ENGINEER DANIEL ENWEREUZOR & ANOR V. THOMPSON OBIEFULE ANUMUDU & ORS
(2010)LCN/4156(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 16th day of December, 2010
CA/PH/70/2007
RATIO
LOCUS STANDI: WHAT A PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW TO ESTABLISH HIS LOCUS STANDI IN A GIVEN SUIT
To establish locus standing in a given suit the Plaintiff have to show by his claim before the Court that his right and obligations have been or are in danger of being violated or adversely affected – see ADESANYA V. PRESIDENT, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ANOR (1981) 5 SC 112. Also the Supreme Court in OLORIODE & ORS. V. OYEBI (1984) NSCC vol. 15 286 held that a party prosecuting an action would have locus standi where the reliefs claimed would confer some benefit on such a party Also in JOSIAH KAYODE OWODUNMI V. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CELESTIAL CHURCH OF CHRIST & ORS. (supra). It was held that “Where the averment in Plaintiffs pleadings disclosed the rights or interest of the Plaintiff which has been or are in danger of being violated or adversely affected by the act of the defendants, the complaint of such a plaintiff would be deemed to have sufficient interests to give him locus standi to litigate over the subject matter in the issue”. PER ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDUL-KADIR, J.C.A.
LEGAL RIGHT: WHAT IS A LEGAL RIGHT
In A.G. LAGOS V. A.G. FEDERATION (2004) 12 SCNJ 1 at Pg. 71, the Supreme Court per Niki Tobi JSC defined a legal right as follows: “What is a legal right? A legal right, in my view is a right cognizable in law. It makes a right recognized by law and capable of being enforced by the Plaintiff. It is the right of a party recognized and protected by a rule of law, the violation of which would be a legal wrong done to the interest of the Plaintiff, even though no action is taken. The determination of the existence of a legal right is not whether the action will succeed at the trial but whether the action donates such a right by reference to the enabling law in respect of the commencement of the action”. PER HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A
JUSTICES
ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDUL-KADIR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. ENGINEER DANIEL ENWEREUZOR
2. H.M.C. AMAKOR (THE PRESIDENT OHII DEY UNION) Appellant(s)
AND
1. THOMPSON OBIEFULE ANUMUDU
2. ELDER BENSON OPARA
3. THE CHAIRMAN, LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSITION COMMITTEE. Respondent(s)
ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDUL-KADIR, J.C.A.: (Delivering the leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Ruling of the Imo State High Court sitting at Owerri delivered on the 10th January 2005 dismissing the Appellants’ application to dismiss the Suit filed by the Plaintiffs on the grounds that the lower Court lacks Jurisdiction to entertain the Suit, that the Suit discloses no cause of action, that the Plaintiffs lack the locus standi to bring the action.
The facts leading to this appeal as can be gathered from the record of proceedings before the Court are thus:-
The Plaintiffs (now 1st and 2nd Respondents) commenced an action at the Owerri High Court seeking the following declaratory reliefs:
I. That the 1st Plaintiff who is from Aboha Ohii is a person entitled under the native law and custom of Ohii and under the Imo State of Nigeria Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities law 1999 to be the Eze of Ohii autonomous Community.
II. Declaration of the Court that Aboha village being the most senior of the six villages in Ohii which fact is unchallenged from time immemorial is the rightful village to produce the 1st Eze for the Autonomous Community so long she has a candidate qualified to occupy the position.
III. Declaration of the Court that since the 1st Plaintiff has been selected, elected or nominated from his village screened and found proper and fit for the position, the Ohii Development Union and Ohii in general should present him to the Local Government Transition Committee Chairman for onward presentation to Government for recognition and issuance of staff of office as against the 1st Defendant who hails Ohuohi village the 5th in order of seniority.
IV. Declaration of the Court nullifying the purported adoption of 1st Defendant as improper, unconstitutional and illegal.
V. An Order of Court nullifying the adoption of 1st Defendant as Eze elect.
VI. Declaration of the Court that the adoption of 1st Defendant as Eze elect is not in accordance with the selection instrument of Ezeship Election/Selection in Ohii Autonomous Community and offends virtually all the sections in particular section 2.4 (ix) and section 3.3 (1).
