Posts by solomon2day
-
Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos of the Philippines
- By solomon2day
- On 04/09/2024
- In Special Report
The Philippines was among the poorest countries in the world.
Between 1965 and 1986, during which Marcos called the shots, he, alongside his wife, frittered away billions of the country's money meant for governance.
Imelda, the first lady, was the proud owner of the largest women's wardrobe in the world, which featured five thousand(5,000) pairs of ladies' shoes.
The President and his wife bought mansions in major cities of the world and invested in the top-rated multinational companies around the globe, even though the citizens of the Philippines remained in the firm grip of hunger and poverty.
When Marcos and his wife were forced out of office, an unspecified number of corruption cases were brought against them.
-
Change for the Better
- By solomon2day
- On 04/09/2024
- In Special Report
Our God is able to help us to become better people-responsible, reliable and selfless.Genesis 45:4-43
-
The Lord is with you always
- By solomon2day
- On 30/08/2024
- In Special Report
Regardless of your travails and challenges, do not allow your faith to waiver, you will overcome them.Genesis 39
13And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and was fled forth,
16And she laid up his garment by her, until his lord came home.
-
General August Pinochet of Chile
- By solomon2day
- On 30/08/2024
- In Update with Solomon
In 1973, General August Pinochet facilitated a coup d'état, in which the Socialist President, Salvador Allende, was murdered.In 1990, when General Pinochet ended his rule, the country's treasury had been greatly depleted.
He passed on to glory at the age of 91 on the 10 December 2006, with charges of corruption trailing his death.
-
Revenue Generation as a Priority
- By solomon2day
- On 30/08/2024
- In Update with Solomon
In 1974, the committee of Vice Chancellors of Nigerian Universities put in place a panel of the two admissions experts-Mr. L. R Kay, Secretary, Universities Central Council on Admissions of the United Kingdom and Mr. Pettipierre, Director of Ontario Universities Application Center of the province of Ontario, Canada-to examine issues and problems arising from the system of admissions into universities then.The panel submitted its report to the committee.
Sometime in February 1976, the Federal Military Government also put in place the National Committee on University Entrance, with Mr. Michael. S. Angulu as Chairperson, the committee comprised of 14 other members, who represented various other interests and bodies related to matriculation examinations, university placement and post-secondary education in the country.
In February 1977, the Angulu-led committee submitted its report and recommendations.
After going through the recommendations, the committee of Vice Chancellors, the National Universities Commission and the officials of the Federal Ministry of Education made their own recommendations to the government.
Again Decree 4 of 1993, now mandated the board to conduct admissions in collaboration with higher institutions.
And in March 1977, the Federal Government accepted the recommendations and went on to constitute the Board now known as the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), while a year later the board became a legal entity with the promulgation of Decree 2 of 1978.
The Federal Government then went on to appoint Mr. Angulu as the first Registrar and Chief Executive of the Board in 1977.
The mandate of JAMB is to ensure uniform standards in the conduct of matriculation examinations and placement of suitably qualified candidates into higher institutions in Nigeria.
In December 1989, the Federal Government repealed Decree 2 of 1978 and, in its place, promulgated Decree 33, which empowered the board to conduct admissions into Polytechnics and Colleges of Education all over the country.
Although the functions of JAMB do not include revenue generation, with over one million candidates purchasing the entrance examination forms in recent times, the Board is now a major revenue earner for the government, while several other irregularities shadow the operations of the board.
A cross-section of Nigerians are of the belief that limited educational exposure could be an obstacle to achieving positive results.
However, today, higher institutions conduct independent post UTME tests, which have been trailed by lamentations by parents and guardians of the enormous costs about implications for their children and wards in higher institutions of learning in Nigeria.
Despite the rigorous process of admissions, the end products are not of satisfactory quality.
Without doubt, the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) seems overwhelmed by its challenges, most especially after the introduction of the Computer Based Tests(CBT).
These challenges, which are enormous, have characterized every examination the board has conducted in recent times.
With no hope for a possible reversal in the near future.
Even though the results of its most recent examinations have been released, thousands of candidates insist that a lot is wrong with the conduct of the examinations, which the board has consistently ignored.
The dynamism and vision of the present leadership of the Board is debatable, if the comments, remarks and questions of candidates and their sponsors are anything to go by.
-
In the Interest of Digital Literacy
- By solomon2day
- On 23/08/2024
- In Update with Solomon
In Nigeria, millions of citizens, most especially the poor and vulnerable, remain without internet access. For a long time, internet users have had to put up with very substandard services.
This is as a result of inefficiency and inadequate infrastructure.
Sadly, most of those who are fortunate to have internet access use it negatively.
Indeed, digital literacy is a major challenge across the country and this has translated to limited internet use in most sectors of the economy.
Youths have taken to crime due to the attitude of the leadership at all levels of government, while pornographic content has exposed minors to immoral acts.
Of worry, is the lack of funding for research and infrastructure for Information and Communication Technology(ICT) by today's leadership.
The Backbone
The Nigerian youth involved in crime is not acting alone, some of those in positions of authority are his or her backbone.
This becomes glaring when an individual takes a keen interest in unfolding events.
-
The Omnipresent
- By solomon2day
- On 23/08/2024
- In Special Report
We cannot avoid God's assignment for us. God is everywhere and His love is so great. Genesis 28
7And that Jacob obeyed his father and his mother, and was gone to Padanaram;
8And Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father;
10And Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward Haran.
21So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God:
-
The Leadership Challenge
- By solomon2day
- On 20/08/2024
- In Update with Solomon
What would aid good governance is not in place. Rather, unnecessary criticism and condemnation of trailing the activities of Those-in-Charge visible are setbacks.Unguarded remarks, utterances and reckless statements and comments amplify the leadership abilities of an individual, positively or negatively.
Sadly, the trend among leaders in most climes, is to take positions on sensitive issues without thoughtful analysis of available facts.
Indeed, paying attention to details and aspects considered to be irrelevant ensures a very high degree of intelligent fairness that is essential for success in leadership.
Mao Zedong, popularly known as Chairman Mao, was successful with his noble goals for China through despotic means.
His leadership was severe, dictatorial and personalized.
For as long as Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution lasted, thousands of Chinese died of starvation and inhuman labor.
Mao and his co-travelers argued that the same was the price their people had to pay for re-education.
This brand of governance ensured the extermination of the heroes of the civil war and the old party chieftains by the President's armed squad.
Chairman Mao is perhaps the role model of those who hold sway in Nigeria today.
Indeed, the Senate President is among several other political office holders who adore President Ahmed Tinubu.
Those in support of this argument insist that the lawmaker is a regular visitor to Aso Rock for unknown reasons.
However, those against this order of things, stress that the underlying factors revolve around hypocrisy and boot licking.
Nigerians are yet to stop complaining of constitutional breaches and the unabated trampling of the rule of law in the dust, without noticeable changes by the powers that be.
From recent events in the country, the economic reform programs of the All Progressives Congress(APC) led government at the center and in the states, are modeled along the thinking of a free market economy.
It is doubtful if the government, in most recent times, has managed the economy for the benefit of Nigerians.
Of worry is the state of manufacturing industries, which could be said to be epileptic, even as food security is a mirage, insecurity is the chorus everywhere, while crude oil remains the major hope of the present administration.
Interestingly, the future growth of the Nigerian economy rests comfortably on diversification and focus on visionary and creative people-friendly economic policies, although the government still over-relies and over-depends on crude oil to fund its programs.
Can the present administration turn around the troubled economy ? Nobody knows.
Donate -
The Perpetual Absence of Visionary Leadership
- By solomon2day
- On 19/08/2024
- In Update with Solomon
The improvement in the system of transportation, to a very great measure, increases the physical extent and economic size of a country.However, in the Nigerian context, a number of factors have negatively affected the transport system and this has resulted in an astronomical rise in the prices of goods and services beyond the reach of a majority of the population.
The prohibitive transportation costs coupled with the multiple taxation across the country and the unabating insecurity have all succeeded in ensuring that Nigerians remain in a perpetual state of hunger and poverty.
Curiously, levels of government have channeled generated revenue from multiple taxes, unproductively, to real estate, while Nigerians continue to daily count their landed property losses.
Indeed, the government at all levels have always contended with inadequate financial organization and the relevant knowledge.
Sadly, economic stagnation is now a major characteristic in most cities that are contending with overpopulation. Petty trading and individual investments in consumables have become the preference of the people, in the absence of proactive, visionary leadership.
-
Teach us Thy Paths
- By solomon2day
- On 19/08/2024
- In Special Report
We should not relent in prayers for God to teach us His ways.Psalm 25
1(A Psalm of David.) Unto thee, O LORD, do I lift up my soul.
2O my God, I trust in thee: let me not be ashamed, let not mine enemies triumph over me.
3Yea, let none that wait on thee be ashamed: let them be ashamed which transgress without cause.
4Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths.
6Remember, O LORD, thy tender mercies and thy lovingkindnesses; for they have been ever of old.
8Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will he teach sinners in the way.
9The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way.
10All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.
11For thy name's sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great.
12What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose.
13His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth.
14The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.
15Mine eyes are ever toward the LORD; for he shall pluck my feet out of the net.
16Turn thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I am desolate and afflicted.
17The troubles of my heart are enlarged: O bring thou me out of my distresses.
18Look upon mine affliction and my pain; and forgive all my sins.
19Consider mine enemies; for they are many; and they hate me with cruel hatred.
