Appeal Court Judgment-Onyendu Ndigbo, Chief Alloy Obi
- By solomon2day
- On 05/08/2024
- In Special Report
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT IBADAN
ON FRIDAY THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
HON. JUSTICE M. DANUMA
HON. JUSTICE ITA.G. MBABA (PJ), OFR
JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL - JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
HON. JUSTICE H. R. SHAGARI
APPEAL NO: CA/IB/116/2014
BETWEEN:
1. CHIEF ALLOY OKWUDILICHUKWU OBI
2. MR. ADOLF OKOLI
3. CHIEF GILBERT IHESULO
4. MR. ANDREW DURU
5. MR. JOHN IDOKO
6. MR. FELIX IGBOANUGA
AND
1. CHIEF JOSEPH NWIHWE
(Substituted for Late Dr. Alex Anozie by Order of this Honourable Court made on 18th March, 2024)
2. CHIEF NDIDI E. NZEAKO
(For himself and on behalf of Ohaneze
Ndigbo of Oyo State)
- APPELLANTS
= RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
(DELIVERED BY ITA G. MBABA, JCA, OFR)
This Appeal emanated from the Judgment of Oyo State High Court in Suit No. 1/167/2011, delivered on 18th February,
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 1
2014, by Hon. Justice M.A.A. Abass, wherein the trial Judge granted all the claims of the Claimants (now Respondents)
At the trial, the Respondents had sought the following reliefs:
1. Declaration that the 1st Claimant is the
subsisting and the Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan land and Ovo State, having been democratically elected and sworn into office by the Igbo Community Development Association in 1997 and the subsequent ratification of the election, swearing-in and authority of the 1st Claimant by the Ohanaeze Ndigbo in the year 2000.
2. Declaration that there can and only be one Onyendu Ndigbo for one Community and that and only the 1st Claimant Alex Anozie is the Onyendu Ndigbo for Ibadan land and Oyo State having been duly proclaimed as such by the Igbo Communities in Oyo State, vide their communique issued on30th September, 2000.
3. 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 Defendant are contrary to Igbo customs and traditions and the Constitution of Ohanaeze Ndigbo and is therefore null and void.
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU
H.O.D. L
MATE
ICATION
17.724
Page 2
4. 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.
5. An Injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves, their servants, agents and or privies otherwise from installing the 1st Defendant as Onyendu of Ibadan and Oyo State.
6. An Order of injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from pronouncing and
parading himself as the Onyendu Ndigbo for Ibadan and Oyo State. (See Pages 20 of the Records of Appeal)
Appellants (as Defendants) had opposed the claim and after hearing the case and considering the evidence and addresses of Counsel, the trial Court held for the Claimants (Respondents) and 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 place. The evidence of CW1, CW2, CW3 and CW4 are clearly pointing to the fact that there is no basis whatsoever for the South East Council of Traditional Rulers actions and that the said Council possesses no power to act in the way they did. The defence of
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
Othm
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 3
the defendants as epitomized by the testimonies of DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW4 is simply that the South East Council of Traditional Rulers acted the way they did because of a perceived rivalry between the ICDA and another group led by Chief Oramadike. The defendants did not however place any material before the court to show where the said South East Council of Traditional
Rulers derived their power to dissolve/proscribe the ICDA and to remove or dethrone the 1st claimant by mere pronouncement at the gathering of the 14th of July, 2009. The defendants did not also produce any evidence to the effect that the South East Council of Traditional Rulers was a party to the formation of ICDA or its parent body (i.e. the Ohaneze Ndigbo) which will now give them (the Council) the power of life or death over the ICDA and its operatives and structures to the extent of the arrogation of the power of declaration of an association of individuals formed many years before dissolved within few hours or minutes of a day gathering.
The picture painted by the defendants of the extent of the powers of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers on matters that concern the interest of association of matured men of which
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL
IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR, W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 4
they never took part in their formation nor were they members is the type that will find no place in a just and egalitarian society where the Rule of Law and respect for human conduct and the right to free association of citizens as enshrine in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is guaranteed. The defendants also gave evidence to the effect that the actions of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers was aimed at ensuring lasting peace among the Igbos resident in Ibadan and Oyo State, but I hasten to say that the procedure adopted by the chairman of the Council in dissolving the ICDA and removing the 1st claimant as the Onyendu Ndigbo by pronouncement at a gathering may be quick and convenient and time saving, but the dictates of justice demands that the legal principle of audi alter an partem must be obeyed no matter how cumbersome and inconvenient it may appear to the council.
