H.R.H. EZE B.N. AMANFO v. CHIEF MARCELLINUS AKPUCHUKWU & ANOR. (2011)

H.R.H. EZE B.N. AMANFO v. CHIEF MARCELLINUS AKPUCHUKWU & ANOR.

(2011)LCN/4314(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Wednesday, the 23rd day of February, 2011

CA/OW/71/09

RATIO

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 2 ARTICLE 1 AND SECTION 9 ARTICLE 1 OF THE UBACHIMA CHIEFS ASSOCIATION WITH RESPECT TO THE QUALIFICATION OF A CHIEF AS MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL OF CHIEFS IN OFEKATA II AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITY

With regard to the Revised Constitution of Ubachima Chiefs Association the following provisions are stated thus:- Section 2 Article 1 of the Ubachima Chiefs Association provides:- Membership is open but restricted to only qualified Chiefs (Eze Ikpe) who have satisfactorily completed all the rules and ceremonies attached to revival of inherited Chieftaincy title to new Chieftaincy title. 1b. All honorary conferred Chieftaincy title holders are not qualified and eligible to enroll as members . SECTION 9, ARTICLE 1 In any new Chieftaincy ceremony, the recognized traditional ruler (Eze) of the Community shall cap the new Chief. Where the seat of the traditional ruler is unable to perform this function of capping, the new Chief has to arrange and invite any recognized traditional ruler of his choice to cap him. SECTION II The heir elect to the Stool shall apply in writing to the Secretary of the Association his intention to commence Ihuzi Agada Ceremony with N500.00, the Secretary shall present same to the meeting. ARTICLE II Any heir to the vacant Stool as a result of death of the incumbent shall within 3 years of his death re-instate the vacant stool with all rights and ceremonies pertaining to the Chieftaincy title taking. Where the heir fails to reinstate the vacant Stool after the expiration of 3 years, he shall loose his position on the seniority list but shall perform inherited Chieftaincy ceremonies as in the Constitution. PER ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDUL-KADIR, J.C.A

STATUTORY PROVISION: PROVISION OF SECTION 31 (1) OF IMO STATE LAW NO. 3 OF 1999 AS IT RELATES TO THE CONDITION FOR THE CONFERMENT OF HONORARY CHIEFTAINCY TITLES

SECTION 31 (1) OF IMO STATE LAW NO. 3 OF 1999 PROVIDES – Conferment of honorary Chieftaincy titles shall be done by an Eze on outstanding citizens and friends of the Autonomous Community only in agreement with the town Union and members of the Eze in Council to the Autonomous Community. The trial Court construed the provisions of Section 31 (1) of the Imo State law No. 3 of 1999 which it states clearly shows that traditional rulers in Imo State like the Appellant have the exclusive right to confer Honorary Chieftaincy title on outstanding citizens and friends of the Autonomous Community only in agreement with the town Union and members of the Eze in Council. The trial Court also held that the submission of learned counsel to the Appellant B.C. Iheka Esq. that Section F (4) of Exhibit A gave the Plaintiff right to confer Chieftaincy title to deserving members of the Community and did not exclude any kind of Chieftaincy title must be read and construed in line with Section 31 of Law No. 3 of 1999. PER ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDUL-KADIR, 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

H.R.H. EZE B.N. AMANFO Appellant(s)

AND

1. CHIEF MARCELLINUS AKPUCHUKWU
2. CHIEF GODFREY C. AJAERE
(For and on behalf of the member of Ubachima Chiefs Association, Awo-Omamma) Respondent(s)

ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDUL-KADIR, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Judgment of Imo State High Court of Justice of Oru Judicial Division holden at Mgbidi delivered on 16th day of April 2009. The Appellant was the Plaintiff in the Suit commenced by Originating Summons while the Respondents were the Defendants in the Suit.
The facts leading to this appeal are stated as follows:-
The Appellant is the Traditional Ruler of Ofekata II Autonomous Community to which the Respondents belong.  The Ofekata II Autonomous Community has constitution which provides, among other things as follows:-
SECTION F: DUTIES OF EZE OFEKATA II
The Ezeoha of Ofekata II Autonomous Community shall perform all the duties contained in the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities law 1981, viz
1 —————-
2——————
3 ——————
4. Shall confer Chieftaincy titles to deserving members of the Community.
5. Shall cap any new Chief within the Autonomous Community, any person who assumes a Chieftaincy title but not capped by a traditional ruler, shall not be recognized as such and shall not enroll in the Council of Chiefs in Ofekata II Autonomous Community.
6.
7.
The Respondent is a Voluntary Association with its own constitution which provides among other things as follows:-
Membership of Ubachima Chiefs Association is open but restrained to only qualified Chiefs (Eze-ikpe) who have satisfactorily completed the rites and ceremonies attached to revival of inherited Chieftaincy title or to new Chieftaincy title.
The Respondents acting under the provisions of Section  9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of their Constitution conferred Chieftaincy title, meddle in prescribed and regulate on Chieftaincy matters in the Autonomous Community.
The Appellants, the Traditional Ruler of the Autonomous Community sued in an originating summons raised and sought for the Reliefs therein contained namely:
1. Whether in view of the provisions of the Constitution of Ofekata II Autonomous Community (otherwise known as the constitution for Identification and presentation of Traditional ruler (Eze) of Ofekata II Autonomous Community) the Ubachima Chiefs Association is an organ in the established structure of traditional governance in the said Autonomous community.
2. Whether the Ubachima Chiefs Association is entitled to confer Chieftaincy title, meddle in, prescribe and regulate on Chieftaincy matters in Ofekata II Autonomous Community, considering the provision of Section F of the Constitution of the Autonomous Community and Section 31(1) of the Traditional Rulers, Autonomous Communities and Allied Matters Law No. 3 of 1999.
3. IF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE, whether the provisions of Section 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Revised Constitution of the Ubachima Chiefs Association are not illegal, ultra vires the powers of the Association, inconsistent and in conflict with the provision, letters and spirit of the Constitution of the Autonomous Community and the Law No. 3 of 1999 of Imo State.
Wherefore the Plaintiff claims the following reliefs:-
1. Declaration that the Chieftaincy titles conferred by Ubachima Chiefs association in Ofekata II Autonomous Community are wrongful, ultra vires the powers of the Association and therefore null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
2. Declaration that Sections 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Revised Constitution of Ubachima Chiefs Association are inconsistent and in conflict with the provisions, letters and spirits of the Constitution of Ofekata II Autonomous Community and the Traditional Rulers Autonomous Community Law, No. 2 1999 of Imo State and are therefore null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves as the said Association or in any other Guise, and through their officers, representatives or agents from any further conferment of Chieftaincy title in Ofekata II Autonomous Community, or meddling in or other manner howsoever interfering with the functions/powers of the plaintiff as the Traditional Ruler (Eze) of Ofekata II Autonomous Community.
The Respondents in paragraph 28 of their Counter-affidavit denied conferring any Chieftaincy title but prescribed on “Eze Ikpe” Chieftaincy title in the Autonomous Community.
The Respondents in paragraph 14, 19, 20 and 21 of their counter-affidavit stated that “Eze Ikpe” Chieftaincy title which is a Traditional title in the Autonomous Community is not conferred but taken by any person and until capped by the Eze, such a person is not so recognized.
After argument on the written addresses and oral submissions of Counsel, the Honourable trial Court held thus:-
I. The Ubachima Chiefs Association of the Respondents is not an organ in the traditional governance of Ofekata II Autonomous Community, but a voluntary organization protected by Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution.
