Judiciary

 

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