See OLANIYAN VS
mere
UNIVERSITY OF
LAGOS (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599.
I think it is oppressive for the chairman of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers to ask for the mobilization of all sons and daughters of Igbo extraction which included the claimants to receive him and his entourage during a visit to
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE/COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 5
Ibadan through Exhibit19,onlytousethe 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. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is an important document. It sets out regulations for the organic and systematic ordering of the public and private affairs of citizens of Nigeria. It also protects their private rights. It was designed to ensure that the rights of the citizens are not trampled upon or taken away without reparation. Its provisions are strong and elastic enough to protect rights which had accrued before or after the
Constitution came into force.
See DR. (MRS.) RANSOME-KUTI VS AG (1985) (Pt. 16) 211 WOMILOJU VS ANIBIRE (2010) 10 NWLR (Pr. 1203) 545.
In the light of the above, I hold that the 1st claimant has a right to challenge the election and inauguration of the 1st defendant as the Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State. Issue No. 3 is resolved in favour of the claimants.
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL
IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 6
Having resolved the three issues for the determination of this case in favour of the claimants, I hold that the claimant's claims succeeds. I accordingly grant the following reliefs being claimed by the claimants in paragraph 22 of the Amended Statement of claim dated the 2nd of February, 2012 and filed on the same date.
That is, the following reliefs claimed by the claimants are hereby granted:
"(i) Declaration that the 1st claimant is the subsisting and the Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan land and Oyo State, having been democratically elected and sworn into office by the Igbo Community Development Association in 1997 and authority of the 1st claimant by the Ohaneze Ndigbo in the year 2000.
ii. Declaration that there can only be one "Onyendu Ndigbo" for one community and the 1st claimant - Alex Anozie is the Onyendu Ndigbo for Ibadan land and Oyo State having been duly proclaimed as such by the Igbo communities in Oyo State vide their MA. ARTSOKAMUITO communique issued on 30th September, 2000.
iii. Declaration that all acts and steps taken by the Defendants towards the selection and installation of the 1st defendant by the 2nd to 6th defendant contrary to Igbo customs and traditions
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
mk
BARR. WO. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 7
and the Constitution of Ohanaeze Ndigbo
and is therefore null and void.
That is the Judgment Appellants appealed against, as per the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 14/05/2015. See Pages 1147 1153 of the Supplementary Records of Appeal, transmitted to this Court on 22/7/16 and deemed duly done on 9/11/2017.
Appellants filed Amended Brief of arguments on 28/3/2024, wherein they distilled three (3) Issues for the determination of the Appeal, as follows:
(1) Whether the learned trial Judge of the Court below was not wrong and acted in excess of jurisdiction when he entertained and adjudicated in the suit when the Claimants lack (sic) locus standi to institute the action as the claims disclose (sic) no cause of action and not properly constituted necessary parties were not joined or sued. (Grounds 10, 11 and 12)
as
(2) Whether the learned trial Judge was not wrong in predicating his decision on perverse findings which lack (sic) support from the evidence on record, thereby engendering serious miscarriage of justice. (Grounds 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 13)
(3) Whether the learned trial Judge did not violate the constitutional rights to fair
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION
CERTIFIED TRUE/COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 8
hearing of the Appellants when he failed to consider relevant documents tendered and gave judgment against the Appellants on the basis of findings and holdings made against Ohanaeze Ndigbo and the Council of South East Traditional Rulers, who are (sic) not parties in the case, which holdings and decisions engendered serious miscarriage of justice, unjust, unconstitutional, null and
void. (Grounds 7, 8 and 9)
The Respondents filed their brief on 2/5/2024 and distilled three (3) Issues, too, for determination of the Appeal, as follows:
(1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he entertained and granted the claims of the Respondents, in view of the pleadings and evidence before the Court. (Grounds 10, 11 and 12)
(2) Whether there was a careful appraisal of evidence by the Court and the trial Judge is (sic) right in his judgment considering the evidence placed before the Court. (Grounds 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 13)
(3) Whether there was a breach of right of fair hearing by the trial Judge in the conduct of the case at trial. (Grounds 7, 8 and 9)
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. WO. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page. 9
Appellants file a Reply Brief, today (6/5/2024) (which they styled "Appellants Consequential Amended Reply Brief of
Argument" to react to the Respondents' Brief.