II. The Ubachima chiefs Association is entitled to confer the Ezeikpe (Traditional) Chieftaincy title only on its members in Ofekata II Autonomous Community.
III. The provisions of Sections 9, 11, 12 13 14 15 and 16 of the Respondents’ Constitution are not illegal, ultra vires the powers of the association or inconsistent and/or in conflict with the provisions of letters and spirit of the Constitution of the Autonomous Community and Law No. 3 1999 of Imo State.
The Appellant being dissatisfied with the Judgment of the trial Court appealed against the Judgment.
The appeal was heard on 23/11/10. Counsel to the Appellant informed the Court that the Appellant’s brief of argument is dated 7/9/09 and filed on 15/9/09. The appellant also file a reply brief dated 10/3/2010 and deemed filed on 2/11/10. Learned Counsel to Appellant adopts the briefs of argument and urged the Court to allow the Appeal.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Ucheagwu Okoye informed the Court that the Respondent’s brief of argument is dated 11/1/10 and filed same date. Counsel adopts the brief of argument and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.
From the four grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal, Counsel to the Appellant formulated one Issue for determination and the Issue is stated thus:-
“Whether the trial Court was right when it held that the Ubachima Chiefs Association is entitled to confer the Eze-Ikpe traditional Chieftaincy title only on its members and also prescribe and regulate on matters concerning the said Eze-Ikpe Chieftaincy title only.”
The Respondent formulated five Issues for determination from the four grounds of appeal, the issues are stated thus:-
1. Whether the Plaintiff/Appellant who is not a member of “Eze-Ikpe” group, body or title holder and who is not a member of Ubachima Chiefs Association has the right to meddle prescribe and regulate on the affairs of the Association or group.
2. Whether the Respondents who are Eze-Ikpe title holders and members of Ubachima Chiefs Association are not entitled to meddle, prescribe and regulate the affairs of their Association or Members.
3. Whether Eze-Ikpe title and Iwuzi Agada Eze is not one of those existing Customs and Traditions the Plaintiff as the Traditional Ruler is bound to preserve and protect under Section F (1) of the Constitution for Identification and Presentation of the Traditional Ruler (Eze) of Ofekata II  Autonomous Community Oru East L.G.A.
4. Whether the provisions of Sections 9, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of revised Constitution of Ubachima Chiefs Association are illegal, ultra vires the powers of the Association, or inconsistent and or in conflict with the provisions of the letters and spirit of the Constitution of the Autonomous Community and law No. 3 of 1999 of Imo State.
5. Whether the decision reached by the learned trial Court in the interpretation of the Constitution of Ofekata II Autonomous Community & Constitution of Ubachima Chiefs Association and Law No. 3 of Imo State 1999 in any way did occasion a miscarriage of Justice to the Plaintiff/Appellant.
The Issue as formulated by the Appellant can adequately dispose of the appeal.
On the sole Issue for determination, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court failed to direct itself properly and thereby came to a wrong resolution of the issue before it for determination namely,
“Whether the Defendants by the construction of the following documents: Constitution of Ofekata II Autonomous Community (Exhibit A), Revised Constitution of Ubachima Chiefs Association (Exhibit B) and Traditional Rulers Autonomous Communities Law No. 3 of 1999 can confer Eze-Ikpe Chieftaincy title in the Community.”
Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the issue of Chieftaincy title and Chieftaincy matters raised in question No 2 of the originating summons was narrowed down to the “Eze Ikpe” aspect of the traditional chieftaincy title, that the issue formulated for determination at the trial Court relates to the said question No. 2 of the originating summons, that  in the formulation of the Issue by the trial Court, Exhibit B (Revised Constitution of Ubachima Chiefs association) being challenged was included among the documents to be constructed to determine whether the Ubachima Chiefs Association can confer the “Eze Ikpe” Chieftaincy title. Counsel submits that it is trite law that the Court, like parties are bound by the Issue raised before it for determination, reference made to BANK OF THE NORTH & ANOR. V. ALIYU (1997) NWLR (PT.612) 622; OGBE V. ESSI (1943) WACA 76; EKPENYONG V. NYONG (1975) SC 71; OYEDIRAN V. AMOO (1978) 1 ALL NLR 313.
Learned Counsel contended that the decision of the trial Court was not in tandem with the issue before it for determination. That the Issue formulated by the trial Court for determination by it is on conferment of the Eze-Ikpe traditional Chieftaincy title in the (Autonomous) Community, and not on its members by the Ubachima Chief association. That the trial Court, in trying to distinguish the powers to confer chieftaincy title provided under Section 31(1) of law No. 3 of 1999 (i.e. the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities law of Imo State) and Section F (4) of Exhibit A. (the Ofekata II autonomous Community Constitution) read in Section 31(1) of law No. 3 of 1999 the word “Exclusive” which was not contained in the provision of the said section.
