CASE TITLE: OBIEFULE & ANOR v. UZOHO & ORS (2023) LPELR-61183(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRACTICE AREA: CIVIL PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: ADEMOLA SAMUEL BOLA, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.
FACTS:
This appeal stems from the judgment of the High Court of Justice of Imo State, sitting at Nkwerre, Nkwerre Judicial Division of Imo State, delivered on the 28th day of May, 2018 by Hon. Justice T. E. Chikeka, J.
The Plaintiff/Appellant by a writ of summons dated the 6th day of June, 2011 and filed on the 7th day of June, 2011, and thereafter amended and amended copy filed on the 21st day of May, 2012, whereby the Defendants/Respondents sought the following reliefs against the Defendants/Respondents jointly and severally:
- A DECLARATION of the Honourable Court that the 1st Defendant is not qualified by the Constitution of Umuezeanaruo Eziama, the customary practice of Umuezeanaruo Eziama, and the Imo State Law on Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law No. 3, 1999, to be the Eze Elect or Eze of Umuezeanaruo Eziama.
- AN ORDER OF COURT to set aside the purported adoption of the Defendant as Eze Elect or Eze Umuezeanaruo Eziama and the subsequent certificate of recognition and staff of office given to him in that regard.
- AN ORDER OF COURT on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Defendant to withdraw the recognition certificate given to the Isty Defendant as Eze since it does not follow the procedure laid down by the custom, Articles 7, 7B of Umuezeanaruo Section 7(2)(a) of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law No. 3,1999.
- A DECLARATION of the Honourable Court that the 1st Claimant by virtue of the Umuezeanaruo Constitution, Customary Practice, and the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law, No. 3, 1999, is qualified to be the Eze of the Community.
- AN ORDER OF COURT directing the 2nd–5th Defendants to recognize and issue a certificate of recognition and staff of office as Eze to the 1st Claimant, Umuezeanaruo Constitution, after fulfilling the legal requirements, including presentation to the Local Government Council.
- AN ORDER OF COURT declaring all activities done by the 1st Defendant pursuant to and subsequent to the presentation of staff of office on him as illegal, null, and void.
In their suit, the Appellant challenged the recognition of the 1st Respondent as the traditional ruler of the Umuezeanaruo autonomous community of Imo State by the 5th Respondent. According to the Appellant, the most senior village is Nduhu na Ogbo. Appellant claimed that the 1st Respondent hailed from Umuogbo, the sixth village, in order of seniority and was therefore unlawfully recognized as the traditional ruler of the Umuezeanaruo autonomous community by the 5th Respondent.
On the other hand, the 1st and 2nd Respondents asserted that the 1st Respondent hailed from Nduhu na Umuogbo Village and was therefore lawfully recognized, relying on the Constitution of Umuezeanaruo Autonomous Community aforested.
It was the contention of the Appellant that prior to 2010, the 1st Respondent was Nduhu na Ogbo (Nduhu na Umuogbo) Village, but that upon the creation of Umuogbo Village in 2010 from the parent community, namely Eziama Obaire, the 1st respondent became a native of Umuogbo Village.
At the end of the trial, the trial judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and appellants. Aggrieved with this decision, the appellants appealed.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court determined the appeal on the following issues:
“1. Whether the trial court was wrong in giving judgment in favour of the first respondent and whether the judgment was based on improperly evaluated evidence.
2. Whether the trial court was right in law to have discountenanced “Issue C” contained in the appellant’s final address and whether the same formed part of the appellant’s pleadings.
3. Whether the trial judge was right to have held that the 1st respondent hails from Nduhu na Ogbo village and not Umuogbo village, despite the 1st defendant’s admission that his ancestry is Umuogbo village.
4. Whether the Court was wrong by discountenancing Exhibit ‘G’ and giving no value to it when the Court’s analysis of the document does not flow from the pleadings and evidence before him in court.”
DECISION/HELD:
The appeal was allowed.
RATIOS:
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Preliminary Objection: Whether a party who raised a preliminary objection in his brief of argument must seek leave of Court to move same; effect of failure
- JUDGMENT AND ORDER—JUDGMENT OF COURT—Basis of the decision of a Court
- COURT – DUTY OF COURT – Duty of Court to pronounce on every issue properly placed before it for consideration
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ISSUE IN DISPUTE – Nature of issue that the Court can pronounce on
- COURT: DUTY OF COURT: Whether the Court can make a case for the parties different from the case set up by them in their pleadings
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ADDRESS OF COUNSEL – Effect of the failure of Court to hear or consider the address of counsel/party in a proceeding
- EVIDENCE: CONTRACDICTION EVIDENCE: Effect of contradiction in Evidence
- EVIDENCE – ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST – Position of the law as regards admission against interest
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
