by British colonial administration but on 14/5/24, the same administration wrote to say that the 3rd defendant’s family member Ukwu was the king and that Obunge had been erroneously recognised.
8. Obunge was a Juju Priest under Chief Ukwu.
9. The said Chief Ukwu I succeeded his father Ogida and Obunge occupied a subordinate position.
10. Chief Ukwu took a wife from Chief Obunge’s family and this influenced Chief Ukwu in appointing Obunge as his Juju Priest.
11. The 3rd defendant Chief Richard Ukwu II became the king by inheritance.
12. The defendants denied the plaintiffs’ assertion that a Juju Priest could not become an Uwema of a village or town.

It was on this state of pleadings that the suit was heard. When the pleadings of the parties are compared and contrasted, it would appear that all the parties were agreed as to the following fact:

1. That succession to the chieftaincy in dispute was hereditary.

They however disagreed on the following:

(a) Whereas it was plaintiffs’ contention that their family, the Agba Family of Otari was entitled to produce the chief perpetually, the defendants contended that it was their Agana Royal Family that was entitled to produce perpetually the head chief.