Sunday Eguamwense V. James I. Amaghizemwen (1993)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

This appeal questions the exercise by the High Court of original jurisdiction to hear a declaratory action in respect of a matter with which an inferior tribunal has been vested with jurisdiction.

The facts of the case

The facts of this appeal are not in dispute. The litigation stems from the dispute as to whether respondent or appellant is the proper person to be vested with the title of the Amaghizemwen of Benin. The Amaghizemwen of Benin is a traditional hereditary title in Benin City. The title was created about 1735 A.D. by Oba Oresoyen of Benin. The first Amaghizemwen is said to have been Emodua. The last Amaghizemwen as claimed by the appellant was Ediae who died in 1935.

The case of the respondent is that Ogbeide was the last Amaghizeniwen of Benin. He claims that neither Ediae, nor Eguarnwense, the grandfather and father respectively of the appellant held the title of Amaghizemwen of Benin. Respondent therefore claims that his father Emovon was the eldest son of Ogbeide. Emovon performed all necessary burial rites of Ogbeide, but died in 1931 before he could be installed the Amaghizemwen of Benin. The title had remained vacant ever since.

Appellant has challenged this claim. He denied the claim of the respondent that respondent is a grand child of Ogbeide. Appellant has contended that since Ogbeide was reputed to have died childless, respondent could not be his grandchild. It was also averred that Emovon, respondent’s father was alive when Ediae who died in 1935 was the Amaghizemwen. Ediae held the title from 1918 to 1935.

Respondent dissatisfied with the mediation of the family look his complaint to the Oba of Benin. He wrote several petitions alleging interference and usurpation of his title by the appellant with the active support of some other Benin chiefs who he expected to be impartial. The Oba of Benin first referred the dispute to Chief Inneh, the Ekegbiam of Benin. Respondent was dissatisfied with the effort of Chief Inneh and accordingly protested to the Oba of Benin. The Oba of Benin decided to hear the parties himself, and to decide the dispute. The Oba of Benin after hearing the parties ruled in favour of the appellant. Despite respondent’s protests against the decision, the Oba did not alter his ruling.

Respondent still dissatisfied with the decision of the Oba of Benin then took out a writ of summons of the 7th Feb., 1986 in the High Court seeking a declaration in respect of the same issue which was decided by the Oba of Benin. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal granted respondent the Declarations and injunction sought. Appellant has now in a further appeal to this court challenged the exercise By the High Court of the jurisdiction to grant a Declaration in respect of the matter over which the Oba of Benin had in the exercise of a statutory jurisdiction already come to a decision. Thus, the appeal before us is not concerned with the rightness or otherwise of the decisions of the court below. Respondent sought by the Declaration the determination of the matters which the Oba of Benin decided. It is as I have already stated whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to make the Declaratory Orders and injunctions.

The appeal before this Court

Appellant relied on the three grounds of appeal, alleging an error in law leading to misdirection and miscarriage of justice in the first ground. The second ground alleged want of jurisdiction in the trial court because of the provisions of sections 21, 22(1), 22(2), 22(3) and 22(6) of the Bendel State Traditional Rulers and Chiefs Law No. 16 of 1979. The third grounds of appeal complain of the finding that the Oba of Benin, the D.W.4 did not give evidence of what he knew, but relied on a report made to him.

Since the issue of jurisdiction is involved and if successful will determine the appeal in favour of the appellant, learned counsel to the appellant, properly formulated the issue for determination on the basis of the issue of jurisdiction which is the substance of the second ground of appeal.

The issue so formulated with which learned counsel to the respondent agrees is as follows:-

“Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain and grant the beliefs claimed by the plaintiff in this action.”

It is appropriate at this stage to set out the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the High Court. They are as follows:-

“(a) a declaration that the plaintiff and not the defendant is entitled to be conferred with the chieftaincy title of Amaghizemwen of Benin, it being a hereditary title under Benin Native Law and Custom.