Arguing the Appeal, Appellants' Counsel, Alhaji A. Lasun
Sanusi, SAN, with him Chief Ademola Adeniji and A.O.
Akintoye Esq, on Issue 1, said that the Suit was not properly
constituted with necessary parties; that Respondents disclosed
no cause of action consequent upon which there was want of
locus standi, and so the trial Court was robbed of jurisdiction to
hear the case.
Counsel referred to the 1st Relief sought by the
Respondents to say that the same acknowledged that late Dr. Alex Anozie (former 1st Respondent) was the Onyendu Ndigbo of
Ibadan and Oyo State elected and sworn in by the Igbo
Community Development Association (ICDA) in 1997, which was
a rival group to Igbo Community of Oyo State (ICOS), under the
leadership of one Doctor Oramadike; that it was evident that the reliefs by the late Dr. Alex Anozie (1st Respondent) to exercise
control over his Igbo Community Development Association
(ICDA) was subject to ratification and authority of the Ohaneze
Ndigbo, which is the overall authority for all people of Igbo
extraction, world-wide, to which ICDA was affiliated. He
(Counsel) argued that the Respondents had also acknowledged the emergence of 1st Appellant too, as the Onyendu Ndigbo of
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE/COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 10
Oyo State, but sought to nullify the 1st Appellant's Selection (See Reliefs 3 and 4 by the Respondents)
Counsel argued that there was no selection or steps towards selection of 1st Respondent, but that 1st Appellant was enthroned by election under IGA; that the steps taken towards election of the 1st Appellant were after the dissolution ICDA and ICOS by South East Traditional Rulers and Ohaneze, following his election by Igbo General Assembly; that the fact that both South East Council of Traditional Rulers and Ohaneze Ndigbo and I.G.A
were not joined to the case was fatal to the Suit. Counsel
referred us to the Exhibit 33 - a letter of the Ohaneze Ndigbo to the Oyo State Governor dated 10th December, 2010 (See Pages 756 of the Records of Appeal - Vol. 2), confirming the dissolution of "Igbo Community Development Association" (ICDA) and Igbo Community of Oyo State (ICOS) among other issues; Counsel said it was resolved in the Exhibit 33, and stated as follows:
(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
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL
IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. D. UGWU
H.O.D. LITI
Page 11
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)
(5)
That Chief Aloy Obi is recognized as ONYENDU NDIGBO IN Ibadan and Oyo State.
That this decision supercedes all earlier correspondents by Ohaneze Ndigbo on this matter..."
Appellants' Counsel expressed no doubt that the
Respondents were conscious of the fact that their Association
(ICDA) had been proscribed by the South East Council of
Traditional Rulers, just as the ICOS, and the said decisions were ratified by the Ohaneze Ndigbo. Counsel referred us to
Paragraph 11 of the Reply by the Respondents to Defendants'
Statement of Defence (Page 824 of the Records), where Respondents contested the power of the Igbo Traditional Rulers Council South East to dissolve ICDA Ibadan and to cancel the selection of 1st Respondent as the Onyendu Ndigbo Council and Counsel added that the proscription of ICDA and ICOS was never challenged in any Court. He said that DW4, who was a member of ICDA, during cross examination, admitted the decision of the
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEA IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
1.07.17.244.
Page 12
South East Council of Traditional Rulers on the dissolution of the ICDA and ICOS- Page 957 of the Records - that "after the dissolution of the two former groups, there came up the Igbo General Assembly (IGA)."
