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