Counsel referred to the sections of the laws mentioned above and the statement of the trial Court thus:-
“If (referring to the Eze Ikpe traditional chieftaincy title) is a title for members of the Association (referring to Ubachima Chiefs Association) on.”
Counsel argues that there is nothing in any materials (Documents) before the trial Court to support the above assertion. Instead the Ubachima Chiefs Association itself asserted in paragraphs 19 and 20 of their counter affidavit that the “Eze Ikpe” traditional chieftaincy title is aspect of the Ofekata II autonomous Community Custom and Tradition thus:
“19 That the Eze Ikpe title is like Ozo title in Ofekata II Autonomous Community.
“20 That it is taken by any person who is willing, qualified and capable.”
Counsel contends that it is trite law that findings of a Court shall be supported by evidence before the Court, any finding not so supported is perverse, reference made to OLOHUNDE V. ADEYOJO (2000) 10 NWLR (PT.676) 562; OBULOR V. OBORO (2001) FWLR (PT. 47) 1004.
Counsel to the Appellant submits that the Court made a subsisting finding that the Ubachima Chiefs Association is a private and voluntary organization formed by persons conferred with the “Eze Ikpe” chieftaincy title by virtue of section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and that the Ubachima Chiefs Association is not an organ in the traditional governance of the Ofekata II Autonomous Community. Counsel to the Appellant contends that how then can a private and voluntary association which is not in the structure of governance in the community appropriate to itself the ownership of “Eze-Ikpe traditional Chieftaincy Title of the Community, particularly when the legal implication of section 40 of the Constitution, membership of the Association is not binding on every person conferred with the “Eze Ikpe” chieftaincy title in the community. Reference made to AGBAI V. OKAGBUE (1991) 7 NWLR (PT.204) 391.
It is submitted for the Appellant that the Court made the following finding:-
“Ubachima Chiefs Association is entitled to confer the Eze Ikpe” Traditional Chieftaincy title only on its members in Ofekata II Autonomous Community and also prescribed and regulate on matters concerning the said Eze Ikpe Chieftaincy title only.”
Counsel for the Appellant submits that that is not the issue before the Court that the issue before the Court is the conferment of “Eze Ikpe” Chieftaincy title in the Community not the Conferment of Eze Ikpe Chieftaincy title on the members of the Association. That there is no member of the Ubachima Chief Association without the Eze-Ikpe traditional chieftaincy title.
Counsel for the Appellant argues that being so which member of the Ubachima Chief Association is the Association entitled to confer the “Eze-Ikpe” title as decided by the trial Court. That a Court of law does not make a decision in vain. Consequently, Counsel for the Appellant contends that there is no member of Ubachima Chiefs Association without the “Eze-Ikpe” traditional chieftaincy title, that the decision of the Court that the Ubachima Chief Association is entitled to confer the “Eze-Ikpe” title on its members only is a decision made in vain.
Counsel further submits that the trial Court is bound by the case and claim before it; it cannot introduce in its decision issue which does not arise from the case of the parties. Any decision on such issue cannot be allowed to stand. Reference made to ADELAJA V. ALADE (1999) 6 NWLR (PT. 608) 544 SC; YAKASSAI V. INCAR MOTORS LTD. (1975) 6 SC 107. IDIKA V. ERIRI (1988) 2 NWLR (PT.78) 563. ADENIYI V. ADENIYI (1972) 4 SC 80.
Finally learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that if the trial Court had directed itself properly, the implication of its decision that the Respondents are entitled to confer the Ezeikpe Traditional Chieftaincy title only on its members is that the Respondents are not entitled to confer the said title in the Autonomous Community, that the Issue could have been resolved in favour of the Appellant to the effect that the Respondents cannot and are not entitled to confer the Eze Ikpe traditional Chieftaincy title in the Autonomous Community. Thus the Appellant’s Suit could not have been dismissed but the reliefs granted. Counsel to the Appellant urged us to allow the appeal.