Counsel said that the election by Igbo General Assembly (IGA), which led to the emergence of 1st Appellant as Onyendu of Ibadan and Oyo State was conducted by Igbo General Assembly, which was also not joined as a party to the Suit either by itself or through its officials. Thus, Counsel said the necessary parties, the South East Council of Traditional Rulers and Ohaneze Ndigbo, were not joined in the suit, neither was the Igbo General Assembly (IGA), being the body that conducted the election that produced the 1st Appellant as Onyendu; he said that failure to join those necessary parties robbed the trial Court of jurisdiction. He relied on the case of Mbanefo Vs Molokwu (2014) 6 NWLR (Pt.1403) 377 at 410; Bakare Vs Ajose Adeogun (2014) 6 NWLR (Pt.1403) 320 at 359.
Counsel added that the absence of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers and Ohaneze Ndigbo who dissolved the ICDA and ICOS and of the IGA (Igbo General Assembly) which conducted the election that brought about the 1st Appellant as Onyendu was fatal to be case of Respondents, especially as the Respondents had founded on role of and powers and authority of the Ohaneze Ndigbo in the ratification of selection/election of Onyendu Ndigbo. (See Reliefs 1 and 3 of the Respondents).
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU
H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 13
Counsel also argued that the Respondents lacked locus standi to bring the Suit as the election of the 1st Appellant, being
challenged by them, was conducted by Igbo General Assembly
(IGA) after the dissolution of the Igbo Community Development Association (ICDA) and Igbo Community Oyo State (ICOS) by
the South East Council of Traditional Rulers, and Ohaneze
Ndigbo. He argued that the Respondents were not members of
the Igbo General Assembly and did not take part in the contest and election that produced the 1st Appellant, and so they lacked the locus standi to challenge the election or emergence of its
leader via election; Counsel said that it was difficult to see how
the exercise of the constitutional right of the members of the
Association (Igbo General Assembly) to select their leader should
affect or injure the Respondents. He relied on the case of
Odeneye Vs Efunnuga (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt.164) 618 at
639 on the issue of locus standi; that a party must establish a
vested right to qualify to take action to protect. He also relied on
Bakare Vs Ajose-Adeogun (Supra).
Counsel referred us to Page 844 of the Records, where
PW2 testified that the Igbo Community Development Association
(ICDA) to which late Dr. Alex Anozie belonged, had been
dissolved and made moribund. Counsel also referred to Page 845
of the Records, where PW2 said: "The Traditional Rulers on that day did ban both 1st Claimant and Oramadike from
further answering the name Eze." He concluded that both
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
MATE
1576734
Page.14
the ICDA of late Dr. Alex Anozie and ICOS led by one Dr. Oramadike, became dead before the Igbo General Assembly (IGA) was formed and conduced the election which produced the 1st Appellant as Onyendu of "Igbo General Assembly" (IGA). Counsel said that the late Dr. Alex Anozie had testified as PW3 to admit that he did not contest the election conducted by the Igbo General Assembly, when he said on Page 900 of the Records:
"The 2nd to 5th Defendants did not ask me to pick a form for the contest, thereafter. Even if they have asked me to pick, I would not have picked one, as the National President of Ohaneze Ndigbo told us to ignore them."
Counsel relied on the case of Sylva Vs INEC (2015) ALL FWLR (Pt.810) 1121 to say that a person who did not participate in an election cannot question the conduct of the said election. He referred us to Page 827 of the Records of Appeal where Late Dr. Alex Anozie deposed:
"I did not contest any election within
Igbo General Assembly."
Counsel said the above contradicted the holding of the trial Judge, when he said, on Pages 1106-1107, thus:
"The case of the Claimants is simply that the 1st Defendants (sic) sometimes in May, 2010 came together under the umbrella of Igbo General Assembly to purportedly elect the 1st
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU
TISATION
H.O.D. LIT
Page 15
Defendant as the Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State, a post which he said he was occupying and that there cannot be two Eze or Onyendu for a community at the same time."
Counsel said contrary to the decision of the trial Court, the late Dr. Alex Anozie never claimed to be Onyendu produced by IGA. Thus, the finding that 1st Appellant was elected to a post late Dr. Alex Anozie was occupying, was lacking in evidential backing.
On claim of no cause of action, Counsel relied on the case of Thomas Vs Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 669 at 682 for the meaning of the phrase, to say that it is the question as to the civil rights and obligations of the Plaintiffs founding the action to be determined by the Court in favour of one party against the other party.
He also relied on UBN LTD Vs Odusote Bookstores Ltd (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt. 421) 558 at 579.
