CASE TITLE: UZONWANNE & ANOR V. IGBO COMMUNITY PANKSHIN BRANCH & ORS. LPELR 81649(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 28TH MAY, 2025
JUSTICES: MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.
PETER OYINKENIMIEMI AFFEN, J.C.A.
ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.
DIVISION: JOS
PRACTICE AREA: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
FACTS:
This appeal borders on Constitutional law.
This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Plateau State, holden at Pankshin in Suit No. PLD/1Cv/2019, delivered on the 24th of October, 2019 by HON. JUSTICE B. 5. NGYOU.
The appellants and the 2nd and 3rd respondents were members of the 1st respondent, a cultural union of persons of Igbo extraction living in Pankshin Local Government Area of Plateau State at all material times relevant to this suit. Their relationship went sour, and the appellants formed a parallel association called Igbo Cultural and Welfare Association, Pankshin Branch on behalf of which they have brought this suit, in addition to suing in their own personal capacities. The 1st Appellant is the Chairman of the Association while the 2nd Appellant is the Secretary. The 2nd Respondent is the Eze Igbo of the 1st respondent while the 3rd Respondent is the described as the Palace Secretary of the 2nd Respondent. The respondents disclaimed and ostracized the 2nd appellant on allegations of breaching the rules and regulations of the 1st respondent. The appellants also alleged interference by the respondents with their new association, the Igbo Cultural and Welfare Association, Pankshin Branch. They contended that the 1st respondent is not the umbrella body over all persons and unions of Igbo extraction in Pankshin but only has authority over Igbo persons who register with it. They also contended that the authority of the 2nd respondent as Eze Igbo of the 1st respondent, was limited to the confines of the membership of the 1st respondent and did not extend to non-members. The respondents on their part claimed that the authority of the 1st and 2nd respondents extended to all persons of Igbo extraction in Pankshin irrespective of whether they were registered with the 1st respondent or not.
The Respondents filed a Counter-Affidavit in response. They also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection. The Appellants filed a Counter-Affidavit to the Notice of Preliminary Objection, while the Respondents filed a Further and Better Affidavit.
After hearing both the Preliminary Objection and the Originating Summons, the learned trial Judge in a considered judgment dismissed both the Preliminary Objection and the Originating Summons.
Dissatisfied, the appellant filed the instant appeal.
ISSUES:
The Court found merit in the Preliminary Objection raised by the respondent and held that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The appeal was struck out. However, the Court adopted the issues formulated by the appellant in the determination of the appeal, thus:
1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have concluded that the Appellants, particularly the 2nd Appellant remains a member of the 1st Respondent when parties to the dispute did not join issue to that effect and whether the learned trial judge was also right to have held that the 1st Defendant (now 1st Respondent) is the umbrella body of all other unions and association of Igbo extraction.
2. Whether the lower trial judge was right when he held that no other conclusion can be drawn than that the Eze Igbo i.e. the 2nd Respondent is meant to have authority over every Igbo man or association of people of Igbo extraction irrespective of membership of the 1st Respondents.
3. Whether the Appellants are entitled to damages after the Respondents did admit and same established at the lower Court that the Respondents validly issued exhibits 02 and 03 which were copied to a number of persons/bodies.
4. Whether the learned trial judge was right to have resolved the entire case against the Appellants’ and in favour of the respondents in view of the totality of evidence placed before the lower Court.
COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:
The contention of the appellants is that the 1st respondent is only an umbrella body for persons and associations of persons of Igbo extraction in Pankshin, who belong to it by registration, but not persons and associations of Igbo extraction who are not registered members of the 1st respondent. They also contend that as Eze Igbo of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent’s authority is limited to persons of Igbo extraction who are members of the 1st respondent and does not extend to those who are not members of the 1st respondent. On the other hand, the respondents contend that the 1st respondent is the umbrella body of all persons of Igbo extraction in Pankshin irrespective of whether they are registered members of the 1st respondent or not, and that the 2nd respondent as Eze Igbo, has authority and control over all persons of Igbo extraction irrespective of whether they are registered members of the 1st respondent or not.
DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court was upheld.
RATIO:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION: Whether the Courts would ordinarily interfere with decisions of voluntary associations
“No citizen of Nigeria can be subjected to the authority, control, rulership of, or be bound by the constitution, byelaws, rules and regulation of any organization, association, club, cultural or town union, to which he has not freely and voluntarily subscribed, submitted or subjugated himself. The right of voluntary association is a fundament right of every citizen of Nigeria which can only be abridged by the Constitution, a valid law or the citizen’s consent. See NKPA V NKUME (2001) 6 NWLR (Part 710) 543; MBANEFO V MOLOKWU (2014) 6 NWLR (Part 1403) 377. Having said that, the Court will not interfere with the right of an association to discipline its members under the provisions of its constitution, byelaws or rules and regulations which have been freely subscribed to by them, even if those rules and regulations are unreasonable. MBANEFO V MOLOKWU (supra).”Per AKINYEMI, J.C.A.
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