The parties filed and exchanged pleadings, it is the case of the Plaintiffs that the 1st Plaintiff who came from Aboha village Ohii was selected and presented to Ohii Development Union as the candidate to occupy the Ezeship Stool of the Community. And that by native law and custom of the said Community the 1st Plaintiff to be Eze of the said Community. The Defendant (now Appellants) denied the allegations made by the Plaintiffs and in their Statement of Defence challenge the Jurisdiction of the lower Court on the grounds set out in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Defence. It is undisputed that as at the time the plaintiffs (now Respondents) filed their action the Governor of Imo State had not recognized anyone as the Traditional Ruler of the said community.
The lower Court took Objections and after arguments of Counsel dismissed the Objections. Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower Court, the Appellants appealed against same to this Court.
The appeal was heard on 11th October 2010 and in line with the Rules and Practice of this Court, the parties duly filed respective Brief’s of Argument.
Counsel to the Appellants Mr. K. Anyanwu Ebere informed the Court that the Appellant brief of argument is dated 9th July 2007 and deemed filed on 21st April 2008. Counsel adopted the brief of argument and urged the Court to allow the appeal.
At the hearing of the appeal the Respondents were not represented in Court by Counsel even though served with hearing notice. The Respondents’ brief of argument is dated 16/5/08 and filed on 20/5/08. The Respondents brief of argument is deemed argued under Order 17 Rule 9(4) of the Rules of this Court.
From entire three grounds of appeal, the Appellants formulated three Issues for determination which are stated thus:-
1. Whether the action commenced by the Respondents as Plaintiffs at the High Court was premature and therefore incompetent.
2. At what point can a Suit lie in a Chieftaincy dispute.
3. Whether the Plaintiffs have the locus standi to bring the action.
The Respondents adopts the three Issues formulated by the Appellants and added a fourth Issue which is above the three grounds of appeal filed by the Appellants and therefore ought to be discountenance and is hereby discountenanced.
Learned Counsel for the appellants argued Issues 1 and 2 together, the Issues are:-
I. Whether the action commenced by the Respondents as Plaintiffs at the High Court was premature and therefore incompetent.
II. At what point can a Suit lie in a Chieftaincy dispute.
Counsel for the Appellants submits that the action filed at the lower Court is for various declarations. The dispute between the Parties is over the Chieftaincy Stool of Ohii Autonomous Community. That it is undisputed that the Governor had not recognized any person as the Traditional Ruler of the said Community as at the time the action was filed. The Appellants had it, their statement of defence stated that no cause of action had arisen when the action was filed and the action was premature in that the Governor of Imo State (the recognizing body had not done any thing or even taken any step that would jeopardize the rights and interest of the Respondents.
Counsel submits that the recognition of an Eze or Traditional Rules under the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities law No. 3 of 1999 is an executive function to be performed by the Governor of Imo State reference made to section 7 and 9 of the said law, that it is now settled law that in matters involving the exercise of statutory power, the function of the Courts begins only when it is alleged that the power has not been exercised in accordance with the law, reference made to A.G. ANAMBRA STATE V. OKAFOR (1992) 2 NWLR (PT. 212) 396 AT 419; OKORO V. OKAFOR (2001) FWLR (PT.77) 932 AT 941. Counsel for the Appellants contends that based on the above authorities it is clear that the action was premature and did not disclose any cause of action, further Counsel argues that whether or not the action is premature is in the circumstance is not dependant on whether or not the Governor of Imo State and Attorney General of Imo State are parties to the suit. That the decided cases of OKORO V. OKAFOR (Supra): A.G. ANAMBRA STATE V. OKAFOR (Supra), AJUKANYE V. IDEHAI (1994) 8 NWLR (PT.364) 504 and AKUNERI V. OKENWA (2006) 15 NWLR (PT. 691) 526 did not state any such exception and these authorities are not distinguishable as the lower Court erroneously held, that the lower Court ought to have followed and applied these decisions.
In reply to the submissions of the Appellants on Issues 1 and 2, Counsel to the Respondents submits that the action filed by the Respondents at the lower Court was not premature. That at the time of filing the action at the lower Court, the Governor had not exercised his statutory power of recognizing any of the Parties so the Issue whether the Governor had not exercised same in accordance with law does not arise as against the contention of the Appellants, that the declarations and reliefs sought by the Respondents at the lower Court speak for themselves. Counsel argues that the case of A.G. ANAMBRA STATE V. OKAFOR (Supra) is not relevant in this case as the facts and Issues raised therein are at variance with the Issues in this case, this is because in the case cited the actions of the Governor were being challenged speculatively when he had not exercised any function to warrant an action against the Governor. That the Court was right to say that no action of Governor can be challenged unless he had exercised such an action rightly or wrongly. So the facts in the case of A.G. v. OKAFOR, the Plaintiffs did not disclose the cause of action. They did not claim that they were the Eze elect rather there were challenging the Constitutional amendment, and contended that the man who was nominated based on the Constitutional amendment should not be recognized and therefore sued and joined the Governor and Commissioner for Local Government and also the sole Administrator of Awka.