In reply to the submissions of Counsel to the Appellant, learned Counsel to the Respondents contends that the functions of the Appellant, the traditional Ruler are specifically outlined and itemized in section F (1)  – (7) of the Constitution of the Ofekata II Autonomous Community, Section 9 Article 1 of Ubachima Chiefs Association and Section 31 (1)  of Imo State Law No. 3 of 1999.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that a clear construction of the above laws show clearly that the functions of the Appellant in Ofekata II Autonomous Community as it concerns the conferment of Chieftaincy title is to confer Honourary Chieftaincy title on outstanding citizens and friends of the Autonomous Community only in agreement with the town Union and members of the Eze in Council of the Autonomous Community. Furthermore, learned Counsel contends that a thorough reading of Section F(4) of the Constitution of Ofekata II Autonomous Community reveals that, that section is merely talking of conferment of Honourable Chieftaincy title on deserving citizens as against conferment of Eze-Ikpe Chieftaincy title. That a comparison of Section F4 and Section F5 of Ofekata II Autonomous Community will disclose that they are not talking of the same Chieftaincy title. Section F5 is talking of the duty of the Traditional Ruler “to cap a new Chief within the Autonomous Community.” That the same F5 went further to say that “any person who assumes a Chieftaincy title” Counsel argues that all these presuppose that the function of the traditional Ruler is to cap a new Chief or any person who assumes a Chieftaincy title. That the function of the Traditional Ruler starts after the person might have been a new Chief or assumed a Chieftaincy title.  Counsel to the Respondents submits that from the foregoing arguments it is clear that none of the Constitutions or laws has bestowed any power, authority or right on the Traditional Ruler to make law, meddle, prescribe or regulate on the Eze-Ikpe title in Ofekata II Autonomous Community.
Counsel to the Respondent submits that the Appellant emphasized so much on the issue formulated by the trial Court as being “on conferment of the Eze Ikpe Traditional Chieftaincy title in the (Autonomous) Community and not its members by the Ubachima Chiefs Association. Counsel argues that the primary issue is whether the Respondents can confer Eze Ikpe Chieftaincy title at all, whether in the Autonomous Community or as members because
(a) Where the conclusion reached by a Court is correct, it is not affected by the fact that it was arrived at some wrong reasons, reference made to AYENI V. SOWEMIMO (1982) 5 SC 60 at 74.
(b) That an appellate Court does not disturb the finding of fact of a trial Court unless such finding of fact led to a perverse decision or occasioned a miscarriage of Justice, reference made to OLUBADE V. SALAMI (1985) NWLR (pt. 7) 282 at 297.
Counsel to the Respondents submits that the provisions of the Constitution of Ofekata II Autonomous Community and that of Ubachima Chiefs Association as that of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities law 1981 viz Imo State gazette No. 43 as they concern the functions and power of the Appellant are quite clear and unambiguous and should be given their ordinary meanings.
On the issue of who does what in the Autonomous Community, which is who has the exclusive right to confer traditional title in Ofekata II Autonomous Community according to custom and tradition, Counsel submits that this is a matter of proof of the custom of Ofekata II Autonomous Community which custom must be proved by evidence in the witness box for which originating summons proceedings is not the proper procedure to follow in resolving the issue but by writ of summons. Counsel to the Respondent urged the Court to uphold the Judgment of the lower court and dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.
In determining the sole Issue formulated for determination, it is imperative to reproduce the issues submitted for determination in the originating summons and the Issue formulated by the trial Court for determination which covers all the Issues raised in the originating Summons.
Issues submitted in the Originating Summons:-
a) Whether in view of the provisions of the Constitution of Ofekata II Autonomous Community (otherwise known as the Constitution for Identification and presentation of the Traditional Ruler (Eze) of Ofekata II Autonomous Community) the Ubachima Chiefs Association is an organ in the established structure of traditional governance in the said Autonomous Community.
b) Whether the Ubachima Chiefs Association is entitled to confer Chieftaincy title, meddle in, prescribe and regulate on Chieftaincy matters in Ofekata II Autonomous Community considering the provisions of Section F1, 4 and 5 of the Constitution of the Autonomous Community and Section 31 (1) of the Traditional Rulers, Autonomous Communities and Allied matters law No. 3 of 1999.
c) IF THE ABOVE QUESTION ARE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE, whether the provisions of Sections 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Revised Constitution of the Ubachima Chiefs Association are not illegal, ultra vires the powers of the Association, inconsistent and in conflict with the provisions, letters and spirit of the Constitution of the Autonomous Community and law No. 3 of 1999 of Imo State.