Counsel said it was surprising, that the Respondents were challenging the Appellants for exercising their constitutional right of their Association and of electing their leaders, without even showing that they (Respondents) are members of the Association or participated in the election! He added that, curiously, the Respondents had pleaded that their Igbo Community Development Association (ICDA), was affiliated to
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W.O. UGWU H.O.D. VITIGATION
Page 16
—
Ohaneze Ndigbo, and they gave evidence to that effect too Pages 843 and 888 of the Records. See also Page 846 of the Records, where PW2 said "We take instructions from the National Body of the Ohaneze Ndigbo, depending on the nature of the instruction", but added:
"I don't know whether Ohaneze Ndigbo at the National level work hand to hand with the Council of Traditional Rulers."
Counsel said the above further confirmed the authority of both Ohaneze Ndigbo and Council of Traditional Rulers, as per Exhibit 33. See also the evidence of late Dr. Alex Anozie on Page 894 of the Records - where he said:
"Ohaneze Ndigbo was in existence before ICDA got affiliated to it in the year, 2010 and we became bonafide members of Ohaneze Ndigbo since then."
Thus, Counsel said the decision of Ohaneze Ndigbo was therefore binding on the Respondents, and that this fact was not lost to the Respondents, as the PW4 had stated, 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 Ohaneze Ndigbo. As an affiliate of Ohaneze Ndigbo our association have
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 17
no right to pick and choose from the directives that may be handed down to us by the parent body i.e. Ohaneze Ndigbo." See Page 926 of the Records
Counsel noted that Dr. Ilomuanya, who pronounced the dissolution of the warring factions and ban of the ICDA and ICOS led by late Dr. Alex Anozie and Dr. Oramadike, respectively, was the chairman of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers as well as the Chairman of Ohaneze Ndigbo. He referred us to the evidence of DW3, on Pages 952-953 of the Records of Appeal and relied on the case of Musa Vs PRP (1981) 2 NWLR (Pt.) 763 at 769 and Mbanefor Vs Molokwu (Supra) to the effect that:
"The Court would not interfere in a case like this one where members of a voluntary association have come to a decision within the provisions of their constitution, even if the decision is unreasonable... As a voluntary association, it has the to lay down its own decisions even when they are unreasonable. They should be obeyed...
Counsel said it was therefore obvious that the Claimants (Respondents) had disclosed no cause of action before the Lower Court and so the action was incompetent. The added that the Respondents had alleged non compliance with the custom and tradition of Igbo and the Constitution of Ohaneze Ndigbo by
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE/COPY
BARR. WO. UGWU
TIGATION
Page 18
Appellants in the emergence of the 1st Appellant as the Onyendu
Ndigbo, and yet neither the Constitution of Ohaneze Ndigbo was
tendered, nor evidence of the Igbo custom and tradition,
allegedly violated, produced. Counsel relied on the Section
133(1) the Evidence Act, 2011 and the case of Fadlulah Vs
Arewa Textile (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt.518) 546 and UBN Vs
OBE ZUAH (1997) 2 NWLR (Pt.485) 28 to urge us to hold
that Respondents disclosed no cause of action in the case, to
donate power to the trial Court to entertain the Suit.
Counsel added that the Respondents had challenged the selection of the 1st Appellant, but that there was no case of selection of 1st Appellant, as he was elected the Onyendu of
Ndigbo; and that Respondents ended up canvassing a case of
election at the trial. He explained the difference between
selection and election and urged this Court to hold that
Respondent were bound by their pleadings and so cannot jump
from challenge of selection to election. He relied on
Commissioner of Police Benue State and Anor Vs Devcon
Ltd & Anor (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.83) 407, 420; Ezenwa Vs
Oko (1999) 4 NWLR (Pt.637) 113; Onamade Vs ACB Ltd (1997) I NWLR (Pt.480) 123.
Counsel said that since 1st Appellant did not emerge from a
selection process (but election) the Claim before the lower Court
failed to disclose cause of action and so the claim could not have
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O, UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
0.7.60.1.2.4......
Page 19
been proved. He relied on Adeneji & Sons Motors Ltd Vs Immeh (1996) 8 NWLR (Pt.465) 240.
