HON. IBOROMA T. IBIAMAYE-LOKU XII & ANOR v. SIR CHIEF IBIEYEMIEBARA S. ORUYE & ORS
(2019)LCN/13566(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 25th day of June, 2019
CA/PH/350/2015
RATIO
LAND LAW: WHO BESTOWS HEADSHIP OF A COMMUNITY ON A PERSON AND WHO CAN WITHHOLD OR REMOVE IT
Although, the sanction may appear limitless and open ended, yet the 1st appellant?s headship of the Minama Community was bestowed upon him by the Community and so can be withheld even ad infinitum by the said Community for a just cause as has played out in the instant scenario, if they so wished. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Community that made the 1st appellant its head is supreme. This position accords with the earlier decision of this Court per Agube, JCA., in the case of Olatilu vs. Akomolafe (2001) All FWLR Pt. 575, pg. 292 at para. G., where he stated that:
.. it is commonly said that no man is greater than his community (not even the President of this Country) as has been demonstrated in recent times. Therefore, the learned respondent must do away with the moribund concept of divine right of Kings as propagated in the medieval times.
Much as the respondents indicted the two appellants for financial impropriety, it was/is up to them to proceed against any one or both of the appellants as they so chose. Therefore that the respondents chose to suspend the appellant alone is just as it pleases the respondents and therefore of no moment in this appeal. The respondents had sought in their relief (iv) that the 1st appellants suspension from office as the Amanyanabo remains in force until lifted by the Community. The discretion of the lower Court to grant relief (iv) as prayed cannot be taken away from it, given that it saw reason to so exercise its discretion.PER CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO, J.C.A.
COURTS: THE COURT OF APPEAL CAN CORRECT THE ERRORS IN LAW AND FACT PRESENT IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT
Without much ado, I deem it pertinent to state that the legal system in operation in this country is structured in such a way that if in the course of any trial, the lower/trial Court errs either in law or fact or on both law and fact, the Court of Appeal is in place to correct such founded errors. Where the Court of Appeal in turn fails, the Supreme Court is there as the final Court of the land to make right any such wrong or error so committed by the intermediate Court i.e. the Court of Appeal. This is the clear purport of the provisions of Sections 240-243 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). It therefore makes no sense casting on the lower court the aspersion of being unjust, oppressive and unconscionable as the appellants have imputed under issue 2 (two) herein.PER CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. HON. IBOROMA T. IBIAMAYE-LOKU XII
2. CHIEF MPAKABOARI SYDNEY GEORGE
(For themselves and as representing Trust members of Minama Community Trust) Appellant(s)
AND
1. SIR CHIEF IBIEYEMIEBARA S. ORUYE
2. HIGH CHIEF DIEPRIYE W. GRANVILLE
3. CHIEF PROBYN H. GRANS-EGE
4. CHIEF TONYE B. EKINE
5. CHIEF LOLO L. SOKARI
6. CHIEF AWOALA CHRISTOPHER
7. CHIEF TAMUNOSAKI B. DOKUBO
8. ALABO (HON.) DATONYE I.I. GEORGE
9. ELDER FAYEOFORI WEST
10. PRINCE DABOIKIABO ALALIBO
11. MISS PETERBA IKIRIKO
(For themselves and as representing Minama Community) Respondent(s)
CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal resonated from the judgment of High Court of Rivers State (hereinafter to be referred to as the lower/trial Court), presided over by Hon. Justice S. O. Iragunima, J., delivered 22nd July, 2015 in suit No. PHC/461/2012.
BRIEF BACKGROUND FACTS
By a writ of summons and statement of claim issued and filed 8th March, 2012, the claimants at the lower Court who before us are the respondents sought the following reliefs against the defendants/appellants:
1. A declaration that as custodians of Minama Community funds through the Community Trust (CT), the defendants have a duty to account to the community of all monies which had come into the CT from 2007 ? 2011.
2. An Order compelling the defendants to render account of the income and expenditure of the Community Trust (CT), the defendants from 2007 2011 within 14 (fourteen) days of the judgment in this suit to the Minama Community.
3. An Order restraining the defendants from harassing, threatening and intimidating and threaten (sic) the claimants on account of the demand on them to
1
render account to the Minama Community.
4. An Order restraining the 1st defendant from parading and/or presenting himself as the Amanyanabo of Minama Community or performing any functions, duties and responsibilities attached thereto until the suspension is lifted by the community. (See pages 1- 7 of the record of appeal).
The defendants in their statement of defence and counter claim dated and filed 5th April, 2012, sought as follows against the claimants:
i. A declaration that the purported suspension of the defendants from their offices in Minama Community contained in the Resolution made at the illegal/unauthorized meeting held on 30/3/2012 is illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
ii. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the claimants, their agents and servants from carrying into effect any decisions contained in the illegal Resolution made at the purported meeting of 3/3/2012.
iii. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the claimants, their agents and servants from dissolving the Minama Community Trust (CT) constituting another one, appointing a Community Development Committee (CDC) or in any
2
way/manner whatsoever usurping or interfering with the rights of the defendants to exercise the powers and duties of their respective offices in Minama Community of Asari-Toru Local Government Area. (See pages 40 ? 42 of the record of appeal).
The respective parties led evidence in support of their pleadings, at the end of which they filed and exchanged final written addresses, upon which the learned trial Judge in his considered judgment allowed relief numbers (1), (2) and (4), while relief (3) of the claimants/respondents? claims was dismissed. The defendants counter claim was on the other part dismissed. (See pages 283 ? 319 of the record of appeal).
Piqued by the judgment, the defendants/counter claimants (appellants herein) filed a Notice of Appeal dated 30th July, 2015 and filed 31st July, 2015. Pursuant to the leave of Court granted them on 31st October, 2017, the appellants? Amended Notice of Appeal filed 19th August, 2016 was deemed properly filed and served on the said 31st October, 2017.
In compliance with the rules and practice of this Court the parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument.
