POWERS OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS UNDER THE TRADITIONAL RULERS LAW, CAP 151, REVISED LAWS OF ENUGU STATE OF NIGERIA, 2004

CASE TITLE:  CHIMEREZE v. COSMAS & ORS (2023) LPELR-60954 (CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 1ST AUGUST, 2023

PRACTICE AREA: CHIEFTAINCY LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT: 

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the declaration of a chieftaincy title.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Enugu State, Enugu Judicial Division, held in Enugu, delivered on July 27, 2018.

There was a dispute on the attempt made to fill the vacant stool of Igwe of Okpogho Community in Enugu State, which culminated in the taking out of a writ of summons by the 1st and 2nd respondents, who were contestants for the said office, against the appellant, who emerged from the process being
challenged, and the third Respondent as a representative of the State Government.

The reliefs sought by the 1st and 2nd Respondents against the Defendants in the said action are as follows:

1. A declaration that the purported election of August 10, 2012, into the Igweship stool of Okpogho Community, conducted single-handedly by the Commissioner for Chieftaincy Matters, Enugu State, without the participation or involvement of the Town Union Executive, in clear violation of the constitution of Okpogho Town, is null and void.

2. An order revoking and declaring null and void the certificate of recognition issued to the 1st Defendant/Respondent as the Traditional Ruler/Igwe of Okpogho Community by the Enugu State Government on the basis of the purported election of August 10, 2012.

3. An order directing the Commissioner for Chieftaincy Matters, Enugu State, to make adequate arrangements for the conduct of an election into the Igwe stool of Okpogho Community, to be conducted and supervised by the Okpogho Town Union and monitored by the Ministry of Chieftaincy Matters, Enugu State.”

On being served, issues were joined by the parties via their pleadings, and at trial, the 1st and 2nd Respondents, as Plaintiffs, called two witnesses, while the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent, in between themselves, called five witnesses. After taking final addresses from the respective counsel, the learned trial judge, in a considered judgment delivered as aforesaid on July 27, 2018, found for the 1st and 2nd respondents and granted their reliefs.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The appeal was determined on the following issues:
“1. Whether the trial Court was right in assuming jurisdiction to hear and determine the case now on appeal on the basis of a void originating process.

2. Whether the law allows a person to assert the contrary of a fact or state of things that he has formally asserted by words or conduct.

3. Whether there were no Town Union Executives as of August 10, 2012, when the election was conducted for the traditional ruler of Okpogho Town.

4. Whether Section 17 of the Traditional Rulers Law, Cap. 151, Revised Laws of Enugu State of Nigeria, 2004 does not empower the Commissioner for Chieftaincy Matters, Enugu State, to conduct an election to the vacant stool of a traditional ruler of a town or community in Enugu State where a particular town or community fails to elect one through its town union.

5. Whether there were irregularities in the election conducted on August 10, 2012, for the traditional ruler of Okpogho Town.

DECISION/HELD:
On the whole, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL: RIGHT OF APPEAL: Whether a party in whose favour an order of Court was made has a right of appeal against that order
• CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS: CHIEFTAINCY DISPUTES: Whether Section 17 of the Traditional Rulers Law, Cap 151, Revised Laws of Enugu State of Nigeria, 2004 empowers the Commissioner for Chieftaincy Matters to conduct an election to the vacant stool of a traditional ruler of a town or community in Enugu
• EVIDENCE- EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: It is the duty of the trial Court to evaluate evidence and ascribe probative value to it; when can an appellate Court interfere?
• EVIDENCE- ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT: Whether the participation of a person in an electoral process estops him from challenging the outcome of same
• EVIDENCE: UNCHALLENGED/UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE: Effect of an unchallenged or uncontroverted piece of evidence
• INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE: LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION: Fundamental principles of interpretation of statutes where the words used are clear and unambiguous
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- SIGNING OF COURT PROCESS(ES): Effect of an unsigned Court process