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 <