Okenwa V. Military Governor, Imo State (1996)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

IGUH, JSC.

In the Owerri Judicial Division of the High Court of Imo State, holden at Owerri, the plaintiff, now the appellant, instituted an action against the defendants/respondents claiming as follows:

(a) A declaration that the removal of the plaintiff as the traditional ruler of Ihitenansa Autonomous Community and the withdrawal of his recognition as such by Into State Government is contrary to the Into State Chieftaincy Law No. 22 of 1978 and the said withdrawal is therefore null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(b) A declaration that the plaintiff is still the recognized traditional ruler (Eze) of Ihitenansa Autonomous Community.

(c) A declaration that the subsequent recognition of Chief Lambert Okehi Akuneziri as the traditional ruler of Ihitenansa by rite former Government of Imo State is contrary to Imo State Chieftaincy Edict (Law) of 1978 and Ihitenansa Chieftaincy Constitution and is therefore null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(d) A declaration that the withdrawal of recognition of the plaintiff based on Justice Ojiako Panel’s recommendation was misconceived. irregular, unjust and unwarranted.

(e) A perpetual injunction restraining the fourth defendant from continuing to hold himself out or from acting or parading himself as the recognized Eze or Traditional ruler of Ihitenansa Autonomous Community or from performing the function of a recognized Eze or traditional ruler set out in the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law of 1981.”

Pleadings were ordered in the suit and were duly settled, filed and exchanged. At the subsequent trial, both parties testified on their own behalf and called witnesses. The learned trial Judge, Nwogu, J., at the conclusion of hearing on the 18th day of June, 1987, dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in their entirety. The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the said decision, appealed to the Court of Appeal on the 23rd June, 1987.

By an application dated the 30th August, 1988, the plaintiff sought and obtained the leave of the Court of Appeal –

(i) to file and argue additional ground of appeal annexed as Schedule “A” to the said application and

(ii) extension of time within which to file a reply brief.

Since briefs had been exchanged before the plaintiff’s application for leave to file and argue additional ground of appeal was granted, his argument on the additional ground of appeal was set out in part ii of his reply brief.

As it appeared that the point raised in the additional ground of appeal was a fresh point before the Court of Appeal, the plaintiff, to regularize his position in the appeal, brought an application dated the 3rd April, 1989 and filed on the 27th April, 1989 seeking the following reliefs –

“1. An order granting leave to the Appellant/Applicant to raise a fresh point in this court which was not raised at the lower court to wit; the validity of the purported withdrawal of recognition of the Appellant or recognition of the 4th Respondent when by the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities law No. I 1 of 1981, the Appellant is still the legally recognized Eze of Ihitenansa Autonomous Community.