The Court was of the view that joining the Governor in such an action when he had not exercised his own function either way was premature and speculative. That this case is distinguishable from the action filed by the Plaintiffs at the lower Court.
Also Counsel for the Respondents submits that with regard to the case of OKORO V. OKAFOR (supra) cited by the Appellants to support their argument, the issues and fact in that case are not similar to the issues in the present case, this is so because there were already a recognized traditional Ruler who died and his Stool became vacant, that the issue in contention then was whether it was hereditary or rotatory. That one of the parties sued the Governor and his Deputy. The Governor and his Deputy were sued because of staff of office and certificate of recognition which has not been issued out. The Court held the view that it will be improper to sue the Governor and his Deputy when they have not exercised the power or when they had exercised their statutory functions.
Counsel to the Respondents contends that this case is distinguishable from the Respondents’ case at the lower Court; this is because the law No.3 1999 on Chieftaincy and Local Government stated that the Chieftaincy Stool for the new Autonomous Communities should be rotatory starting from the most senior village and when seniority is not known from the most populous. And it is the contention of the Respondents that they are the most senior and the most populous, hence the action of the 1st Appellant who is not from the most senior village, who is in fact from the 5th village in older of seniority being adopted for presentation for the Chieftaincy (Ezeship) of Ohii was being challenged by the Respondents as Plaintiffs at the lower Court.
Further Counsel for the Respondents argues that this Issue differs and is also distinguishable from Issues raised and determined in the two cases cited by the Appellants. The Respondents’ Counsel argues that the Respondents had a right to challenge the wrong and improper adoption of the 1st Appellant by the Ohii Development Union as the candidate for the Chieftaincy Stool and there is no way they will wait and fold their hands until the Governor had acted before they can bring an action against the 1st Appellant, reference made to SC OSAGIE 11 & ANOR V. CHIEF EUGENE OFFOR & ANOR (1998) 3 NWLR (PT.541) 205; J.A. ALEDIRAN & ANOR. V. INTERLAND TRANSPORT (1991) 9 NWLR (PT. 214) 155 at 166.
Issue 1 and 11 concerned whether the action commenced by the Respondents as Plaintiffs at the High Court was premature and therefore incompetent and at what point a suit can lie in a Chieftaincy dispute. It is the contention of the Appellants that the recognition of an Eze or Traditional Ruler under the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities law No. 3 of 1999 is an Executive function to be performed by the Governor of Imo State as provided by sections 7 and 9 of the said law and that in matters involving the exercise of statutory power, the function of the Courts only starts when it is alleged that the power has not been exercised in accordance with the law. Further the Appellants contended that it is undisputed that the Governor had not recognized any person as the Traditional Ruler of the said Community as at the time the action was filed.
On the other hand it is the contention of the Respondents that under the provisions of the Traditional Rulers and autonomous Communities law No. 3 of 1999, it is stated specifically that chieftaincy Stool for the new Autonomous Communities should be rotatory starting from the most senior village and when seniority is not known from the most populous, hence the action of the 1st Appellant who is not from the most senior village, who is in fact from the 5th village in order of seniority being adopted for presentation for the Chieftaincy (Ezeship) of Ohii was being challenged by the Respondents as Plaintiffs at the lower Court.
Now to determine whether the action commenced by the Respondents as Plaintiffs at the High Court was pre-mature and therefore incompetent it is the writ or the statement of claim that should be looked at.
Earlier on in this Judgment I have reproduced the Claim of the Respondents as shown in the writ of summons at page 2 of the printed record and also contained in the Statement of Claim at pages 11 and 12 of the printed record of proceedings.