20O keep my soul, and deliver me: let me not be ashamed; for I put my trust in thee.
21Let integrity and uprightness preserve me; for I wait on thee.
-
Calming Frayed Nerves
- By solomon2day
- On 15/08/2024
- In Update with Solomon
The burden of a nation is too multi-dimensional for a single power broker to manage.There are entrenched interests in the military, security services, a section of the judiciary and also the bureaucracy, while the population at large remains distraught and impoverished.
Indeed, to inherit a badly managed and shattered economy is disturbing to those who know what is in stock aside from the high level of insecurity.
Those-in-Charge need not feign ignorance about the pressing issues at stake, but go all out to tackle the issues, even as reservations, doubts and suspicions grow among the populace by the day.
The Situation
It is now very glaring that millions of Nigerians-outside the workforce- are contending with hunger, poverty, unemployment and a number of other hardships.
This has resulted into a sizable number the citizens embracing crime as a means to an end.
Those -in-charge are only scratching the surface while the situation deteriorates daily.
-
Appeal Court Judgment-Ohaneze Ndigbo Oyo state
- By solomon2day
- On 15/08/2024
- In Special Report
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA IBADAN JUDICIAL 
DIVISION HOLDEN AT IBADAN
ON FRIDAY THE 31 DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
HON. JUSTICE ITA.G.MBABA (PJ), OFR
HON. JUSTICE M. DANJUMA
HON. JUSTICE H. R. SHAGARI
- JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
APPEAL NO: CA/IB/116/2014
BETWEEN:
1. GARY ENWO-IGARIWE
(President General, Obaneze Ndigbo,
For himself and on behalf of Ohaneze Ndigbo) 2. HRH EZE (Dr.) C.I. ILOMUANYA, CON
AND
1. CHIEF JOSEPH NWIGWE
(Substituted for Late Dr. Alex Anozie by Order of this Honourable Court made on 18 March, 2024) 2. CHIEF NDIDI E. EZEAKO
3. CHIEF ALLOY OKWUDILI CHUKWUOBI 4. MR. ADOLF OKOLI
5. MR.ANDREW DURU
6. MR. JOHN IDOKO
APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
7. MR. FELIX IGBOANUGO
JUDGMENT
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR W. O. UGWU HO.D. LITIGATION
DATE
1076724
(DELIVERED BY ITA G. MBABA, JCA, OFR)
This Appeal is against the Judgment of Oyo State High Court in Suit No. 1/167/2011, delivered on 18th February,
CA/IB/116^/2014
Page 1
2014, by Hon. Justice M.A.A. Abass, whereof the leamed trial Judge granted the reliefs sought by the 1 and 2 Respondents herein (who were Plaintiffs at the lower Court) in the suit filed against the 3rd to 7th Respondents herein (as Defendants). Appellants brought this Appeal as interested parties, having been granted leave on 30th October, 2017 to appeal against the said judgment of the trial Court.
The 3rd to 7th Respondents herein had also, appealed against the said decision of the trial Court in Appeal No. CA/IB/116/2014, which was heard by this panel on 6th May, 2024 and judgment delivered earlier today, 31st May, 2024.
Appellants, as interested parties, in the said judgment in Suit No. IB/167/2011, had raised grounds of Appeal and sought the formulated the following issues for determination, as per in Appellants Brief, filed on 28/3/2024:
(1) Whether the learned trial Judge of the Court below did not violate the Constitutionally guaranteed right of the Appellants to fair hearing, when he made damaging findings and
against Appellants, who were neither parties nor heard in the proceedings before him, thus rendering his decision a nullity. (Grounds 1, 2 and 7).
pronouncements
the
(2) Whether the learned trial judge was not wrong and acted without or in
CA/IB/1164/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN OTVING CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU 4.0.0. LyrIGATION
Page 2
excess of jurisdiction in making findings and conclusions that are perverse, not having support in the evidence before him and relying on inadmissible evidence and extraneous matters in arriving at his decisions, thereby engendering serious
miscarriage of justice, Grounds 3, 4, 5 and 6.
The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed their Brief on 2/5/2024 and adopted the two Issues as donated by the Appellants for the determination of the Appeal.
Appellants' Counsel, Alhaji Lasun Sanusi, SAN argued that no Court is allowed to make orders against non parties to a case; that Appellants were not parties to the case of 1st and 2nd Respondents, and no claim was raised against the Appellants in the Suit, but surprisingly, the learned trial Court, in violation of the principles of fair hearing of the Appellants, made findings of "oppression" against the 2nd Appellant, at page 1117 of the Records of Appeal, where the Court, suo motu, raised allegation of oppression and humiliation of late Dr. Alex Anozie who was the original 1st Claimant, and resolved same against the Appellants, who were not parties to the case.
Counsel said, ironically, the trial Court could not point to any evidence that the late Dr. Alex Anozie was shocked, humiliated or oppressed; and that there was no pleading or evidence alleging oppression against any of the Claimants.
CA/IB/116A/2014
PAPPEAL
IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR, W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
DATE 157 124
Page 3
Counsel said that it is trite law that, where findings of Court is unsupported by evidence on record, such findings will be perverse and not allowed to stand. Counsel referred us to what the trial Court said on pages 1117 1118 of the Records of Appeal, as follows:
"I think it is oppressive for the Chairman of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers to ask for mobilization of all sons and daughter of Igbo extraction which include the Claimants to receive him and his entourage during a visit to Ibadan through Exhibit 19, only to use the same forum to humiliate the Claimants by announcing the dissolution of the association to which they belong and removing the 1st Claimant by mere pronouncement from his exalted position, thereby paving way for the emergence of the 1st Defendant as the Onyendu Ndigbo in place of the Claimant."
Counsel said there was no claim against the chairman of South East Council of Traditional Rulers or Ohaneze Ndigbo (Appellants), who were not parties to the Suit, challenging the (Appellants) on the removal of late Dr. Alex Anozie and Dr. Oramadike as leaders of ICDA and ICOS, respectively. Thus, the findings of the trial Court against the Appellants were based on the Judge's personal opinion, not evidence before the Court and
CA/IB/116A/2014
HI OF APPEAL IBADAN OVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. o. UGWU
ATION
Page 4
H.O.D, L
DATE.
at the same was perverse.
He relied on BARUWA VS.
OSOBA (1997) 3 NWLR (PT. 492) 179.
Counsel further referred to page 1116 of the Records, where the trial Court said:
"The 1st Claimant is clearly aggrieved over his purported removal as the ONYENDU NDIGBO of Ibadan and Oyo State and the purported installation of the 1st Defendant in his stead. The evidence of CW1, CW2, CW3 and CW4 are clearly pointing to the fact that there is no basis whatsoever for South East Council of Traditional Rulers Actions and that the said Council possess no power to act in the way they did..."
Counsel said there was nothing in the evidence of CW1, CW2, CW3 and CW4 to justify the above findings of the trial Court; that there was also no evidence that 3rd Respondent was installed, instead, or in the place of 1st Claimant; or that 1st Claimant was aggrieved; and that the South East Traditional Rulers had no power over Igbo Associations!
Counsel said that a judge is not permitted to base his judgment on his private opinion or formulate his own case. He relied on OWONIKORO VS. AROWOSAFE (1997) 10 NWLR (PT. 523) 61. Counsel also called our attention to the holding
CA/IB/116A/2014
COURT OF APPEAL
IBADANIVISION
CERTIFIED TRO
COPY
BA ARR. W.O. Ugwu H.O.D. UTISATION
DATE
Page 5
of the trial Court on pages 1108 to 1109 of the Records, where it said:
"I am of the considered view and I so hold, that notwithstanding the content of Exhibit 33, which is a letter dated the 10th December, 2010 in which the Ohaneze Ndigbo rectified dissolution of ICDA and recognized the the 1st Defendant as the Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and
and Oyo State, the Defendants have failed to establish the capacity or locus standi of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers to unilaterally dissolve and in regimental or commando manner remove the 1st Claimant as the Onyendu Ndigbo. The later in time ratification of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers which the Ohaneze Ndigbo had earlier in Exhibit 12 and 13 refused to recognize will not confer legitimacy on the purported actions of the Traditional Rulers in the absence of evidence showing the capacity and constitutionality of their actions."
a
Counsel argued that with the above, the trial Court went completely out of the trend of the case and the evidence adduced, to import extraneous facts and case upon which it based its decision, as the Respondents never raised any issue about the locus standi of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers, introduced by the trial Court,
CA/IB/116^/2014
COURT tu. Counsel relled
IBADAN DIV
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
3W0
BARR W. o. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
10761244
Page 6
on the case of ALLI VS. ALESINLOYE (2000) 6 NWLR (PT.
212. He also relied on NGERE VS.
660) 177 at 211
OKURUKET (2017) ALL FWLR (PT. 882) 1302 at 1345 to
the effect that:
"A Court is duty bound to confine its decision to the issues raised by the parties. The Court did not have the power to go outside the issue and formulate cases for the
the parties.
Otherwise, it might find itself covered by the dust of conflict."
He added that no Court is allowed to supply missing link in a party's case for the parties; that the above findings, among others, were prejudicial to the rights, powers and duties of the Appellants, as the ICDA and ICOS were affiliates of the Ohaneze Ndigbo, which worked in tandem with the South East Council of Traditional Rulers. He referred us to the averment of the original 1st Respondent, late Dr. Alex Anozie of ICDA on page 888 of the records, who said:
"The Claimants avers (sic) that the ICDA applied and became an affiliate of Ohaneze Ndigbo in year 2000 and they were duly recognized. The Claimant will at the trial rely on the letter of 6th July, 2000 written by the OHANEZE to Igbo Community
Development Association."