On Issue 2, Counsel said the trial Court was wrong when he, without evaluating the evidence led, made perverse findings, not supported by evidence thereby engendering serious
miscarriage of justice.
Counsel referred us to the findings of the trial Court on Page 1098 of the Records to the effect that the Appellants in their defence and evidence led, made spirited efforts to present the title of Onyendu Ndigbo, being laid claim to by the Claimant as one conferred on him (1st Respondent) by a certain group (ICDA); that evidence abound that the recognition 1st Respondent, as Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State on or before the 14th July, 2009, was not limited to members of ICDA, alone, but also a large number of the Igbo populace in Oyo State and both the South Eastern Council of Traditional Rulers, and Ohaneze Ndigbo; and that whether or not the 1st Respondent was handpicked by a few number of Igbo in Ibadan and Oyo State or was selected by a majority of the entire Igbos in the same locality or that his claim to such post was being contested by another person or group of persons the 1st Respondent was, before the 14th of July, 2009 visit of South East Council of Traditional Rulers, the
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. WO. UGWU
GATION
Page 20
Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State. (See Page 1098 of the Records)
Counsel said the above findings and holding of the Court was a frolic that even contradicted the evidence led by the 1st Respondent, late Dr. Alex Anozie that he was elected by Igbo Community Development Association (ICDA) and the position was confirmed by the Exhibit 6 and that that the election was dissolved by the parent body. Counsel repeated the relevant submissions earlier made under Issue one, and said that the findings of the trial Court was perverse. He relied on the case of Mini Lodge Ltd (supra) when a decision is perverse.
Counsel said that the trial Court did not properly evaluate the evidence before the Court, including the evidence of Appellants and the South East Traditional Rulers Council, which dissolved the ICDA and ICOS, because of the tussle for the Onyendu Ndigbo and their selections of their Onyendu Ndigbo - Exhibit 33.
Counsel also referred us to Page 1099 of the Records and said that the holding of the trial Court therein was not supported by evidence. He relied on the case of Ezeadukwa Vs Maduka (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt.518) 635; Abdullahi Vs Katsina State Housing Authority (2000) FLWLR (Pt.15) 2512, on how to evaluate evidence. He relied on the case of Maja Vs Samouris (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.765) 78 at 101, to say that the Court does not make declarations of right, either on admission or in CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION
CERTIFIED TRUE CUPY
Page 21
WO. UGWU
ON
default of defence, without hearing evidence and being satisfied
by such evidence. He restated that all the reliefs sought by Respondents trying to fault steps taken by Appellants towards selection of 1st Appellant as Onyendu Ndigbo and his installation as being contrary to Igbo custom and constitution, were misplaced as 1st Appellant was not selected, but elected, by the Igbo General Assembly, and no evidence was led by Respondent on the alleged Igbo custom violated by the election, neither was the Constitution of the Ohaneze Ndigbo, which Respondents asserted, produced. Counsel noted that there was no denial of the fact that both late Dr. Alex Anozie (of ICDA) and Dr. Oramadike (of ICOS), were removed on 14/7/2009 by the resolution of Council of Traditional Rulers of South East, which was accepted by Ohaneze Ndigbo; and the Claimants (Respondents) had admitted the same (See Pages 844 - 845 of Records). But he said the trial Court failed to consider such evidence.
On Issue 3, Counsel said the trial Court violated the constitutional rights of fair hearing of Appellants, when the Court gave judgment against them, on the basis of findings against the Ohaneze Ndigbo and Council of South East Traditional Rulers, who were not parties in the case; Counsel said that the said findings and decisions engendered serious miscarriage of justice, and were unjust, unconstitutional and null and void. Counsel said that decision of the trial Court was prejudicial to the Ohaneze
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE/COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
DATE....
10767 247
Page 22
Ndigbo and the Council of South East Traditional Rulers, who were not parties in the Suit.
Counsel adopted his submissions under the Issues one and two. He noted that the Respondents had sought the coverage and protection of the umbrella organisations - the Ohaneze Ndigbo and South East Council of Traditional Rulers, while trying to fault the selection of the 1st Appellant as Onyendu Ndigbo. (See Reliefs 1 and 3 of the Respondents); but turned round to fight them. He said that no claim was made specifically against the chairman of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers and Ohaneze Ndigbo, and they were not joined as parties and yet it was the South East Council of Traditional Rulers that dissolved the ICDA and ICOS, the platforms of the tussle for election as Onyendu Ndigbo by the 2 parties. He referred us to Pages 1104 - 1105 of the Records, where the trial Court said:
"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..."