The claim of the Respondents is basically declaratory in that by the provisions of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities law No. 3 of 1999, the Stool for Ezeship of Ohii Autonomous Community is rotatory starting from the most senior village and when seniority is no1 known from the most populous. The claim of the Respondents is that based on the provisions of the Traditional Rulers and autonomous Communities law No. 3 of 1999, their village Aboh Ohii is the most senior in ranking and therefore entitled under the law to produce the 1st Eze for the Autonomous Communities while the 1st Appellant who is from Ohu Ohii village the 5th in order of seniority is not even entitled to be in race for the contest of Ezeship Stool for Ohii Autonomous Communities. Simply put the claim of the Respondents is that the 1st Appellant is not by the provisions of the Traditional rulers and autonomous Communities law No. 3 of 1999 entitled to participate in the identification, selection process of a Candidate to be appointed as Eze of the Ohii autonomous Communities and be presented to the Local Government Council talkless of being presented to Governor for his recognition.
For clarity the claim of the Respondents as Plaintiffs read thus:-
a) The 1st Plaintiff who is flour Aboh Ohii is the person entitled under the native law and custom of Ohii.
b) Declaration of the Court that Aboh Ohii village being the most senior of the six villages in Ohii which fact is unchallenged from time immemorial is the rightful village to produce the 1st Eze for the Autonomous so long she has a candidate qualified to occupy the position.
c) Declaration of the Court that since the 1st Plaintiff has been selected/elected or nominated from his village screened and found proper and fit for the position, the Ohii Development Union and Ohii in general should present him to the local government transition Committee Chairman for onward presentation to government for recognition and issuance of staff of office as against the 1st Defendant who hails from Ohohi village the 5th in order of seniority.
d) Declaration of the Court nullifying the purported adoption of 1st Defendant as improper unconstitutional and illegal.
e) An order of Court nullifying the adoption of the 1st Defendant as Eze elect.
f) Declaration of Court that the adoption of the 1st defendant as Eze elect is not in consonance with the selection instrument of Ezeship election/selection in Ohii Autonomous Community and offends virtually all sections in particular section 2.4 (ix) and section 3.3 (i).
Looking at the claim of the Respondents per se it is clear that the dispute between the parties is in respect of the selection process of an Eze for the Ohii autonomous Community which the Respondents claim that the 1st Appellant is not by law entitled to participate as his village rank 5th in seniority while that of the 1st Respondent rank 1st in seniority and the appointment of the said Ezeship for the Ohii autonomous Community is rotational based on seniority ranking of the villages that constitute the autonomous Community.
Section 5(4) of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities law No. 3 of 1999 states thus:
“Where a laid down Procedure for the identification, selection, appointment and installation of an Eze does not exist in an autonomous Community, either because there has never been one before or because of a joining together of two or more Communities having different procedures into one Autonomous Community which has failed to adopt any of the procedures of the component units, or any other reason, then the Eze Stool shall rotate among the component units starting from the most senior member community in traditional ranking, provided that where seniority cannot be determined, then the most populous unit takes precedence and the rest rank according to population.”
By the Respondents claim before the Court and the state of law to be applied in determining who is to participate in the selection process of Ezeship Stool for the Ohii Autonomous Community, the dispute between the parties is at the selection process and any party who feel aggrieved by the selection method has a right of action and can approach the Court to ventilate his grievances, clearly in view of the foregoing the facts and circumstances of the instant appeal are distinguishable from the cases of A.G. ANAMBRA STATE V. OKAFOR (supra) and OKORO V. OKAFOR (supra).
As stated else where in this Judgment the dispute between the parties is still at the selection process, the Supreme Court in S.C. OSAGIE II & ANOR. V. EUGENE OFFOR & ANOR. (supra) at page 205 stated clearly thus:-
“An aggrieved party may at any State in a selection process of a candidate in chieftaincy matter properly challenge same in a Court of Law.”
In view of all I have stated, I am of the firm view that the action commenced by the Respondents as Plaintiffs at the High Court was not premature and that an aggrieve party may at any State in a selection process of a candidate in Chieftaincy matter properly challenge same in a Court of Law, accordingly Issue 1 and 2 are resolved against the Appellants in favour of the Respondents.
ISSUE NO. III:
Whether the Plaintiffs have the locus standi to bring the action. Counsel for the Appellants submits that it is now settled that the term locus standi denotes the legal capacity based upon sufficient interest in a subject matter to institute proceedings in a Court of law to pursue a specified case, reference made to ELESO V. GOVERNOR OF OGUN STATE (1990) 2 NWLR (PT.133) 420; OLORIDE V. OYEBI (1984) 1 SCNLR 390; EMEZI V. OSUAGWU (2005) 12 NWLR (PT.939) 340.