The lone Issue formulated by the Court for determination reads thus:
“Whether the Defendants by the construction of the following documents, Constitution of Ofekata II Autonomous Community (Exhibit A), Reversed Constitution of Ubachima Chiefs Association (Exhibit B) and Autonomous Communities Law No. 3 of 1999 can confer Eze-Ikpe Chieftaincy title in the Community.”
Learned Counsel to the Appellant in his brief of Argument has challenged the formulation and adoption of the lone Issue for determination on the ground that the decision of the trial Court was not in tandem with the issue before it for determination and also that the issue formulated by the trial Court for determination is on conferment of Eze-Ikpe traditional Chieftaincy title in the (Autonomous) Community and not on its members by the Ubachima Chiefs Association.
The Answer to this contention by learned Counsel to the Appellant can be found at page 59 of the Record of Proceedings where the learned Counsel for the appellant stated thus:-
“The matter before the Court is for interpretation of 3 documents to determine the question raised in this matter submits that the lone issue in this case is whether the Defendants have power to confer Chieftaincy title under the 3 documents called for interpretation in this suit.”
Learned Counsel to the Appellant have conceded to this lone issue as the sole issue for determination in this Suit, it is now belated for him to turn around and question the adoption of the Lone Issue for determination and beside the issue is properly formulated and covers all the issues submitted for determination in the originating summons.
Now the trial Court found that from the processes filed and submissions of both Counsel, the following facts are agreed upon by the parties –
1. Ubachima Chiefs Association is a voluntary Association by virtue of Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution which Association the Defendants belong to.
2. The Plaintiff is the recognized traditional ruler of the Ofekata II Autonomous Community in Oru East Local Government Area of Imo State.
3. The Defendants have by their Constitution exhibit B prescribed and made regulations on matters pertaining to the taking of the said Eze Ikpe Chieftaincy title.
4. The said Eze Ikpe Chieftaincy title is not an honorary title but a traditional customary title and is taken by persons who have substantially completed all rights and ceremonies attached to it.
To answer the lone issue for determination the trial Court constructed the following documents –
1. Constitution of Ofekata II Autonomous Community,
2. Revised Constitution of Ubachima Chiefs Association.
3. Imo State Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law No. 3 of 1999.
For purpose of clarity the trial Court reproduced the relevant Sections of the documents thus:-
Section F of the Constitution Exhibit A provides that – The Eze-oha of Ofekata II Autonomous Community shall perform all the duties contained in the traditional rulers and autonomous Community law 1981 viz Imo State gazette No. 43 Vol. 6 of 26/11/81 and in addition
1 – shall preserve, protect all genuine existing customs and traditions.
2 – Shall confer Chieftaincy titles to deserving members of the Community.
3 – Shall cap any new Chief within the autonomous Community.  Any person who assumes a Chieftaincy title but not capped by the traditional ruler shall not be recognized as such and shall not enroll in the Council of chiefs in Ofekata II Autonomous Community.
With regard to the Revised Constitution of Ubachima Chiefs Association the following provisions are stated thus:-
Section 2 Article 1 of the Ubachima Chiefs Association provides:-
Membership is open but restricted to only qualified Chiefs (Eze Ikpe) who have satisfactorily completed all the rules and ceremonies attached to revival of inherited Chieftaincy title to new Chieftaincy title.
1b. All honorary conferred Chieftaincy title holders are not qualified and eligible to enroll as members .
SECTION 9, ARTICLE 1
In any new Chieftaincy ceremony, the recognized traditional ruler (Eze) of the Community shall cap the new Chief.  Where the seat of the traditional ruler is unable to perform this function of capping, the new Chief has to arrange and invite any recognized traditional ruler of his choice to cap him.
SECTION II
The heir elect to the Stool shall apply in writing to the Secretary of the Association his intention to commence  Ihuzi Agada Ceremony with N500.00, the Secretary shall present same to the meeting.
ARTICLE II
Any heir to the vacant Stool as a result of death of the incumbent shall within 3 years of his death re-instate the vacant stool with all rights and ceremonies pertaining to the Chieftaincy title taking.  Where the heir fails to reinstate the vacant Stool after the expiration of 3 years, he shall loose his position on the seniority list but shall perform inherited Chieftaincy ceremonies as in the Constitution.