CA/IB/116A/2014
COURT OF APPEAL ISATAN DIVISION
CERTIFIED BRUE COPY
BARR. W H.O.D,
UGWU
ATION
Page 7
STE.
Counsel submitted that, as affiliate, the ICDA was a
member of the parent body and bound by the decision of the
parent body, contrary to the unsupported conclusion of the
learned trial Judge that Appellants had no power or locus standi
to resolve the factional crisis, as Appellants did. Counsel also
cited the evidence of PW4, under cross examination, who said:
"... As an affiliate of Ohaneze Ndigbo our Association have no right to pick and choose from the directives that way handed down to us by the body i.e. Ohaneze Ndigbo." See page 926 of the Records of Appeal.
Again, Counsel said a Court cannot make pronouncements
against a non party to a suit, and relied on the case of
CHUKWUOGOR VS. A.G. CROSS RIVER STATE & ORS
(1998) 1 NWLR (PT. 534) 375; INTERCONTRACTORS VS.
UAC (1988) 2 NWLR (PT. 76) 303; SALAU VS. PARAKOYI
(2001) 1 NWLR (PT. 695) 446; AZUH VS. UBN (2014) 11
NWLR (PT.1419) 580 at 611; NDULUE VS. IBEZIM (2002) 12 NWLR (PT. 780) 139 and IDAKWO VS. EJIGA (2002) 13 NWLR (PT. 783) 156 on the need to hear the party, before
making an order against him.
On Issue 2, Counsel said the trial Judge had formulated his
own case, different from the case of or issues presented to him by the 1st and 2nd Respondents and had predicated his findings
and decisions on the facts which were neither backed up by
CA/IB/1164/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY Collom
BARR. W. 6. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 8
pleadings or evidence on Record. Counsel referred to page 1111
of the Records, where the trial Court said:
"I therefore believe the evidence of the 1st Claimant to the effect that he was surprised and shocked when the council of Traditional Rulers started to make pronouncements touching the ICDA and his position as the Onyendu Ndigbo."
Counsel said there was nowhere in the Records that Late Dr. Alex Anozie or any witness gave evidence of surprise or shock and there was no pleading to that effect, or any challenge to the actions of the Appellants on the dissolution of ICDA and ICOS!
Counsel relied on the case of SILVA VS. INEC (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 810) 1121 to say that one who did not take part in an election cannot challenge the result or outcome of the election. He added that a Court must restrict itself to the case, presented by the parties - STATE VS. OLADIMEJI (2003) 14 NWLR (PT. 839) 57; OLUFEAGBA VS. ABDUL-RAHEEM (2009) 18 NWLR (PT. 1173); OSADIM VS. TAIWO (2010) 514; UBN LTD VS. NWAOKOLO (1995) 6 NWLR (PT. 400) 127.
Counsel said there was no allegation, whatsoever or claims against the Appellants (who were not parties to the suit). But
CA/IB/116A/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DRSION CERTIFIED TRUE COR
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
1016724
Page 9
the trial Court raised the issue of shock and humiliation of the 1st
Claimant, suo motu, against the 1st Appellant, when it said:
"There is no evidence of due process of
the law followed by the Council of Traditional Rulers of the South East before alleged removal and the procribtion of his Association (ie. ICDA) was carried out, the later in time retification of the highly despicable manner of removal of the 1st Claimant by Ohaneze Ndigbo through Exhibits 33 and 34 will not confer legitimacy on illegitimate way and manner by which the removal was carried out." (Page 1114 of the Records).
Counsel said again that there was no claim by the claimants against the Appellants herein, nor relief seeking to set aside the actions of the Appellants (namely the dissolution of ICDA and ICOS and suspension of 1st Claimant and 1st Defendant
from using the title of Ohaneze Ndigbo) for breaching or
violating due process! Counsel recalled that late Dr. Alex Anozie,
had told the Court, under cross examination:
"I was not in Ibadan on the day of the election of the 1st Defendant. We were given a certificate of affiliation by the Ohaneze Ndigbo. As an affiliate of Ohaneze Ndigbo, our association have no right to pick and choose from the directives that may be handed down to
COURT OF APPEA
CA/IB/116A/2014
IBADAN RIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU
H.O.D. LITIGATION
DATE......
27
Page 10
us by the parent body (ie.) Ohaneze Ndigbo..." (See page 926 of the Records).
Counsel said the above evidence by the Claimants had
tablished the power and authority of the Ohaneze Ndigbo and
the South East Council of Traditional Rulers (Appellants herein)
over the parties, and that there was no challenge to the Exhibits
33 and 34. Counsel said that, interestingly, there was no claim challenging the election of the 3rd Respondent (1st Defendant) by the Igbo General Assembly (IGA) as the Onyendu Ndigbo. Thus, the 1st and 2nd Respondents disclosed no cause of action in the
suit.
He urged us to allow the Appeal and set aside the decision
of the lower Court.
Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents, Ibrahin A.
Kareem-Ojo Esq., conceded that no Court is entitled to make
orders against a non-party to a suit, relying on ASUH VS. UBN
PLC (2014) 11 NWLR (PT. 1419) 580 at 616. But he added
that, throughout the length and breadth of the Judgment of the trial Court (pages 1092-1120 of the Records of Appeal) there was no where the Court made specific order or decree against any of the Appellants, as to warrant an appeal from them, seeking to set aside the judgment of the trial Court.
Counsel cited the case of AWOSEDA VS. AMCON (2018) LPELR-46051 (CA), on what constitutes a final judgment or
CA/IB/116A/2014
COURON
IBADAN
CERTIFIED TRUE CORY
BARR WO. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 11
7
order of Court. He argued what the Appellants complained about on the judgment were just comments (obiter) which cannot constitute basis for appeal; he said that what concerns an appellate Court is to determine whether the decision of the trial Court was right and not whether the reasons for the decision are right. He relied on OLORA VS. ADEGBITE (2012) LPELR - 7937 (CA); 2012 NWLR (PT. 1334) 40; WIKE ADANG VS. MERCY ADANG & ANOR (2020) LPELR -49816 (CA).
Counsel argued and prayed that the day will not come when Judges will have to borrow words and language from Counsel in writing their judgments; he said that the strictures to which the trial judge was subjected to in this Appeal, was what was depreciated in the case of ABEKE VS. THE STATE (2007) ALL FWLR (PT. 366) 649. Counsel said that the trial Judge comments were based on the case as put before it by the parties; that while 3rd to 8th Respondents were justifying the removal of the late Dr. Alex Anozie, the erstwhile 1st Respondent, vide their pleadings and evidence, and the 3rd to 8th Respondents raised the issue of the 1st Defendant coming to remove the 1st Claimant; that the 1st Claimant, joined issue with them, that Appellants, herein, had no authority and capacity to remove him. Counsel said the issue of installation of the 3rd Respondent by the 3rd to 8th Respondents, were issues joined by the parties, which led to the comments the trial judge made, in passing and related to the parties before the Court.
CA/IB/1164/2014
COURT SE APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY Coff
BARR. W. O. UGWU
H.O.D. L
DATE
GATION
Page 12
On the Issue of locus standi, Counsel said that 1st and 2nd Respondents had questioned the power of the Appellants herein (Ohaneze Ndigbo and South East Council of Traditional Rulers) to dissolve their Organization, when they pleaded in the Reply:
"With reference to paragraphs 7-13 of the statement of defence, the Claimants aver that the Council of Traditional Rulers of the South East are not members (of ICDA) and also did not form ICDA and or the Ohaneze Ndigbo and as such could not proscribe, abrogate or abolish the Association." (See paragraph 4 of thereof on page 830 of the Records).
Counsel argued that it was therefore based on the issues raised and justification by the Defendants, that the Court found that the Appellants, who were not members of ICDA, had no power under the Constitution to dissolve an association that was not formed by them.
Counsel said there was nowhere in the Records of Appeal, that the trial Court formulated a case and issues against the Appellants who were not parties in the case and against whom no claim or relief was sought, or that the trial Court resolved the same suo motu against Appellants. He urged us to resolve the issues against Appellants and dismiss this Appeal.
Counsel for 3rd to 8th Respondents filed no brief, but
indicated their alignment with the Appellants' Brief.
CA/IB/116A/2014
COOR
ADREAL
IBADAN DIVISION
CERTIFIED_TRUE/COPY
Page 13
......
BARR. W.D. UGWU H.O.O, LITIGATION
DATE.
1076/24
RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES
As earlier stated, we had earlier considered similar Issues, in Appeal No. CA/IB/116/2014, which was taken out by the 3rd to 8th Respondents herein (as Appellants) against the same decision of the lower Court, in Suit No. 1/167/2011, delivered on 18th February, 2014 in favour of the Claimants (1st and 2nd Respondents herein). In the said Appeal No. CA/IB/116/2014 (earlier delivered, today) we had considered the Issues (particularly Issue 3) exclusively, and do not intend to repeat the same here, as they are similar and cannot attract a different conclusion.
This Appeal therefore abides the decision in the said sister Appeal No. CA/IB/116/2014, delivered earlier, today, whereof we set aside the decision of the lower Court.
