Yakubu Gagarau & Ors V. Hausa Danboyi Pashiri (2005)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

TSAMIYA, J.C.A.

This appeal is against the judgment of the (High Court of Justice Plateau State, sitting in Jos), wherein the court granted all the five reliefs sought by the plaintiff (herein referred to as the respondent) in this suit. The action which is the subject of this appeal, was commenced by the respondent at the High Court of Justice, Plateau State, in Jos, claiming declaratory reliefs and injunction against the selection of the 1st defendant by 2nd and 3rd defendants (herein referred to as 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants respectively).

Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged by parties, which were later amended with the leave of the court. The respondent joined issues with the appellants, in the latters’ amended statement of claim. It follows that at the close of pleadings, the respondent relied upon his amended statement of claim, and on the other hand, the case for the appellants is as postulated in their joint amended statement of defence.

The reliefs sought by the plaintiff/respondent as per his amended statement of claim are set out below:

“(a) A declaration that the 2nd and 3rd defendants cannot lawfully appoint and recognize the 1st defendant as the village head of Kwafa as he is not from any of the Ruling House.

(b) A declaration that the purported election/selection of the 1st defendant is contrary to the customs and tradition of the Ribina people as such it is null and void;

(c) An order setting aside the election of the 1st defendant as village head of Kwafa and directing the 2nd and 3rd defendants to install the plaintiff as the village head of Kwafa, with all the tights and perquisite pertaining thereto;

(d) A perpetual injunction restraining 1st defendant from parading himself as the village head of Kwafa, and the Bassa Local Government Council and Plateau State Government from recognizing him as such.”

In proof of his claims and to justify grant of the reliefs sought, the plaintiff/ respondent called 2 witnesses, and the defendants/appellants called 3 witnesses in support of their defence to the claim of the respondent. Both respondent and 1st appellant gave evidence. Some documents were also tendered and admitted as exhibits in the course of the trial. The 2nd and 3rd defendants did not testify at the trial.

The facts that led to the decision of the trial court, which ultimately gave rise to this appeal are not so complicated. The facts may be summarised as follows: The death of Najuya Sakon Allah, the last village head of Kwafa signaled the race for his successor to the village headship of Kwafa. It is also pertinent to state that it is common ground between the parties that their dispute arose from the selection and installation of the 1st appellant as the new village head of Kwafa in Bassa Local Government Area of Plateau State.

The case as made out by the respondent was that, Kwafa village headship is a chieftaincy stool in Kwafa village in Bassa Local Government Area in respect of which the two ruling houses are entitled to present a candidate. The respondent’s case postulates a line of succession from an original ancestor named by the respondent as Pashiri and Hore by which the two existing ruling houses are known as Pashiti ruling house and Hore ruling house. The last village head – Najuyan Sakon Allah, who died in 1989, was from Hore ruling house and it then became the turn of respondent’s ruling house, i.e. Pashiri ruling house – to present a candidate. The procedure for selecting a new candidate for the village headship, which was asserted by the respondent in this action is said to involve the two ruling houses summoning a meeting of 6 members (three from each Ruling house) at which a candidate shall be nominated or selected. After such selection, the candidate would be presented to the kingmakers for approval, and installation and later to be followed by formal presentation of traditional symbol of authority which include rings, hand bags or bangles, homs and calabash. Even if the king makers did not approve the selection it matters not.

It was the respondent’s case that he was duly selected at a meeting of the members of the two ruling houses. He however, did not state which member of the two ruling houses presided over the meeting. The respondent was also said to have been formally selected by the 6 members/representative of the two ruling houses (though he did not say who have formally presented him to the committee or king makers for appointment and installation). The respondent alleged that he suddenly came to know about the selection of the 1st appellant and that he petitioned the Local Government Chairman, and the Chairman advised him to go to court. The respondent also alleged that he did not know who elected the 1st appellant to the village headship. He further alleged that the election and appointment of the 1st appellant were made in breach of the Native Law and Custom of Rabina people in appointing the successor to the village head of Kwafa. That under the custom, anyone not from any of the two ruling houses cannot be selected or elected to fill the vacant post of village head. A candidate must be a descendant of the either Pashiri or Hore ruling house. That the 1st appellant is not from either of the two ruling houses and as such he is not qualified to contest for the race. The respondent claimed that the election/selection and installation of the 1st appellant were illegal, and against the custom of Rabina people of Kwafa village. He further claimed that as he was interested, legally nominated/selected and installed, he was wrongly and illegally denied the opportunity to be the new village head/successor to the stool.

The appellants admitted the existence of two ruling houses, as entitled to present a candidate for the filling of the vacancy in Kwafa village headship.

They also admitted that Hore was one of the ruling houses but named the 2nd ruling house as Kijiki. The parties also agreed that the post is on rotational basis. The appellants also gave a genealogical account of the Kijiki ruling family from the 1st appellant ancestor to the time the two ruling houses were established. The appellant admitted the death of Najuya Sakon Allah, sometimes in 1989, but insisted that it then became the turn of Kijiki ruling house to present a candidate. The appellants stated further, that the 1st appellant was selected by the king makers, whose names he gave as Galadima, Chiroma, Sarkin Pada and Madaki, and they all died except Madaki. It was these king makers that selected his immediate predecessor in the method the 1st appellant was also selected. That they denied the fact that the king makers only play their role as king makers and select a new village head when there is dispute.