SECTION 31 (1) OF IMO STATE LAW NO. 3 OF 1999 PROVIDES -Conferment of honorary Chieftaincy titles shall be done by an Eze on outstanding citizens and friends of the Autonomous Community only in agreement with the town Union and members of the Eze in Council to the Autonomous Community.
The trial Court construed the provisions of Section 31 (1) of the Imo State law No. 3 of 1999 which it states clearly shows that traditional rulers in Imo State like the Appellant have the exclusive right to confer Honorary Chieftaincy title on outstanding citizens and friends of the Autonomous Community only in agreement with the town Union and members of the Eze in Council. The trial Court also held that the submission of learned counsel to the Appellant B.C. Iheka Esq. that Section F (4) of Exhibit A gave the Plaintiff right to confer Chieftaincy title to deserving members of the Community and did not exclude any kind of Chieftaincy title must be read and construed in line with Section 31 of Law No. 3 of 1999.
The trial Court was of the view that the exclusive right to confer honorary Chieftaincy title by the Plaintiff cannot be interpreted to mean that the Plaintiff also has exclusive powers to confer traditional titles also. Literarily the said Section F (4) did not give the Plaintiff such exclusive powers to confer all types of Chieftaincy titles. What it then means is that the traditional rulers in Imo State including the Plaintiff shall have the rights to confer both honorary and traditional titles which is in consonance with the said Section F(4) of Exhibit “A” and the Plaintiff’s Counsel submission, however it is only exclusive with respect to honorary chieftaincy titles only.
The trial Court held that if the Plaintiff is alleging that by their custom and tradition he has the exclusive right to confer traditional titles it then becomes a matter of proof of the said Custom for which originating summons proceedings is not the proper forum. The Court made a finding that from the foregoing construction that the Plaintiff only has an exclusive right to confer honorary Chieftaincy title which is not the same as regards to traditional title which is not so restricted. Further the Court states that the Defendants can by their Constitution regulate or prescribe on the taking of the said Eze Ikpe Chieftaincy title which clearly is not an honorary Chieftaincy title but a traditional Chieftaincy title. It is a title for members of the Association only and a non member of the Association cannot without the consent and authority of the Association regulate and prescribe on the title given by the Association, it is not a community matter but limited to an Association for which the Plaintiff has no right over.
To clearly show the distinction between both titles Section 2. Article 1 (b) of Exhibit B clearly states that all honorary conferred Chieftaincy title holders are not qualified and eligible to enroll as members of Ubachima Chiefs Association.
The trial Court further held that the case of the Respondents is further fortified by the fact that only persons who have taken the Eze Ikpe Chieftaincy can be registered as members of the Defendants Association. The Eze Ikpe title therefore is limited to the Association.
Further the Court states that any attempt/attempts to whittle down its duties functions as enshrined in their revised Constitution Exhibit B which is not contrary to law No. 3 of 1999 or the Constitution of the Autonomous Community will be an infringement of their Constitutional right of Association and this Court will certainly not fall into any such infraction.
On Section II (d) of Law No. 3 of 1999, the Court held that the mere fact that the Plaintiff is custodian of Custom and tradition of his Autonomous Community is no proposition to say that the Defendants as voluntary organization cannot prescribe or regulate on the conferment of traditional title of its members. The conferment of traditional title is not the exclusive preserve of the Plaintiff. The learned trial Judge made a finding of fact and held that the Ubachima Chiefs Association can confer the said Eze-Ikpe title on its members who are Eze-Ikpe Chiefs. Also the learned Judge held that An EzeIkpe is not the same as an honorary Chieftaincy holder in Ofekata II Autonomous Community. The lone issue is answered in the positive.
In the instant appeal it was initiated by originating summons procedure and the trial Court was invited to construct documents placed before it and answer the questions posed in the originating summons. The documents that were placed before the Court for construction are:-
1. Constitution of Ofekata II Autonomous Community.
2. Revised Constitution of Ubachima Chiefs Association.
3. Imo State Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law No. 3 of 1999.
The learned trial Judge constructed the documents placed before him for construction and identified the crucial issues joined by the Parties in the Suit and answered the lone issue in the positive which I entirely agree with, certainly by the Constitution of the Respondents they can regulate or prescribe on the taking of the said Eze Ikpe Chieftaincy title which clearly is not an honorary Chieftaincy title but a traditional Chieftaincy title as conceded by the Parties. If the Appellant is alleging that by their Custom and Tradition he has the exclusive right to confer traditional title, it becomes a matter of proof for which originating summons procedure is not the proper forum.
In view of the foregoing the sole Issue formulated for determination is resolved against the Appellant in favour of the Respondents.
In the result this appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. The Judgment of the Imo State High Court sitting at Oru delivered on the 6th day of April 2009 by Ojiako J is hereby affirmed.
Costs of N30,000.00 is awarded to the Respondents against the Appellant.