And the trial Court added on Pages 1108 to 1109 of the Records, as follows:
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. WO. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
Page 23
"The Defendants
Defendants have failed
failed to establish the capacity or locus standi of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers to unliterally dissolved (sic) and in a regimental or commando manner removed the 1st Claimant as the Onyendu Ndigbo. The later in time ratification of the actions of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers which the Ohaneze Ndigbo had earlier in Exhibits 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..."
Counsel said that there was no evidence that questioned the capacity or constitutionality of the actions of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers or Ohaneze Ndigbo before the trial Court; that the said finding and holding of the trial Court was introduced, suo motu, and founded on the imagination of the trial Judge.
That trial Judge also said:
"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 (i.e. ICDA) was carried out. The later in time ratification of the the
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL
IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BAR.......
8. UGWU
H.O.D, LITIGATION BATE..d
1076/54.
highly
Page 24
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." (See Pages 1114-1115 of the Records of Appeal)
Counsel said that contrary to the above, unsupported findings of the trial Court, the Records confirmed due process was followed and referred us to Page 948 of the Records. Counsel also quarreled with the scathing remarks the trial Court made on the Dr. Illomuanya the Chairman of South Est Council of Traditional Rulers, that he used the forum meeting of 14/7/2009 to humiliate late Dr. Alex Anozie, when the trial Judge
said:
"I think it is oppressive for the chairman of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers to ask for the mobilization of all sons and daughters of Igbo extraction which included 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
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL
IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. WO. UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATION
10/1 1.24.
Page 25
emergence of the 1st Defendant as the
Onyendu Ndigbo in the place of the Claimants."
Counsel said no one pleaded or raised question of oppression or humiliation, nor led evidence on the same. He said that the trial Court abandoned the case of the Respondents and formulated a fresh one for them, against non-parties, and on the basis of that findings gave judgment against the Appellants; he said that the approach had massively breached the Constitutional rights of the Appellants, who could not have been expected to defend the non-parties. More so, when the judgment was based on the findings and damaging pronouncements made against non-parties.
Counsel said that, in the circumstance, the trial Court failed to consider and give effect to exhibits 21 to 29, 34 to 35; that aside from giving blanket condemnation to the Exhibit 33, the trial Court gave interpretation not borne out of the Exhibits 21 - 29. Counsel relied on the case of Ogunjemila Vs Ajibade (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 559, on effect of violation of right of fair hearing; See also Kokoro Owo Vs Lagos State Govt. (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt.723); Likita Vs COP (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt.777) 145; Intercontractors Vs UAC (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt.76) 303, to say that, a Court can only decide a Case before him on the issues properly raised before it by the parties relating to and concerning the matter in dispute. He said that
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR W. O, UGWU H.O.D. LITIGATIO
Page 26
matters concerning third parties who are not parties before, it cannot be validly raised and determined.
Counsel said it was a violation of the fundamental rights of Appellants to fair hearing to found the judgment against them on the findings made against the South East Council of Traditional Rulers. He relied on the case of Ndakwo Vs Ejika (2002) 13 NWLR (Pt.783) 156; CK & WMC Ltd Vs Akingbade (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt.1533) 487 and other Cases. He urged us to resolve the Issues for Appellants and to allow the Appeal.
Responding, Counsel for Respondents, Ibrahim A. Kareem-Ojo Esq, (who settled the brief), on Issue 1, said the trial Court was right to entertain the Suit and grant the reliefs sought by the Respondents, as per the evidence adduced. He said that the Appellants' submission on improper constitution of the action, was misconceived and misleading. Counsel said they (Respondents) were right to take out the suit against the Appellants, who attempted to breach the Igbo custom and tradition; he said that the Ohaneze Ndigbo and the South East Council of Traditional Rulers were aware of the case as the 2 bodies had testified, through their representatives in the Suit; he said that PW1 was the Secretary General of Ohaneze Ndigbo, who testified on a subpoena and cited his evidence as per his cross examination on Pages 837-838 of the Records.
