HRH EZE CYRIL AHANEKU & ORS v. NZE NATHANIEL ONYENANU & ORS
(2019)LCN/12969(CA)
In The Courtroom of Enchantment of Nigeria
On Friday, the 29th day of March, 2019
CA/OW/107/2013
RATIO
REQUIREMENTS FOR EZESHIP CANDIDATURE UNDER SECTION 7 (2) (C) OF IMO STATE LAW NO Three OF 1999 AND SECTION 4 (E)
It’s the requirement of Part 7 (2) (c) of Imo State Regulation No Three of 1999 and Part 4 (e) Claimants Exhibit Four that the candidate for Ezeship candidature should not be a full time civil servant. Part 5(a) of Exhibit Four required that an Ezeship candidate should file an utility for that goal.PER RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.
STATUTE: PARTIES MUST ALWAYS STICK TO THE PROCEDURE SET OUT BY STATUTE ON A MODE BY WHICH AN ACT SHOULD BE PERFORMED
The place a statute prescribes the mode by which an act shall be carried out, events are usually not at liberty to decide on every other mode.PER RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO Justice of The Courtroom of Enchantment of Nigeria
THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA Justice of The Courtroom of Enchantment of Nigeria
RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU Justice of The Courtroom of Enchantment of Nigeria
Between
1. HRH EZE CYRIL AHANEKU
2. MR. VITALIS NDUKWU
3. MR. CYRIL AMAECHI
(2nd-Third Defendants for themselves and as representing the purported Government members of Nkalu Individuals Meeting) Appellant(s)
AND
1. NZE NATHANIEL ONYENANU
(Struck out by Order of Courtroom dated fifth Might, 2014)
2. SIR J. N. EHIRIM
3. MR. PASCAL S. I. IREOZO
4. MR. BARNABAS UMUNNAKWE
(2nd-4th Claimants for themselves and as representing the Government Members of Nkalu Peoples Meeting)
5. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF IMO STATE
6. THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE Respondent(s)
RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Main Judgment): That is an attraction towards the judgment of the Imo State Excessive Courtroom sitting at IHO delivered on seventh of November 2012 in Go well with No HMI/1/2004 whereby the Claims of the Respondents was granted.
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS:
The Respondents had sought eight reliefs within the Courtroom under in a Writ of Summons dated 2nd of January 2004, towards the Appellants.
After the swimsuit proceeded to trial, Judgment was entered granting the reliefs sought.
The Imo State authorities had constituted the Nkalu Autonomous Group comprising 13 element villages. Umuanu is essentially the most senior of the lot.
Nkalu Autonomous Group has by no means had an Eze, neither had it any process for choosing one.
The swimsuit, the subject material of this Enchantment has to do with the process kind, and or deciding on an Eze for the Nkalu Autonomous Group.
The first Appellant and the first Respondent had been the one individuals that expressed intention to occupy the Ezeship stool.
?The first Respondent is from Umuanu, whereas the first Appellant is from Umungide, which rank because the third village.
1
There was a dispute between the first Appellant and the first Respondent which led to separate presentation of the events for recognition as Eze Nkalu Autonomous Group earlier than the Justice Onumajulu Panel and the Chairman, Mbaitoli Native Authorities.
The names of the contestants had been forwarded to the Imo State Authorities via the Ministry of Native Authorities and Chieftaincy Affairs
The first Respondent was not heard earlier than the choice to accord recognition to the first Appellant on the 23rd of December 2003. The 4th& fifth Respondents had concluded as follows:
?The Defendants acknowledged the first Defendant as the one particular person offered for recognition by Nkalu Autonomous Group?
The Courtroom under discovered that the popularity accorded to the first Appellant had no foundation, and located for the Plaintiffs (Respondents)
The Appellants are dissatisfied with the choice of the decrease Courtroom and appealed it.
The Appellants filed a Discover of Enchantment, pursuant to the Observe Course of this Honourable Courtroom on the 13th of November 2012.?pages 367-369A of the File of Enchantment and similar was amended.
?
The Appellants filed their temporary of argument
2
on the eighth of June 2018. It’s settled by Okay.C.O. Njemanze, Esq, SAN.
1st – 4th Respondents temporary of argument was filed on the 15th of January 2019. It’s settled by Declan Obioma Madu Esq.
The fifth and sixth Respondents filed no temporary of Argument.