I should also add that the learned trial judge had relapsed into great error, when it took on the Ohaneze Ndigbo and South East Council of Traditional Rulers (Appellants) as if they were parties in the case, lashed them verbally and questioned their power/authority to dissolve the affiliate Igbo Organizations (ICDA and ICOS) and suspend the 1st Claimant and 1st Defendant from using the title of Onyendu Ndigbo. After lampooning the Appellants, the trial Judge held that the Defendants (3rd to 8th Respondents) did not lead evidence to establish the capacity and Constitutional Powers of Appellants, to do what they did (dissolution of the ICDA and ICOS, and baring the use of
CA/IB/116A/2014
COURT OF APPEAL
IBADAN DIVING CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR
O UGWU
ATION
70/6/24
Page 14
Onyendu Ndigbo by the contenders), The trial Judge even nullified the said decisions of the Appellants! (See pages 1108- 1109 of the Records)
Certainly, the learned trial Judge, in my opinion, went beyond his brief and mandate; descended into the arena of conflict to take sides and make a case, different from what was presented by the 1st and 2nd Respondents, and even became the aggrieved party, wounded by the role and decisions of the Appellants, who were not parties to the case!
In taking such decision, and descending on the Appellants, the trial Court appeared to have forgotten that the 1st and 2nd Respondents (as Claimants) were, in fact, counting on the support and ratification of the same Appellants (it vilified) to succeed; and had suggested them (Appellants) as their witnesses! See Reliefs one and three of the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
A Court is barred from straying into the arena of conflict to make a case for any party. It is bound to confine its decision to the case and issues canvassed and established before it, and cannot go outside the issues, to formulate case, different from what is presented, for a party. See ALLI VS. ALESINLOYE (2000) 6 NWLR (PT. 660) 117 at 211-212; NGERE VS. OKURUKET (2017) ALL FWLR INTERCONTRATORS VS. UAC (1988) 2 NWLR (PT. 76) (PT. 882);
CA/IB/116A/2014
COURT OF APPEAL
IBADAN DRAGIAN CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
RUB
BARR. WO. UGWU H.O.D.
TICATION
Page 15
303. See also IDRIS VS. GADA & ORS (2023) LPELR - 59349 (CA), where we held:
"The law is trite, that a trial Court must not go outside the case presented by the parties, to make case for any party, and it must dwell within the confines of the credible evidence, adduced, to base its decision. See the case of Nnanna Vs Sadiq & Anor (2022) LPELR - 57396 CA: "The law is trite, that the trial Court or any Court is bound to confine itself to the case presented by the Plaintiff (parties) and rule on the same. See the case of Ironkwe Vs UBA Plc (2017) ALL FWLR (Pt.879) 650 at 685, where it was held: "Judges are not allowed by the law to speculate or conjecture on possible facts. They do not have such jurisdiction..." And in the case of INEC Vs Atuma & Ors (2013) 57 MJSC (Pt.1) 29 at 52, it was held by the Supreme Court: "The Court must base its determination on the case as presented by the parties and not deviate from it. A Court should not make a case different from the one made by the parties." In the case of Osolu Vs Osolu & Ors (2003) LPELR- 2810 (SC); (2003) ALL FWLR (PT 172) 1777, it was held: "It is trite law that in the determination of disputes between the parties in a Court, the decision must be confined to the issues
CA/IB/116A/2014
QEAPPEAL
IBADAN DIVISTOR CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. 6. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
DATE
..1557.67244...
Page 16
properly raised by the parties. It is not competent for a Court, suo motu, to make a case for either or both of the parties and then proceed to give judgment on the case so formulated contrary to the case of the parties before it. See for example Adeniji v. Adeniji (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 298; Adegoke v. Adibi (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 242) 410. When an issue is not properly placed before the Court, the Court has no business whatsoever to deal with it. See Olusanya v. Olusanya (1983) 1 SCNLR 134, (1983) 3 SC 41, Ebba v. Ogodo (1984) 1 SCNLR 372." Per MUSDAPHER, JSC
It is also the Law, that a Court cannot pronounced against a person who is not a party before it. See AZUH VS. UBN PLC (2014) 11 NWLR (PT. 1419) 580 (SC). In the case of OYEYEMI & ORS VS. OWOEYE & ANOR (2017) LPELR - 41903 (SC), the Supreme Court held:
The effect of order(s) made against persons not joined as a party is that such order is a nullity and of no effect. In our view, Counsel to the Appellants was right to have submitted at pages 12 and 13 of his brief of arguments, that where person who ought to be joined to the suit had orders made against them by the trial judge, such proceedings ought to be a nullity, being a denial of the Appellant's right
CA/IB/116A/2014
IBADAN DIVI
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. WO. UGWU H.O.D, LITIGATION
DATE.
DATE.
10/6/24
Page 17
to fair hearing. See the case of OVUNWO & ANOR V. WOKO & ORS (2011) 7 SCM 207 at 231-232 and NURTW & ANOR V. RTEAN & ANOR (2012) 3 SCM 171 at 178-179." Per BAGE, JSC (Pp. 27-28, paras. D-A)
Thus, the findings and decision of the trial Court was on a wild frolic and outside the confines of the case, when it attacked the Appellants and undermined their traditional powers over the Claimants and Defendants, when it held as follows:
"I have read carefully the entire evidence led by the parties in this case and at nowhere or time was any allegation of wrong doing made against either the members of ICDA or their leadership which may form the basis of the exercise of the powers of life and death as done by the Council of Traditional Rulers who visited Ibadan. It is not here in this case being suggested that the 1st Claimant cannot be removed for proven misconduct but such alleged gravel misconduct which will warrant his removal must be leveled against him to defend himself before such grave and unpleasant decision against his person can be made. There is no evidence of due process of the law followed by the Council of Traditional Rulers of the South East before the alleged removal and the proscription of his association
SOE BADAN DEAL
CA/IB/116A/2014
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
Thank
BARR. W./O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 18
07
(ie. ICDA) was carried out. The later in time ratification of the highly despicable manner of removal of the 1st Claimant by the Ohaneze Ndigbo through Exhibits 33 and 34 will not confer any legitimacy on the illegitimate way and manner by which the said removal was carried out. There is abundant of evidence before this Court that the emergence of the 1st Defendant as the Onyendu Ndigbo came into being after the purported removal of 1st Claimant by the pronouncement of the Chairman of the South East
East Council of Traditional Rulers on the 14th of July, 2009.
Evidence also abound that it is the same Traditional leadership of the Igbo Community in Ibadan and Oyo State which the 1st Claimant held before 14th July, 2009, that the 1st Defendant is allegedly now conferred with due to the alleged removal of the 1st Claimant. It is the purported election and inauguration of the 1st Defendant as Onyendu Ndigbo consequent upon the removal of the 1st Claimant that the 1st Claimant is now challenging through the instrumentally of the filing of this action."
The above findings in substance appears to be a different case from the one presented by the Claimants (1st and 2nd
Respondents herein), when considering the reliefs sought by
CA/IB/116A/2014
COUNTS
IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR, W.O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
DATE
1016124
Page 19
them, the evidence led and the fact that the intervention by the South East Council of Traditional Rulers (and later ratified by the Ohaneze Ndigbo) in the proscription and removal complained of were not restricted to the 1st Claimant and his Organization (ICDA), but directed against the two factions and the Claimants to the title of Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State - as the two bodies (ICDA and ICOS) were dissolved and their said Claimants to the title, suspended and barred from using the title (See Exhibits 33 and 34).
It was thereafter that the Igbo General Assembly (IGA) organized an election which produced the 1st Defendant (3rd Respondent) as the Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State and the 1st Claimant did not take part in that election, and was not a member of the IGA!
Having not taken part in the said election by Igbo General Assembly (IGA) that produced 1st Defendant (3rd Respondent herein), certainly the Claimants (1st and 2nd Respondents), had
no ground to complain and had no cause of action against the Defendants (3rd to 8th Respondents) in my view. And having subordinated their Association (ICDA) to regulatory powers of the Ohaneze Ndigbo and Traditional Customs and Rules of the Igbos, (as apparently represented by the Council of Traditional Rulers in the South East), the Claimants (1st and 2nd Respondents) had brought themselves and their Association (ICDA) under the powers and control of the Ohaneze Ndigbo, to which it affiliated. It appears the trial Court lost sight or
CA/IB/116A/2014
COURT OFAREE
IBADAN DIVISION
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W..UGWU' H.D.D. LITIGATION
Page 20
cognizance of all that, especially as the 1st and 2nd Respondents had relied on the said parent bodies (the Appellants herein) to prove their case, as per the Reliefs 1 and 3 of their claims.
Accordingly, I resolve the Issues for the Appellants and allow the Appeal.
I had earlier set aside the decision of the Lower Court and dismissed the Suit by the sister Appeal No. CA/IB/116/2014. The same conclusion remains and abides this Appeal.
Parties to bear their costs.
Mulbaja
ITA G. MBABA
JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
COUNSEL:
APPELLANTS:
ALHAJI LASUN SANUSI, SAN, with CHIEF ADEMOLA ADEDEJI and A. O. AKINTOYE ESQ.
1ST & 2ND RESPONDENTS:
IBRAHIM A. KAREEM-OJO ESQ. with O. G. OLAWANDE ESQ.
3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS:
UCHE AMAJO ESQ.
CA/IB/1164/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE/COPY
BARR W, O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
DATE 15767
Page 21
APPEAL NO.: CA/IB/116/2014 MOHAMMED DANJUMA, JCA
I have had the privilege of reading in draft, the lead judgment of my learned brother ITA G. MBABA, JCA (OFR). I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that this appeal succeed and is hereby allowed. I abide by all the consequential orders in the lead judgment.
