CASE TITLE: ESIKOMITEBA & ORS v. AFAGHA & ORS (2022) LPELR-56706(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 4TH FEBRUARY, 2022
PRACTICE AREA: CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS
LEAD JUDGMENT: PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION
This appeal borders on Chieftaincy Matters.
FACTS
This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Bayelsa State in Suit No. OHC/10/2006 delivered on 22/12/2009.
The Appellants commenced an action at the trial Court questioning the propriety of the alleged dethronement of the Appellants as Obenema of Imiringi, Opal-Obenema (Deputy Obenema) and Chairman of the Imiringi Council of Chiefs all being the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Appellants, respectively by the 1st to 17th Respondents acting jointly and severally. The dethronement was based on the allegation that the referral of a company: Benos Nigeria Enterprises; to Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited by the Appellants for minor contracts without the consent of the Imiringi Community was a violation of the customs warranting the deposition of the Appellants.
The 1st to 17th Respondents filed their statement of defence. The 1st to 17th Respondents equally counter-claimed seeking amongst others the setting aside of the staff of office of the 1st Appellant given by the 18th Respondent on grounds that the 1st Appellant as a civil servant is forbidden by law to hold and occupy the chieftaincy stool. By virtue of the counterclaim of the 1st to 17th Respondents, the 18th and 19th Respondents were joined at the trial Court as 2nd set of Defendants.
At the conclusion of trial, judgment was delivered dismissing the claim of the Appellants while judgment was entered for the Respondents as per their counterclaim. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellants lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The Court of Appeal determined the appeal on the following issues thus:
(a) Whether the counter-claim at the lower Court is statute barred?
(b) Whether the counter-claim of the Defendants seeking a declaratory relief against the decision of the Governor of Bayelsa State in recognizing the 1st Appellant as a Chief is competent?
(c) Whether the recognition of 1st Appellant being a civil servant is void or voidable in law in view of Section 4 of the Chieftaincy Law of Bayelsa State?
(d) Whether the lower Court was right in setting aside the enthronement of the 1st Appellant?
(e) Whether the lower Court’s judgment is against the weight of evidence?
DECISION/HELD
In a unanimous decision, the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial High Court was set aside.
RATIOS:
- CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS- RECOGNITION OF CHIEF: Whether the power of the Governor of Bayelsa as regards recognition of a Chief under Section 31 of the Chieftaincy Law Cap C4, Laws of Bayelsa ousts the jurisdiction of Court
- CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS- RECOGNITION OF CHIEF: Who is prescribed authority in respect to recognition/appointment of a Chief under the Chieftaincy law of Bayelsa State
- CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS- RECOGNITION OF CHIEF: Whether a Court can void the recognition of a Chief under the Chieftaincy Law of Bayelsa State where same has not being withdrawn by the Governor
- LIMITATION LAW- LIMITATION LAW: Effect of commencing an action outside the prescribed limitation period in Section 16 of the Limitation Law Cap L8 Laws of Bayelsa State