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEA IBADAN DIVISION
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. WO. UGWU H.O.D, LITIGATION
Page 27
Counsel also referred us to the evidence of DW2 - who was the Administrative Secretary of South East Council of Traditional Rulers, who said:
"I am the Chairman of the South East Council of Traditional Rulers, Eze Dr. C.L. Illomuanya (CON), who gave me (sic) a letter to be in Court today"- (Page 945 of the Records)
Counsel said all that showed that both the South East Council of Traditional Rulers and Ohaneze Ndigbo, were aware of the Suit and decided to standby; that they all gave evidence before the Court and were therefore bound by the decision of the Court. He relied on A.G. Federation Vs A.G. Abia State & Ors (No.2) (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt.542) 663; Green Vs Green (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.61) 480 to say that Appellants cannot be heard to complain of non-joinder. He added that non-joinder of a party interested in a Suit does not defeat the action, and he relied on FGN Vs Interstella Comms. Ltd (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt.1463) 1 at 31; Iyere Vs B.F.F. M. Ltd (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 300.
On Issue of Locus Standi, Counsel said the Respondents had no claims or reliefs against the 2 bodies, as the 2nd - 6th
Appellants were the people who organized and made the 1st Appellant an Onyendu Ndigbo. Thus, the Suit was properly constituted; he said that the contention of Appellants on the
Issue of locus standi was therefore misconstrued, in view of the
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU
H.O.D.
LITIGATION LITI.....
Page 28
pleadings, evidence and the reliefs sought. He referred us to the
pleadings of Respondents on Pages 4
-
6 of the Records of
Appeal, particularly Paragraphs 23 and 24 of their pleading, which stated:
(23) "The Claimants aver that there can only be one Eze Ndigbo or Onyendu Ndigbo for a Community and unless the occupier of the office dies or he is impeached or resigned there cannot be any other Eze or Onyendu for that community. The Claimants plead that the 1st Claimant is still alive and has neither been impeached nor resigned.
(24) The Claimants aver that the Ohaneze Ndigbo and the South East Traditional Council have before May, 2010 and thereafter acknowledged the
the 1st Claimant as the recognized Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo State."
Counsel added that it was therefore clear from the pleadings upon which evidence was led, that what was challenged by the Respondents was the attempt to remove and replace the 1st Respondent by the Defendants/Appellants as the Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan land with the 1st Appellant. Thus, the issue of who was the authentic Onyendu Ndigbo was the matter which was before the trial Court and both the late Dr. Alex Anozie, the erstwhile 1st Respondent, who was in that office had the locus standi to challenge anybody or group of persons that
CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEAL IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE/COPY
BARR. W. O. UGWU H.O.D., LITIGATION
DATE
Page 29
attempted to take over his (1st Respondent's) role, office and or
title.
Counsel asserted that the Respondents had the locus standi to challenge the 1st Appellant and he referred us to Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, which were letters of 23/6/2010, 10/8/2010 and 10/5/2015 respectively: Exhibit 1 had advised that "all official dealings with Ndigbo in Oyo State be done through the Oyo State Branch of Ohaneze Ndigbo" and listed the principal officers thereof.
Counsel said Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 came after the purported directions of the South East Traditional Rulers and selection of the 1st Appellant as Onyendu Ndigbo by the 2nd - 6th Appellants in May, 2010; that it was the attempt to install the 1st Appellant that led to the action - the Suit. He relied on Odeneye Vs Efunnuga (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt.164) 618 on the issue of
locus standi.
On disclosure of reasonable cause of action, Counsel relied on the case of Thomas Vs Olufosoye (1961) 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 669 for the definition of cause of action, as the aggregate of what will confer right to a party to sue. He said that the reliefs 1, 2 and 3 put together provide the right to the Respondents to seek redress. He relied on UBN Vs Odusote (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt.421) 558 to the effect that the entire set of facts that give rise to an enforceable right/claim constitute cause of action; that the claim of the Respondents and the CA/IB/116/2014
COURT OF APPEA IBADAN DIVISION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
Olmb
BARRW, O. UGWU H.O.D.
Onyendu Ndigbo of Ibadan and Oyo state Chief Alloy Obi Appeal Court Judgment