Counsel to the Appellant submit that the 1st and 2nd Respondents in their statement of claim merely averred that Ezeship Stool in Ohii shall be in order of seniority, that it is the turn of Aboha the most senior village to produce the Eze and that the 1st Respondent was selected by his village of Abolia for presentation to the Community. It is submitted that the 1st Respondent ought to have pleaded his interest in the Chieftaincy title. And since the Respondent claimed that he was selected by Aboha village, then the claim ought to be in a representative capacity on behalf of Aboha village, but this not the case in the instant appeal. That the action was filed by the 1st & 2nd Respondents in personal capacities, counsel for the Appellants contends that in the circumstance the 1st & 2nd Respondents failed to satisfy the condition that could confer them the required locus standi to institute the claim.
In reply to the Appellants’ submission on Issue No. III, Counsel to the Respondents submits that the question whether or not the Plaintiffs have a locus standi in a suit is determine from the totality of all the averments in the statement of claim, thus in dealing with the locus standi, the Plaintiff’s statement of claim have to be carefully scrutinized with a view to ascertaining whether or not it has disclosed his interest and how much interest has arisen in the subject matter reference made to JOSUA KAYODE OWODUNMI V. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CELECTIAL CHURCH OF CHRIST & 3 ORS. (2000) 10 NWLR (PG.315) 320; OLORIODE V. OYEBI (1984) 1 SCLR 390 at 400; OLAGOKE V. FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY & ORS. (1996) 6 NWLR 456; NWAUBANI V. THE SPEAKER IMO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (1932) 2 FNR 245 AT 249; ADESANYA V. PRESIDENT, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ANOR. (1981) 5 SC 112 AT 162.
To establish locus standing in a given suit the Plaintiff have to show by his claim before the Court that his right and obligations have been or are in danger of being violated or adversely affected – see ADESANYA V. PRESIDENT, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ANOR (1981) 5 SC 112. Also the Supreme Court in OLORIODE & ORS. V. OYEBI (1984) NSCC vol. 15 286 held that a party prosecuting an action would have locus standi where the reliefs claimed would confer some benefit on such a party. Also in JOSIAH KAYODE OWODUNMI V. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CELESTIAL CHURCH OF CHRIST & ORS. (supra). It was held that
“Where the averment in Plaintiffs pleadings disclosed the rights or interest of the Plaintiff which has been or are in danger of being violated or adversely affected by the act of the defendants, the complaint of such a plaintiff would be deemed to have sufficient interests to give him locus standi to litigate over the subject matter in the issue.”
Now looking at the Plaintiffs claim as endorsed in the Statement of Claim at pages 11 to 12 of the record of proceedings. I do not entertain the slightest doubt in my mind that they have the necessary locus standi to file that action before the lower court. They have claimed that their Village being the most senior in ranking among the six villages that constitute Ohii Autonomous Community is entitled and is the rightful village to produce the 1st Eze for the Ohii Autonomous Community. They also claim that since the 1st Plaintiff has been selected/elected or nominated from his village screened and found proper and fit for the position, the Ohii Development Union and Ohii in general shall present him to the local government transition committee for on ward presentation to government for recognition and issuance of staff of office as against the 1st Defendant who hails from the Ohohi village the 5th in order of seniority. Also the plaintiffs now Respondents claimed declaration of the Court that the adoption of 1st Defendant as Eze elect is not in consonance with the selection instrument of Ezeship Election/Selection in Ohii autonomous Community and offends virtually at the sections in particular section 5.2.4 (ix) and section 3.3(1).
Also, the 1st plaintiff pleaded in his statement of claim that he was selected, after the selection was presented to Ohii Development Union (ODU). He was asked to pay a non-refundable deposit of N40, 000.00 which he paid and was receipted.
It was clear from the claims of the Respondents contained in their statement of claim they have shown reasonable and sufficient interest and therefore have the locus standi to file the action before the lower Court accordingly Issue No. III is resolved against the Appellants in favour of the Respondents.
On the whole I find this appeal unmeritorious. It must fail. Accordingly, I dismiss this appeal. I affirm the lower Court’s decision with N30, 000.00 costs in favour of the Respondents.
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A : I have read the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDUL-KADIR, JCA and I agree with his reasoning and conclusions. I will add a few words.
The Respondents sought the following relief before the trial court:
1. That the 1st Plaintiff who is from Aboha Ohii is a person entitled under the native law and custom of Ohii and under the Imo State of Nigeria Traditional Rulers and autonomous Communities Law 1999 to be the Eze of Ohii Autonomous Community.