Z13409600 COURT OF APPERT
10 JUN 2024 SIGN
IBADAN
A
A
10 JUN 2024
nout
HON. JUSTICE MOHAMMED DANJUMA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
сте -100
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION BATE........
1.0.167.24
CA/IB/116A/2014
Page 22
CA/IB/116A/2014
HADIZA RABIU SHAGARI
I had the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment first delivered by my learned brother ITA GEORGE MBABA, PJCA, OFR. I agree with the reasoning advanced in the judgment and the conclusion therein and I also allow the Appeal and dismissed the Suit by the sister Appeal No: CA/IB/116/2024.
legen
0 и
HADIZA RABIU SHAGARI
Justice, Court of Appeal
CA/IB/116A/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED. TRUE COPY Cof
BARR, W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION DATE......
76734
Page 23
-
A good Disposition
- By solomon2day
- On 15/08/2024
- In Special Report
Our God speaks to us in our hearts. He puts good thoughts into our minds and ensures that we have a good disposition.Genesis 13:12-18
But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.
15For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.
-
Living with Evil
- By solomon2day
- On 11/08/2024
- In Update with Solomon
The evil deeds of some state governors are limiting factors when they involve interfacing with law enforcement agencies.Indeed, the situation has become so bad to the extent that the people no longer trust political office holders to guarantee the safety of lives and property.
Sadly, a number of state governors are very reluctant to move against cultists who have continued to wreak havoc in the affected states.
Interaction is preferably by representation, because a lot is still hidden, that is gradually coming to light.
Indeed, the evil that men do lives with them and has become their shadows.
No responsible law-abiding and right-thinking Nigerian will subscribe to calls by some individuals to cooperate with criminals. Perhaps -
God will provide
- By solomon2day
- On 11/08/2024
- In Special Report
Let us believe in being rest assured that God our creator will provide for all our needs.Matthew 6:26-32
27Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
-
Good Governance
- By solomon2day
- On 10/08/2024
- In Update with Solomon
It is to the knowledge of millions of Nigerians that the basic social-economic institutions have been destroyed.The challenge now is how to fix the nation's health, education, judiciary and other institutions or ensure a satisfactory turn around.
In developed countries, economic activities are the backbone of politics and, as such, distortions or reversal of economic policies or long-term strategic national objectives are rare.
Sadly, little or nothing has been achieved to guarantee a good economic foundation, which ought to be the back-rest of politics.
This is reflected in the awkward power-sharing, power rotation and inequitable distribution of resources and good governance.
The kind of economic reforms by the government would go a long way in determining if Those-in-Charge are neophytes in the Herculean task of governance.
Aiding and Abetting Criminals
For so long, cultists such as one Wolex and Lekan Adewale of 8 Kehinde Aderibigbe steet, Olorunsogo, Molete, Ibadan, Oyo state, Nigeria, have been terrorizing, robbing and attacking innocent Nigerians in the above-mentioned community and so many others. Although the law enforcement agencies feign ignorance, the confidence exuded by the criminals, who have continued to commit heinous and grievous crimes with impunity, exposes the deep involvement of the police in violent crimes, not only in Oyo state but in different parts of the country.
-
The Lord is your keeper
- By solomon2day
- On 10/08/2024
- In Special Report
Let us believe in the constant presence and protection of God. Psalm 121
(A Song of degrees.) I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help.
2My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth.
3He will not suffer thy foot to be moved: he that keepeth thee will not slumber.
4Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.
5The LORD is thy keeper: the LORD is thy shade upon thy right hand.
6The sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the moon by night.
7The LORD shall preserve thee from all evil: he shall preserve thy soul.
-
Appeal Court Judgment 2-Onyendu Ndigbo, Chief Alloy Obi
- By solomon2day
- On 09/08/2024
- In Special Report
evidence led had disclosed the cause of action. He added that the evidence elicited from the defence witness, particularly DW2, showed that as at June, 2010 there was only one person recognized as the Eze Ndigbo or Onyendu of Oyo State and that was Chief Dr, Alex Anozie (1st Claimant); that that confirmed the cause of action of the Respondents. On the claim of Appellants that 1st Appellant was elected and not selected as Onyendu, whereas the Respondents were complaining about the selection of 1st Appellant as Onyendu, Counsel for Respondent cited the case of Marwa Vs Nyako (2012) 6 NWLR (Pt.1269) 199 at 357 to say that:
"An election means the process of
choosing by popular votes a candidate."
He argued that selection is also a process of choosing a candidate and the word election is all embracing and also includes selection. He referred to the finding of the trial Court on Pages 1098 - 1099 of the Records to show that what was clearly in issue was the title of Onyendu Ndigbo, whether the claim of 1st Claimant to the title as being elected by Igbo community Development Association (ICDA), or that of 1st Appellant as being elected by Igbo General Assembly, should stand - that is, the dispute was about the leadership of Igbos in Ibadan and Oyo State, via the title of Onyendu Ndigbo, who was entitled to
Occupy the office.
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. WO. UGWU H.O.D, LITIGATION
1876724
Page 31
He urged us to resolve the Issue against Appellants.
On Issue 2, Counsel said the whole attack by the
Appellants was about the style of and manner by which the trial
Court writes judgment. He said that the style of writing judgment is unique to each Judge. He relied on Ogolo Vs Ogolo (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt.853) 494 at 523-524; Abeje Vs Apeke (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt.715) 376.
In this case, at hand, Counsel said the trial Court made
findings of fact which were not in dispute from the pleadings of
the parties and evidence led, and that was all, as shown on
Pages 1097 to 1098 of the Records. He said that the trial Court
dwelt, extensively, on the facts and evidence before it, as per
the pleadings, in reaching its conclusions; that the decision was
not perverse as alleged by the Appellants. He relied on the case
of Romaine Vs Romaine (1992) LPELR-2953 SC; Belgore Vs Ahmed (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt.1355) 63.
Counsel said the trial Court was right, when it did not
ascribe any probative value to DW2's evidence; that the evidence
wall all fabrication and the witness was economical with the
truth.
Counsel said that the Respondents were entitled to the grant of the 1st and 2nd Reliefs, as they were proved by evidence led by PW1, PW2 and PW3 and corroborated by the DW3 - as
per Page 955 of the Records of Appeal, when he said:
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR, W. O. UGWU H.O.D. L
IGATION
Page 32
"I can see Exhibit 2. It was written by Ohaneze Ndigbo to the 1st Claimant on 31/8/2010 acknowledging him as the only Onyendu Ndigbo of Oyo State. I cannot remember whether there was any election after 31/8/2010 in Oyo State among Igbos."
Counsel said the Respondents were entitled to take benefit
of evidence by the Appellants that supported them
(Respondents). He relied on Gaji Vs Paye 14 NSCQLR (Pt.1)
613.
On Issue 3, Counsel said that Appeal can only lie against a
ratio decidendi of a Court, not against an obiter. He relied on
Section 243(A) of the 1999 Constitution of FRN and the case of
Dalhatu Vs Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt.843) 310 at 350;
Wilson Vs Osin (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt.88) 324.
Counsel said that the comments of the trial Judge which
Appellants seek to appeal against in ground 9 of the Appeal, vis
a vis, the obiter of the Judge on Ohaneze Ndigbo and the South
East Council of Traditional Rulers, cannot be appealed against.
He also relied on Ngige Vs Obi (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt.330) 1041 at 1141; Buhari Vs Obasanjo (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt.941) 1 at 126-127.
On the Issue of not joining the South East Council of
Traditional Rulers and Ohaneze Ndigbo as parties, but making
orders that affect them, Counsel said the two bodies were aware
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEA IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 33
of the Suit, but preferred to only give evidence on behalf of the parties; that, of the 8 witnesses called by the parties, 3 of them were from the Ohaneze Ndigbo and South East Traditional Rulers Council; that they stood by and watched the parties slug it out. He relied on the case of Ogundiani Vs Araba (1978) 11 NSCC 334, and asserted again that the comments made by the trial Judge against the South East Council of Traditional Rulers and Ohaneze Ndigbo were simply obiter, not ratio decidendi.
On the submission of Appellants that the trial Court did not consider the exhibits tendered by Appellants, Counsel for Respondents said that the exhibits complained of, particularly 21-29, 34-35 were dumped on the Court and the Court has no duty to consider documents dumped on the Court, that it will amount to breach of fair hearing, if the trial Court examined such documents in chamber. He relied on the case of Terab Vs Lawan (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt.231) 569, which requires a party who relies on documents in proof of his case to specifically relate each of such documents to that part of his case in respect of which the document is being tendered.
He urged us to resolve the Issues against Appellants and to dismiss the Appeal.
Appellants file a lengthy bulky Reply Brief which appears to be a rehearse of the entire arguments in the Amended Brief. Of course, a Reply brief can only be justified, where it tackles a new/fresh points of law by Respondent in his brief, which were
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. WO. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
126......
Page 34
not raised in the Appellants' brief or contemplated therein. See
ABC (Transport Company) Ltd Vs Miss Sunmi Omotoye (2019) LPELR-47829 (SC); Adedeji & Ors Vs CBN &
Anor (2022) LPELR-59629 (SC).
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
I think the real Issues thrown up in this Appeal are two,
namely:
(1) Whether the learned trial Court was seised of jurisdiction to entertain the Suit, considering the issue of locus standi of the Respondents to complain against the election of the 1st Appellant as Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan by the Igbo General Assembly (IGA) and whether they disclosed sufficient cause of action in the circumstances of this
case.
