Ohaneze Ndigbo Worldwide

 

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