2. Declaration that Aboha village being the most senior of the six villages in Ohii which fact is unchallenged from time immemorial is the rightful village to produce the 1st Eze for the Autonomous Community to long she has a candidate qualified to occupy he position.
3. Declaration of the court that since the 1st Plaintiff has been selected, elected or nominated from his village, screened and found proper and fit for the position, the Ohii Development Union and Ohii in general should present him to the Local Government Transition Committee Chairman for onward presentation to Government for recognition and issuance of staff of office as against the 1st Defendant who hails from Ohuohi village the 5th in order of seniority.
4. Declaration of the court nullifying the purported adoption of 1st Defendant as improper, unconstitutional and illegal.
5. And order of court nullifying the adoption of 1st Defendant as Eze elect.
6. Declaration of the court that the adoption of 1st Defendant as Eze elect is not in accordance with the selection instrument of Ezeship Election/Selection in Ohii Autonomous Community and offends virtually all the sections in particular Section 2.4 (ix) and section 3.3 (1).
The Appellant raised preliminary objections to the effect that the 1st Respondent had no locus standi to bring the action and that the action was in fact premature and incompetent in the circumstances. The trial court dismissed the notice of objection and hence this appeal.
The appeal turns on the question of whether the Respondent can bring an action at the stage it was brought in the dispute between the parties given the fact that no action has been taken by any constituted authority in favour of either party. The learned Appellant’s counsel argued that the action was premature because the authorities are now settled that in matters involving the exercise of statutory power, the function of the courts begins only when it is alleged that the power has not been exercised in accordance with the law. He relied on A.G. ANAMBRA V. OKAFOR (1992) 2 NWLR Pt. 212 pg. 396 at 419 and OKORO v. OKAFOR (2001) FWLR Pt.77 Pg. 932 at 941.
Learned Respondents’ counsel was in my view able to successfully distinguish the facts of this case from those relied on by Appellants’ counsel. He argued that Law No. 3 1999 of chieftaincy and Local Government states that the Chieftaincy stool for a new Autonomous Communities should be rotational starting from the most senior village and when seniority is not known, from the most populous. The respondents contended that they are the most senior village and the most populous one. They argued that since the 1st Respondent had in fact been selected, and screened by his village, he should be the one the Ohii Development union and Ohii in general should present to the Local Government for onward presentation to the State Government for recognition and presentation of stall of office as against the 1st Appellant who hails from Ohuohi village the 5th in order of seniority.
The question here is whether the 1st Respondent has a legal interest which has matured and which must be protected by the court.
In A.G. LAGOS V. A.G. FEDERATION (2004) 12 SCNJ 1 at Pg. 71, the Supreme Court per Niki Tobi JSC defined a legal right as follows:
“What is a legal right? A legal right, in my view is a right cognizable in law. It makes a right recognized by law and capable of being enforced by the Plaintiff. It is the right of a party recognized and protected by a rule of law, the violation of which would be a legal wrong done to the interest of the Plaintiff, even though no action is taken. The determination of the existence of a legal right is not whether the action will succeed at the trial but whether the action donates such a right by reference to the enabling law in respect of the commencement of the action.”
Thus, in my view, the 1st Respondent claiming by virtue of the Traditional Ruler and Autonomous Communities Law No. 3 of 1999 that he has fulfilled all the qualifications to be recognized as Eze of the Community by the State Government, and has been put forward by his village which is the most senior village, has acquired as against other persons a right capable of being protected under the law. He has a right against other contenders from his own village and also a right against contenders from other villages if he can prove that his own method of selection is superior or better met the requirements of the law over and above the other contenders. A close look at the declarations sought the Respondent him shows that they did not seek any order against the Local Government nor did he claim any relief from the Local Government. All his declarations are against the adoption of the 1st Appellant by the Community. I think the courts are entitled to look into the question of whether the right of the 1st Respondent has been compromised by tire failure of the Autonomous Community to follow the provisions of their law or Constitution relating to selection/election of an Eze. For the above and fuller reasons, ably set out in the lead judgment. I dismiss this appeal and abide by all orders in the lead judgment.
MOJEED A. OWOADE, J.C.A: I had a preview of the judgment delivered by my learned brother JEGA ABDUL-KADIR, JCA. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion. I also abide by the consequential orders.
Appearances
Mr. K. Anyanwu EbereFor Appellant
AND
For Respondent