(2) Whether the trial Court was right to hold that 1st Respondent was the Onyendu Ndigbo instead of the 1st Appellant, in the face
face of
of the
intervention and decision of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers and
Ohaneze
Ndigbo
which
intervention/decision the learned trial
Judge greatly deprecated condemned.
I shall take the Two Issues, together.
CA/IB/116/2014
and
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
CAMRUE
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
MATE
Page 35
A brief facts of this case at the trial Court, shows that
Appellants and Respondents were all of Igbo extraction living
and doing businesses in Oyo State and they organized
themselves to select or elect their leader or Eze in Ibadan the
(Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State). They however broke up into factions in the cause of selecting their said leader. While the Respondents belonged to a group known as Igbo Community Development Association (ICDA) led by former 1st
Respondent, Dr. Alex Anozie, the Appellants had their group -
Igbo Community of Oyo State (ICOS), led by one Dr. Oramadike.
The former 1st Respondent, (late Dr. Alex Anozie) claimed to have been selected as the Onyendu Ndigbo by the Igbo Community Development Association (ICDA), in 1997 and that the said selection was ratified by the Ohaneze Ndigbo, the umbrella socio-cultural organization of the Igbos. But the Igbo Community of Oyo State (ICOS), led by one Dr. Oramadike did
not accept the claims of Dr. Alex Anozie and ICDA and rather
opted for the 1st Appellant.
The ensuing tussle and crises for the selection of the Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State attracted the
intervention of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers in the year, 2009, July 14th, which resulted in the dissolution of the two
Igbo groups the ICDA and ICOS, along with their leaderships,
-
and Claimants to the title of Onyendu Ndigbo were barred from using it.
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAC IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR, W. O. Uewu
H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 36
Appellants claimed to have formed another Igbo
organization in Oyo State and Ibadan, called Igbo General
Assembly (IGA), upon the dissolution of the ICDA and ICOS, and
that it was the said Igbo General Assembly that elected the 1st
Appellant as the Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State in
2010.
That election gave rise to this case, as the Respondents sought the order of the Court that 1st Respondent (Dr. Alex
Anozie) remained the recognized Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and
Oyo State, having been elected democratically in 1997, before
the 14/7/2009, when the South East Council of Traditional Rulers
intervened. They also sought orders declaring the steps taken by Appellants towards the selection (of election) of 1st Appellant by 2nd - 6th Defendants contrary to Igbo customs and traditions and contrary to the Constitution of the Ohaneze Ndigbo, and so null and void. They also sought an order to set aside the selection of the 1st Appellant as Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State and to restrain him and the Appellants from parading as the Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State.
The trial Court had agreed with the Plaintiffs (Respondents herein) and made the Orders sought. Hence this Appeal.
I must start by stating the obvious, that by our laws, particularly the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the right to form an association, and forming of organisations and bodies to pursue any common CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION
CERTIFIED TRUM COPY
BARR, WO. UGWU
LITIGATION
Page 37
lawful interest, is entrenched and where such organisations or
bodies are formed the persons coming together can take
whatever name(s) and leadership they desire, within the
confines of the rules and regulations they give to themselves,
otherwise called - their internal Constitutions.
That is the purport of Section 40 of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, which states:
"Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interest; provided that the provisions of this Section shall not derogate from the powers conferred by this Constitution on the Independent National Electoral Commission, with respect to political parties to which that commission does not accord recognition."
I believe all the socio-cultural and ethnic/tribal associations and voluntary organisations derive their existence, relevance and
vibes from this law. In the case of Eronini & Ors Vs Eronini & Ors (2013) LPELR-20651 (CA) my Lord, Abba Aji, JCA (as she then was) stated on the right of individuals to form or join any association, freely, without being forced or coerced, as
follows:
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARK W.GUGWU H.O.G. LITIGATION
Page 38
It is trite that every person resident in Nigeria has a right to go about his or her lawful business unmolested or unhampered by anyone else be it a government functionary or a private individual. Thus, the Court will frawn upon any manifestation of arbitrary power assumed by any person or authority over the life or property of another even if that other is suspected of having breached some law or regulation. People must never take the law into their hands by attempting to enforce what they consider to be their right or entitlement, Per Ikongbeh JCA (of blessed memory) in Nkpa vs. Nkume (2001) 6 NWLR (PT 710) 543 at 560. In fact, in the instant case, the Respondents were being harassed and molested and prevented from lawfully associating with each under a purported authority which the Respondents do not possess. The Appellants should have tackled the situation in a leadership like manner and not show aggrandizement. In his contributory judgment in Nkpa vs. Nkume (Supra) at page 564, Pats Acholonu, JCA said as follows: "Time was when the law governing the native community was force of custom good or bad and whether repugnant or not. Now in the 21st century we are
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
TRUE
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
DATE
1076724...
Page 39
governed by a living law - the Constitution fashioned after the Constitution of older democracies. No one can force or coerce any to join club, society or group that he does not intend or wish to be a member. It is an affront and infraction of the Constitutional right to use old age custom that has now been relegated to morbidity to make one acquiesce or become a member to a body that he or she despises. It is atrophy."
See also the case of Mbanefo Vs Molokwu (2008) LPELR
-
3696 CA, where this Court held in furtherance of the Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria that the Court would not ordinarily interfere with decision of voluntary associations. It held:
Agbalanze Onitsha is a voluntary association to which the appellant belonged. It is entitled under its Constitution to decide for itself what it wants and to organize itself and a Court cannot tell such a voluntary association how it must be organized. If any member of such an association does not like its decision it is open to such a member to resign. See Section 6 (c) of Exhibit 'A'. Any society or association, comprising of members who voluntarily join it, is entitled to come to any decision which they like.
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LIGATION
Page 40
It must be said loud and clear, the party or association or even a club, to which any person belongs is supreme so far as its affairs go. See Macdongal Vs. Gardiner (1875) 1 Ch.D. 13 at 25 per Millish, L.J." Per TSAMIYA,
JCA (P.29, paras. B-E)
Thus, where a voluntary organisation sets out its objectives and goals as per its constitution, the members thereof are bound thereto, and the same objectives and goals or rules of the organisation cannot be forced on non-members of the organisation. Moreover, other voluntary organisations with similar objectives and goals are permitted to operate, within the same space, while ensuring that their aspirations are sought and pursued, peacefully, even if competitively in rival struggle, without endangering the public peace.
And where
where a voluntary organisation or association subordinates itself to another larger or parent body, as per their laws and rules, it cannot defy the orders and directions of the said larger or parent organisation to which it submits to, in my opinion.
In this case, at hand, what appears interesting and intriguing is the fact that both the Respondents and Appellants, in their pleadings and evidence, subordinated their voluntary organisations, which produced their Leaders and the Eze, known as "Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State" to some
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION
CERTIFIED TRUE/COPY
TRUEL C
BARR. W. O. UGWU
H.O.D. UTICATION
107.6724
DATE.....
Page 41
larger or parent organisations namely the South-East Council of Traditional Rulers and Ohaneze Ndigbo, and they looked forward to being guided, directed, and their decisions ratified or
sanctioned by the said South-East Council of Traditional Rulers and Ohaneze Ndigbo.
In their pleadings and reliefs sought and even evidence led,
the Respondents (as Claimants) clearly disclosed their romance
and obeysance to the customs and traditions of the Igbos
(which, of course, are custodied by the South-East Council of Traditional Rulers, and also sought the protection of Ohaneze Ndigbo as the umbrella organisation of all people of Igbo
extraction, world-wide.
For instance, in their Relief one, Respondents, in asserting
their right as Igbo Community Development Association (ICDA),
to produce the Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State, alleged that they democratically election of 1st Respondent (Dr.
Alex Anozie) in 1997, "subsequent ratification of the
election swearing-in and authority of the 1st Claimant
(was done) (was given) by the Ohaneze Ndigbo in the
year 2000."
In Relief 3, Respondents sought a Declaration that all
acts and steps taken by the Defendants towards the
selection and proposed installation of the 1st Defendant by the 2nd to 6th Defendants are contrary to Igbo
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 42
Customs and Traditions and the Constitution of Ohaneze Ndigbo and is therefore null and void."
Relief 4, sought "An Order setting aside all steps and acts done by the Defendants towards the selection and proposed installation of the 1st Defendant as the Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State."
Reliefs 5 and 6, sought orders of injunctions restraining the 1st Defendant and the Defendants from parading as the Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State.
Of course, the above reliefs appear to have acknowledged the election of 1st Appellant as Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State by Igbo General Assembly, and so sought Court order to declare the acts and steps taken towards the selection (or election) of 1st Appellant and his proposed installation a nullity as well as setting aside the said acts and steps of selection and installation of 1st Appellant as the Onyendu Ndigbo.
What the Reliefs also tried to establish was the facts that both the Ohaneze Ndigbo and Igbo Customs and Traditions supported their cause, having ratified 1st Respondent's election in 2000! The above deductions are my understanding of the claims and reliefs of the Respondents, as Claimants.
Sadly, in their pleadings and evidence, the Respondents rather presented the Appellants (and the 1st Appellant) as those
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. o. UoWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
jet
Page 43
enjoying the sympathy and support of the South-East Council of Traditional Rulers and of the Ohaneze Ndigbo, placing themselves and 1st Respondent at a disadvantage! Thus, Respondents were fighting the very people
people (parent organisations) they (Respondents) tauted/claimed as their
witnesses!
