The Attorney-general And Commissioner For Justice, Anambra State & Ors. V. Robert C. Okafor & Ors.(1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OMO, J.S.C. 

The defendants/appellants and the 4th and 5th respondents have been engaged in a tussle as to who has the right to select. Install, and indeed present the traditional ruler of Awka (variously called the “Ichie”. “Eze Uzu” or the “Obi” of Awka). Whilst the 3rd defendant/appellant is involved in overseeing that process, the role of the 1st and 2nd appellants is mainly confined to the recognition or de-recognition of the person duly nominated, selected and presented to them for recognition, pursuant to the provisions of the Traditional Rulers Law No.14 of 1981 of Anambra State.

It is admitted by all the parties concerned that the process of nomination to presentation was governed until disagreements arose by the 1976 Chieftaincy Constitution for Awka Community. It is the contention of the plaintiffs/respondents that sometime in 1985 the 4th and 5th defendants/appellants “and their group “unilaterally amended that Constitution, and proceeded to select, instal and purported to present an “unpopular candidate” for recognition as the traditional ruler of Awka.

Incensed by this action the plaintiffs/respondents filed an action (Suit No. AA/70/86) in the High Court of Anambra State (Awka Division) claiming:-

“1. A declaration that any constitution purported to be an amendment to the 1976 Chieftaincy Constitution for Awka Community and lodged with the Administrator for Awka or forwarded to the Anambra State Commissioner for Local Government, Rural Development and Chieftaincy Matters Enugu is null and void and of no effect:

2. A declaration that any action or decision based on the purported amendment of the Chieftaincy Constitution for Awka of 1976 is null and void and of no effect;
3. A declaration that the 4th defendant has no power either by custom tradition or any known law to act as the regent or Ichie of Awka and that the purported appointment of the 4th defendant as the regent or Ichie of Awka by the 3rd defendant or any other person or persons or body is null and void and is of no effect;
4. An injunction to restrain the 1st and 2nd defendants from acting on any decision based on the purported amendment of the 1976 Awka Constitution;
5. An injunction to restrain the 4th defendant from parading himself as the regent of Awka;
6. A further injunction to restrain the 5th defendant from presenting himself to the 1st and 2nd defendants as the person validly selected under the purported amended 1976 Awka Chieftaincy Constitution to represent the Awka Community.”

After the plaintiffs/respondents had filed their pleadings both the 1st to 3rd defendants/appellants and the 4th and 5th defendants/appellants thereafter separately filed motions in the same Division of the Anambra State High Court for an order of the High Court dismissing the action filed, on the ground that the plaintiffs/respondents had no locus standi to institute the action. The order sought was granted by the trial Judge in a reserved judgment delivered on 15/12/86. On the same day the plaintiffs/respondents filed an appeal against the ruling to the Court or Appeal and a motion seeking a stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court appealed against. The stay sought was refused by the High Court in its considered ruling on 17/3/87.

On 6/2/87, before the High Court ruled on the application for a stay, the 1st to 3rd defendants/appellants, in exercise of their powers under Law No.14 of 1981 aforementioned, granted recognition to the 5th defendant/appellant as the Obi of Awka. The plaintiffs/respondents, according to them “in desperation”, filed a fresh action in the Enugu Division of the Anambra High Court seeking declaration that the “purported” recognition of the 5th defendant/appellant as the Obi (Eze Uzu) of Awka is illegal, void and “is of no effect”, that the 5th defendant/appellant was not validly elected and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st to 3rd defendants/appellants, their agents, servants etc. from giving a certificate of recognition to the 5th defendant or “in any way treating him as the traditional ruler of Awka.” This action was transferred to the Akwa Division for hearing.

As at the stage when the 1st to 3rd defendants/appellants recognized the 5th defendant/appellant as the Obi of Awka what was in the Courts by way of litigation was an appeal against the ruling/judgment that the plaintiffs/respondents had no locus standi to institute the original action (Suit No. AA/70/86), the substantive action having been dismissed.

By another motion filed on 17/3/87 in the Court of Appeal (Enugu Division), and numbered CA/E/74M/87, the plaintiffs/ respondents prayed for the following orders –

“(a) a stay of the ruling/judgment or execution in the above named suit pending the determination of the appeal

(b) an injunction to restrain the 1st and 2nd defendants/ respondents, their servants/and or agents from acting on the said ruling to recognize the 5th defendant/ respondent as the traditional ruler of Awka pending the determination of the appeal.”

On 2/12/87, nine months after, they followed this up with another application by way of motion filed in the same Division of the Court of Appeal and numbered CA/E/331M/87 in which they now sought the Court’s order.

“setting aside and/or revoking the recognition granted to the 5th defendant Ozo A.C. Ndigwe as the Traditional Ruler of Awka while the issue touching and concerning the said recognition was still pending in Court”.

On 5/1/88, counsel for the 1st to 3rd defendants/appellants filed in the Court of Appeal a notice of preliminary objection against the hearing of the motion to set aside or revoke recognition of 5th defendant/appellant on the grounds that –