On the seventh of February 2019 events adopted their respective briefs of argument.
The Appellants proffered 4 (4) Points for willpower from the Grounds of Enchantment. They’re:
1. Whether or not from the pleadings and the proof the Trial Courtroom is justified in holding that by the customized, custom and utilization of Nkalu Autonomous Group and by advantage of Part 5(1) of the Imo State of Nigeria Conventional Rulers and Autonomous Group Regulation No. Three of 1999, the first Respondent and never the first Appellant was the particular person entitled to be recognised by the sixth Respondent because the Eze of Nkalu Autonomous Group within the Mbaitoli Native Authorities Space. That is formulated from grounds 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,11 and 13 of the Amended Discover of Enchantment.
2. Whether or not the Discovered Trial Choose was proper in putting the burden of proof of the first – 4th Respondents? case on the Appellants. That is formulated from floor 9 of
3
the Amended Discover of Enchantment.
3. Whether or not the Trial Courtroom was justified in holding that the 2nd and Third Appellants weren’t competent to current or in any kind or method put ahead the first Appellant for recognition by the sixth Respondent because the Eze of Nkalu Autonomous Group. That is formulated from floor 14 of the Amended Discover of Enchantment.
4. Whether or not the Trial Courtroom was justified when it held that the 2nd – 4th Respondents represent the reliable government members of the Nkalu Peoples Meeting. That is formulated from floor 15 of the Amended Discover of Enchantment.
The first – 4th Respondents of their temporary of argument distilled three (3) points for willpower from the Grounds of Enchantment. They’re:
a) Was the realized trial decide not proper in setting apart the popularity accorded to the first Appellant because the Eze of Nkalu Autonomous Group?
b) Was the realized trial decide flawed in holding that the first Respondent was the particular person entitled to be accorded recognition because the Eze, Nkalu Autonomous Group?
c) Was there no foundation for the holding of the realized trial decide that the 2nd -4th Respondents represent the reliable government
4
members of the Nkalu individuals?s meeting?
A cursory have a look at the problems formulated by the respective events, present that the first – 4th Respondents points is an adoption of the Appellants? points for willpower. I shall due to this fact contemplate this attraction based mostly on the Appellants points for willpower.
ISSUE NO 1.
The Appellant submits that the Plaintiff solely confirmed that Ndegbelu village was the group entitled to current a candidate for the Ezeship. However the Awaka Autonomous Group had not but recognized, chosen or appointed and put in the Plaintiff as offered underneath Part 5(1) of the Imo State of Nigeria Conventional Rulers and Autonomous Group Regulation No. Three of 1999.
That the Plaintiffs didn’t convey the swimsuit, the subject material of this attraction in a consultant capability of the 2 villages Ndegbelu and Amuzi. They submit that, to succeed, the Plaintiffs (Respondents on this Enchantment) should plead and set up that every of the 13 villages was concerned within the choice means of the first Respondent and never only a faction or a village. That there was no proof from the individuals of different villages.
5
Submits that it was solely a faction of the Group that offered the first Respondent to the Chairman of Mbaitoli Native Authorities Council for recognition as Eze.
Submits that Pw1 contradicted himself whereas testifying.
That the Courtroom under declared that the first Plaintiff is entitled to be acknowledged because the Eze of the Group by advantage of the provisions of Part 5(1) of the Imo State of Nigeria Conventional Rulers and Autonomous Group Regulation No. Three of 1999. That from the pleadings and proof led, it was not established that the group chosen, recognized, put in and offered the first Plaintiff as Eze, and there’s no proof by the first ? 4th Respondents that the Group was concerned within the choice course of as required by regulation. Submits due to this fact that the Declaration isn’t supported by the pleadings and proof led.
?Submit that the place the precondition for the doing of an act has not been complied with, no act subsequent thereto might be thought to be legitimate. That the Respondent didn’t adjust to the enabling regulation. Part 5(1) and (2) of the Imo State of Nigeria Conventional Rulers and Autonomous Group Regulation No. Three of 1999 which prescribes the situations
6
precedent and process for the popularity of Eze.
Submits that Exhibit Four which is a Group?s Ezeship Structure embodies in a legally binding written doc stating the customary regulation of a selected space, setting out clearly the tactic regulating the nomination and collection of a candidate to fill a vacant Ezeship stool of the Autonomous Group involved.
Submits that Exhibit ?4? a public doc was not licensed as a real copy of the bundle of paperwork it comprise. Due to this fact it’s not admissible in proof, and the courtroom under was flawed to have admitted similar.
Submits that with a purpose to authenticate the structure of an autonomous group, such a structure must be signed by the acclaimed elected representatives of the individuals who made the structure. Citing ? ANYAOHA V. OBIOHA (2014) 6 NWLR.(pt. 1404) 445 at 475.
That Exhibit Four was not proven to have been made by and adopted by the 13 villages of Nkalu Autonomous Group that Exhibit Four is nugatory accordingly. Citing ? FRN V BANKOLE (2014) 11 NWLR (pt. 1418) 337.
ISSUE NO 2.
The Appellants submit that they had been denied the appropriate of honest listening to.
7
That the Courtroom under introduced up some subject suo motu and events ought to have been referred to as to deal with it on these points earlier than resolving similar.
That the events, significantly the Appellants weren’t invited by the Courtroom under to deal with it on the problem raised.
The Appellants submit that the Courtroom under erroneously misplaced the burden of proof on the Appellants which has occasioned miscarriage of justice towards the Appellants.
ISSUES NO 3 & 4.
Arguing these two points collectively, the Appellants submit that the Courtroom under gave no purpose for its determination when it held as follows:
?2) The 2nd and Third Appellants weren’t competent to current or in any kind or method put ahead the first Defendant for recognition by the fifth Defendant because the Eze of Nkalu Autonomous Group of Mbaitoli Native Authorities Space.
3) The 2nd and 4th Plaintiffs represent the Reputable Government members of Nkalu Individuals?s Meeting.?
That no causes got by the Courtroom under for its determination.
Submits due to this fact that the choice is defective and urges this Honourable Courtroom to set it apart.
8
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
ISSUE NO 1.
The Courtroom under in its judgment noticed thus inter alia:-
The questions right here yawning for solutions are i) if there isn’t any provision within the Structure for election of an Eze/Conventional Ruler, from the place did the defendants derive the facility to name for an election? ii) if there was offered kingmakers why the Ezeship Choice Committee who or what approved their establishing? Even at that, if Structure present for Kingmaker to be 9 why appoint solely 6 to behave. The Honourable Courtroom was not informed that the Structure offered for six to kind quorum. pages 364-365 of the File of Enchantment.
It continued thus:-
?These questions with no justifiable purpose or causes make it fairly tough if not inconceivable for any affordable tribunal to say the defence has executed job of their case. Within the face of all these I’m unable to dismiss the case of the Claimants which I now proceed to award a cross markpage 365 of the File of Enchantment.
?Was the purported recognition of the first Defendant Appellant by the fifth Defendant Respondent as Eze of Nkalu Autonomous Group opposite to the Customized, Utilization and custom of Nkalu Autonomous Group
9
and due to this fact null, void and of no impact in any respect?
It’s the requirement of Part 7 (2) (c) of Imo State Regulation No Three of 1999 and Part 4 (e) Claimants Exhibit Four that the candidate for Ezeship candidature should not be a full time civil servant. Part 5(a) of Exhibit Four required that an Ezeship candidate should file an utility for that goal.
From the paperwork submitted by the first Appellant, it exhibits that he was nonetheless a civil servant within the workplace of the Head of Service of the Federation in Abuja.
The place a statute prescribes the mode by which an act shall be carried out, events are usually not at liberty to decide on every other mode.
However, the first Respondent as at 21/07/2004, when he utilized for Ezeship, was a non-public man. Extra so, he was chosen, recognized and appointed as Eze of Nkalu by Nkalu Peoples Meeting on 23/07/2004.
?Nnanna Onyemam PW2 and 1st Respondent testified that he made his utility for Ezeship of Nkalu Autonomous Group in July 2001. The first Defendant Nze Cyril Ahaneku utilized for Ezeship on 21st of July 2004. The first Defendant Nze Cyril Ahaneku was the one
10
one who glad the necessities of Part 7(2) of the Imo State Regulation NO Three of 1999.
Upon an appraisal of the proof on the disposal of the Courtroom, it was proper to have put aside the popularity accorded the first Appellant because the Eze of Nkalu Autonomous Group as he did. The Courtroom under was proper in my opinion when it held that by the customized, custom and utilization of Nkalu Autonomous Group, and by advantage of Part 5(1) of the Imo State of Nigeria Traditio