They (Respondents) led evidence against themselves (evidence against interest) and caused the trial Court to make several scathing remarks against the said parent organisations (South-East Council of Traditional Rulers and Ohaneze Ndigbo) depreciating their role and questioning their powers and authority over the Respondents!
For instance, the Respondents themselves led evidence to show that the South-East Council of Traditional Rulers issued Exhibit 33, which dissolved the organisation (ICDA) that produced the 1st Respondent as Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State and also dissolved the rival organisation (ICOS), with effect from 14/7/2009, but they later ratified the election of 1st Appellant by the Igbo General Assembly (IGA), as the Onyendu Ndigbo!
The Respondents had pleaded that they were not part of the Igbo General Assembly (IGA) that elected the 1st Appellant as Onyendu Ndigbo; they also said that they had earlier applied (as ICDA) and became affiliate of Ohaneze Ndigbo in the year,
2000 and were duly recognized. But that, sometimes about
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED PRUE COPY
Amb
BARR. W. 9. UGWU H.O.D., LITIGATION
DATE...
10767 244
Page 44
May, 2010, the Appellants came together, under the name "Igbo General Assembly" and stated that they have elected one Chief Alloy Obi (the 1st Defendant) as the Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State." (See Paragraphs 10, 12 and 22 of the Pleadings of Respondents).
The Respondents had led evidence on the above pleadings. On Pages 844-845 of the Records of Appeal. The PW2 (Chief Ndidi Emmanuel Nzeakor) said, under cross examination:
"I was the President of ICDA in Oyo State before it metamorphosed into Ohaneze Ndigbo. ICDA is no longer in existence... I am aware that before now there was another Igbo body known Igbo Community, Oyo State (i.e.) ICOS. They were in existence with the ICDA before they became moribund. I don't know when the ICOS ceases (sic) to exist. I only knew that they became dead, at a certain time. I was never a member of ICOS. ICOS then had an Eze known as Oramadike. I was in Ibadan when the South-East Council of Traditional Rulers came to Ibadan on 14/7/2009. I was part of the team that received the Traditional Rulers at the Toll Gate. I followed the Traditional Rulers to the Palace of Olubadan of Ibadan land. I was also with the team at the office of the
Deputy Governor. I was at Mokola,
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR W. O. UGWU
H.O.D. MITIGATION
Page 45
when the South East Council of Traditional Rulers addressed the Igbos... The 1st Claimant said the closing prayer on that day. The Imo (sic) bodies of ICDA and ICOS were not proscribed on that day. The Traditional Rulers on that day did ban both 1st Claimant and Oramadike from further answering the name Eze. The ICDA however, disagreed with the South East Council of Traditional Rulers on that day and protested. We told them that they have no powers to proscribe us, because they have no power over us... I am the president of Ohaneze Ndigbo, Oyo State. The Ohaneze Ndigbo Oyo State have (sic) its own Constitution Ohaneze Ndigbo at the National Level also have (sic) its own Constitution. The National body Constitution is superior to that of our own at the State Level. Ohaneze Ndigbo is the mouth piece of the Igbos all over the world. I don't (sic) know the mission of South East Traditional Rulers, when they came to Oyo State..."
The PW3 (DR. Alex Anozie) had said, under cross examination:
"... I am aware of the fact that some South East Council of Traditional Rulers member came to Oyo State. The
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE/COPY
Page 46
BARR.
UGWU
people who came said that they came to represent the South East Council of Traditional Rulers... I met them at the Ibadan End Toll Gate. The Chairman of the delegation asked me to follow them to everywhere they went to. He is by name Illomuanya... They announced there that they had come to change the title of Eze Ndigbo to Onyendu Ndigbo. They gave some people room to talk..." (Page 893 of the Records)
On Page 895, PW3 said:
"... The Traditional Ruler (sic) came to Oyo State in order to announce the change of title Eze Ndigbo to Onyendu Ndigbo like they did in other Slate (sic) but went on to add the issue of banning of Igbo Associations. We have (sic) taking instructions from Ohaneze Ndigbo before and complied with it. We have never taken instruction from the Council of Traditional Rulers. The one they gave, we rejected it..."
On Pages 898 to 899 of the Records, PW3 said:
"In the past 16 years, the Igbos in Ibadan has (sic) had Leadership tussle in Ibadan. There has been no crises. After the visit of the Traditional Rulers, I attended a meeting of a panel set up by the Ohaneze Ndigbo in Enugu to
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 47
look into the Leadership tussle in Oyo State. During the meeting, we notice (sic) bias and I told them that if I don't get justice from the meeting/panel, I will go to Court to seek redress. The bias I notice was that the Igbo tradition of breaking kolanut was supposed to be done by elder was given to a person, who is junior to me in age... They later sent a letter to us and said that they agreed with what the Traditional Rulers came to do. We protested in writing to them that we did not agreed (sic) to their decision... Kolanut breaking is an exclusive entitlement of most elderly person in Igbo land. Unless you are a King, the fact that you are a Chieftaincy title holder will not give you the privilege. I
am still a member of Ohaneze Ndigbo."
The above evidence clearly revealed that the very parent organisation (Ohaneze Ndigbo and Traditional Rulers) which the Respondents sought to rely on to establish their case, were presented as adversaries of their (Respondents) cause. And the evidence presented by the leaders of the said parent organisations were not favourable to the Respondents, either.
And so, the DW2, Chairman of the South-East Council of Traditional Rulers (Eze (Dr.) C.I. Illomuanya CON) was heavily fought by the Respondents, when he was to give evidence as they (Respondents) objected to his testifying in Court, but the
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W.Q. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
1576734
Page 48
trial Court overruled the objection. He testified, under a subpoena. Under cross examination he said, on Page 948 of the Records:
"... The Council directed that the two warring factions should be suspended and the State Leaders should take over to organize credible elections. An election was conducted and the winner (i.e.) the 1st Defendant was brought to the meeting of the Council that was held in Akwa (sic) Anambra State and introduced to the Council. The Council asked them to go so that it could find out whether due process was observed in the election of the 1st Defendant. When the Council found out that the election was properly carried out, the Council wrote to the 1st Defendant to confirm his election... The Council later came to confer the title on the 1st Defendant. Nobody objected to the resolution of the Council... The 1st Claimant said the closing prayer on that date."
DW3, one Chief Chinkwe Ndimele, said he testified, having been directed by the President - General of Ohaneze Ndigbo, who (was subpoenaed) to testify. He (DW3) National Vice President General of the Ohaneze Ndigbo, told the Court:
"I know the 1st Claimant and the 1st
Defendant. I know (sic) them when the
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU
O.D. LITIGATION
Page 49
Ohaneze Ndigbo set up an adhoc Committee to look into the reported leadership crisis in Oyo State, Igbo Community. I was a member of the Committee. We came out with Exhibit 33 as our resolution. I know Eze Illomuanya. He is the Chairman of the South Easter (sic) States of Ndi Ezes (i.e. Traditional Rulers). In his capacity as the Chairman of the Traditional Council in the South East, Eze Illomuanya is also the Chairman of Ime-Obi (i.e. the Highest Governing body of Ohaneze Ndigbo)..." (See Page 953 of the Records).
Crossed examined by Counsel for 4th to 5th Defendants (Mr. Adigo), DW3 said:
"The National Executive of Ohaneze Ndigbo will always look into the appointment of Onyendu Ndigbo in the States outside the South East of Nigeria. The candidates will be presented to the Ime-Obi and after their ratification, the Chairman of the Ime-Obi will then go and install in that State. The Chairman of the Traditional Council first came down to see the level of domain in Oyo State, he then went back to report to the Ohaneze Ndigbo. It was after the deliberations that he was given the go-ahead to go
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL
IBADAN DIVISION
CERTIFIED RUE COPY
BARR. W.O.UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 50
and dissolve the Oyo State Council."
(See Pages 953-954 of the Records)
I had earlier reproduced the Resolution of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers - Exhibit 33, in this Judgment:
(1) That the intervention of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers in the lingering leadership tussle within the Igbo Community in Ibadan, Oyo State on the 14th of July, 2009 was in order. (2) That the dissolution of the Igbo Community Development Association (ICDA) and Igbo Community of Oyo State (ICOS) along with their leadership by the South East Council of Traditional Rulers was the best interest of the Igbo Community.
(3) That since the subsequent election on the 18th of May, 2010 to elect a leader by the Igbo Community was properly advertised and brought to the notice of the Oyo State Government and the Police/SSS, the outcome of the election is valid and upheld.
(4) That Chief Aloy Obi is recognized as ONYENDU NDIGBO IN Ibadan and Oyo State.
(5) That this decision supercedes all earlier correspondents by Ohaneze Ndigbo on this matter..."
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. Q. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
ATE....
Page 51
The above pieces of evidence from both sides clearly put the Claimants (Respondents) in serious difficulties, in my view, to prove their declaratory reliefs. By law, the Claimants has the task of establishing his case on the strength of his evidence, and cannot rely on the weakness of the defence, if any, though he can take advantage of admission(s) by the defence, that supports his (Claimant's) cause. See the case of Isa Vs APC & Ors (2023) LPELR-60150 (SC); Ani & Ors Vs Otu & Ors (2023) LPELR-59602 (SC); Luke Vs RSHPDA & Ors (2022) LPELR-57580 (SC).
With all that transpired, resulting in the dissolution of the two rival bodies of Ndigbo in Oyo State, namely the Igbo Community Development Association (ICDA) and the Igbo Community, Oyo State (ICOS) and the suspension of the rival Claimants to the title of Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State by the decision of the South-East Council of Traditional Rulers, which was ratified by the Ohaneze Ndigbo, and the subsequent election of the 1st Appellant as the Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State by Igbo General Assembly (IGA), which election the 1st Respondent did not take part, but came to Court to pray the Court to set aside and nullify, I find it difficult to locate the locus standi of the 1st Respondent to challenge an election of 1st Appellant by a group, he (1st Respondent) was not a member of and which election he (1st Respondent) did not contest, simply because his group (ICDA) had problems with the
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE/COPY
BARR. W. O, UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
101.67.24
Page 52
decision of his parent organisation (Ohaneze Ndigbo and South- East Council of Traditional Rulers) concerning him and his earlier selection as the Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State!
It appears to me that the Respondents sued the wrong persons (Appellants) instead of those they really had issues with, South-East Council of Traditional Rulers and Ohaneze Ndigbo. Thus, I cannot see any cause of action disclosed against the Appellants, since the Respondents were not members of the Igbo General Assembly (IGA) that elected 1st Appellant and 1st Respondent did not take part in the election which produced the 1st Appellant as the Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State.
On Page 827 of the Records, the 1st Respondent had said:
"I did not contest any election within Igbo General Assembly."
A person is said to have locus standi to sue, where his legal right/interest in a given transaction can be ascertained and he is competent to file the Suit - that is he disclosed the legal capacity or standing to sue in the cause. See Opobiyi & Anor Vs Amuniru (2011) LPELR-8232 SC; PDP Vs INEC & Ors (2023) LPELR-60457 (SC). Locus standi is closely linked with cause of action, which is a legally viable complaint which a Court can entertain and give remedy on. See Atiba Iyalamu Savings and Loans Ltd Vs Suberu & Anor (2018) LPELR- 44069 (SC), where the Supreme Court held:
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O, UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 53
In Bello Vs A.G. Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (pt.45) 828 @ 876 A B this Court considered what constitutes a reasonable cause of action. His Lordship Karibi-Whyte, JSC opined thus: "I think a cause of action is constituted by the bundle or aggregate of facts which the law will recognise as giving the plaintiff a substantive right to make the claim against the relief or remedy being sought. Thus, the factual situation on which the plaintiff relies to support his claim must be recognised by the law as giving rise to a substantive right capable of being claimed or enforced against the defendant. In other words, the factual situation relied upon must constitute the essential ingredients of an enforceable right or claim." This definition was adopted by Obaseki, JSC in Afolayan Vs Ogunrinde (1990) 1 NWLR (pt.127) 269 @ 382 F - H. His Lordship stated: "In its simplest terms, I would say that a cause of action means: (1) a cause of complaint; (2) a civil right or
or obligation fit for determination by a Court of law; (3) a dispute in respect of which a Court of law is entitled to invoke its judicial powers to determine. It consists of every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed,
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL
IBADAN DIVISION
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU
H.O.D. LITIGATION
DATE...
Page 54
in order to support his right to judgment." See also: Thomas Vs Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (pt.18) 669; Adimora vs. Ajufo (1988) NSCC Vol. 19 (Part) 1003 @ 1005; (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 1; P.N Udoh Trading Co. Ltd vs. Abere (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 723) 114 @ 129 B - C; Mobil Producing Nig. Unltd vs. LASEPA & Ors. (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 1 @ 30 E G." Per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC (Pp. 43-45, paras. F-B)
-
I therefore find it quite strange, that the trial Judge rather picked serious quarrel with the South-East Council of Traditional Rulers and Ohaneze Ndigbo, over their role in denying the 1st Respondent his title and/or suspending him and his organisation (ICDA) and allegedly replacing him with the 1st Appellant, and so granted the reliefs sought by the Respondents, whereas the Suit was not against the said two parent bodies! The trial Court had observed on Pages 1104 to 1105 of the Records, thus:
"But one thing that is abundantly clear, both from the pleadings and evidence of all the parties to this action is that the purported dissolution of ICDA and removal of the 1st Claimant was not carried out by members of the ICDA, but by the chairman of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers." Yet neither that Council nor Dr. Ilomuanya was joined..."
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
DATE 17.
Page 55
The trial Court appeared to have shifted the burden of
proof to the Appellants (Defendants), when he held that the
Defendants failed to establish the capacity or locus standi of the
South-East Council of Traditional Rulers to unilaterally dissolve
and in commando manner remove the 1st Claimant as the
Onyendu Ndigbo, and the said acts ratified by the Ohaneze
Ndigbo! The trial Court therefore refused to confer legitimacy on
such acts, in the absence of evidence (according to it) to
establish constitutionality of their actions. See Pages 1108 to
1109 of the Records of Appeal.
The trial Court was wrong, in my opinion, to require the
Appellants (as Defendants) to lead evidence to establish the
locus standi and constitutional powers of the South East Council
of Traditional Rulers and Ohaneze Ndigbo to exercise such
powers and authority, when evidence by the Respondents (and
also Appellants) had demonstrated that the two sides pledged
loyalty to the said parent bodies, and the Respondents (as
Claimants) had even cited the said bodies, particularly Ohaneze Ndigbo, as the source of the legitimacy of 1st Respondent's
election as Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State!
I think, the said findings of the trial Court were perverse and contrary to the evidence adduced. I also think the trial Court
was unduly hard and harsh on the Council of Traditional Rulers
and Ohaneze Ndigbo, and I consider the said scathing remarks of the trial Judge on the two parent organisations offensive and
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAR IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. Q. UGWU H.O.D., LITIGATION
Page 56
condescending. See the case of Edun & Anor Vs FRN (2019)
SC.960/2019 on perverse findings:
The holding of the Court below quoted above is perverse as it is against the trend of evidence on record. See Nobis- Elendu v INEC (2015) All FWLR (Pt.812) 1505 at 1536, Akpata v Ugo (2007) All FWLR (Pt.349) 1203 at 1211. Being a perverse holding which influenced and or determined the final conclusion of the Court below, the appellant prays the Court to set aside the perverse holding and reverse the conclusion and decision of the Court below and allow this appeal. See Odom v PDP (2015) All FWLR (Pt.773) 1962) at 1984-1985. The testing of the veracity of Exhibits 1044 against other available evidence, Exhibits 10-14 cannot be taken as a clear, positive and unequivocal admission by the appellant of the commission of the offence of criminal misappropriation of money meant for execution of the contract. The Court below was therefore in error to have affirmed the decision of the trial Court which treated Exhibits 10-14 as admission of commission of the offence charged and the conviction of the appellant solely on the basis of Exhibits 10-14 and the decision is liable to be set aside. I rely
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISJON CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. Q. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
17724
Page 57
on Idowu v State (1998) 11 NWLR
(Pt.574) 354 at 363." Per PETER- ODILI, JSC (PP. 44-45, para B)
I see merit in this Appeal and resolve the Issues for Appellants and allow the Appeal. I set aside the decision of the
trial Court and dismiss the Suit. I make no order as to cost as parties are to bear their respective costs.
Mlbaja
ITA G. MBABA
JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
COUNSEL:
APPELLANTS:
ALHAJI A. LASUN SANUSI, SAN with him CHIEF ADEMOLA ADEDEJI and A.O. AKINTOYE ESQ
RESPONDENTS:
IBRAHIM A. KAREM-OJO ESQ with him O.G. OLURANLE
ESQ
13409600 COURT OF APPEAL
CASHIER 10 JUN 2024 SIGN
BADAN
A
10 JUN 2024
CTC-100
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR, W. O. UGWU
H.O.D LITIGATION
DATE......
CA/IB/116/2014
Page 58
APPEAL NO.: CA/IB/116/2014 MOHAMMED DANJUMA, JCA
I have had the privilege of reading in draft, the lead judgment of my learned brother ITA G. MBABA, JCA (OFR). I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that this appeal succeed and is hereby allowed. I abide by all the consequential orders in the lead judgment.
пя
HON. JUSTICE MOHAMMED DANJUMA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
א.
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION DATE
Page 59
CA/IB/116/2014
HADIZA RABIU SHAGARI
I have read the judgment of my learned brother ITA GEORGE MBABA, PJCA, OFR. I have nothing to add to his conclusion.
I also agree with his reasoning that there is merit in the Appeal and it is allowed by me and I also set aside the decision of the trial Court and dismiss the Suit.
Двери
HADIZA RABIU-SHAGARI Justice, Court of Appeal
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
HARR, WO UGWU
ODIGATION
Dart
10/6/224
CA/IB/116/2014
Page 60
-
Great Joy
- By solomon2day
- On 07/08/2024
- In Special Report
There is great joy in doing the will of God. Psalm 1
2But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
4The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
6For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.
-
Shun Idol Worship
- By solomon2day
- On 05/08/2024
- In Special Report
Lord our God fill our hearts with gratitude and help us to live more simply, so that others may simply live. Hosea 8:1-14
2Israel shall cry unto me, My God, we know thee.
3Israel hath cast off the thing that is good: the enemy shall pursue him.
8Israel is swallowed up: now shall they be among the Gentiles as a vessel wherein is no pleasure.
9For they are gone up to Assyria, a wild ass alone by himself: Ephraim hath hired lovers.
11Because Ephraim hath made many altars to sin, altars shall be unto him to sin.
12I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing.