NWACHUKWU & ORS v. ATATA & ORS (2020)

NWACHUKWU & ORS v. ATATA & ORS

(2020)LCN/14822(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Monday, December 14, 2020

CA/OW/178/2018

RATIO

JUDGMENT: EFFECT OF A FINDING OF A COURT NOT APPEALED AGAINST

Appeals are argued on Issue(s), founded on ground(s) of Appeal, challenging and/or questioning the way the trial Court or Lower Court resolved the substantive/relevant issues at the trial. See the cases of Ajala & Ors Vs Aladejana & Anor (2018) LPELR – 44579 CA; Poroye & Ors Vs Makarfi & Ors (2017) LPELR – 42738 (SC); Obosi Vs NIPOST & Ors (2013) LPELR – 21397 (CA); Yusuf & Anor Vs State (2019) LPELR – 46945 (SC) and the case of Nze Vs Aribe (2016) LPELR – 40617 (CA), where we held:
“This point seems to have enjoyed some notoriety in the law governing appellate proceedings, that the grounds of appeal and/or issues for determination of appeal, must relate to and flow or derive from the judgment appealed against, touching on the ratio decidendi. See Anozia Vs Nnani & Anor (2015) LPELR – 24277 CA; (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1461) 241, where it was held… that an appeal (the grounds and issues therefrom) must be founded on and derived from a valid complaint touching on the ratio decidendi (life issue) of the decision appealed against.” PER MBABA, J.C.A.

FRAUD: EFFECT OF ESTABLISHMENT OF FRAUD

There is also the law that fraud vitiates everything done under the shadow of the fraud. Even in a situation which the limitation law can be invoked, the fact that fraud, misrepresentation, deceit or absence of knowledge of the occurrence of the event which a Claimant seeks to protest, was pleaded and established, certainty operates against and defeat the plea or application of limitation law. See the case of Tropics Securities Ltd & Vs AMCN (2019) LPLER – 47275 (CA); Sifax Nig. Ltd & Ors Vs Migfo (Nig) Ltd & Anor (2018) LPELR – 49735 SC; (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt.1623) 139. PER MBABA, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Raphael Chikwe Agbo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ita George Mbaba Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ibrahim Ali Andenyangtso Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. MACLORD NWACHUKWU 2. ONYEBUCHI ALARIBE 3. GILBERT UBANI AGUWA 4. SAMUEL AGUWA 5. JACOB EHIEMERE 6. SUNDAY NWAGBA 7. AMOS ALARIBE 8. EMMANUEL NWOGWUGWU APPELANT(S)

And

1. DR. ANTHONY ATATA 2. UCHECHI ONYENSO 3. CHIDI B. NWOGWUGWU 4. AUGUSTINE NWALA 5. GOVERNOR OF ABIA STATE 6. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, ABIA STATE RESPONDENT(S)

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This Appeal is against the judgment of Abia State High Court in Suit No. A/268/2011, delivered on 20th October, 2017 by Hon. Justice L. Abai, wherein the Learned Trial Judge held for the plaintiffs and granted their reliefs.

At the trial Court, the Claimants (now 1st to 4th Respondents), had sought the following reliefs against Defendants (now Appellants, and 9th – 10th Respondents):
(1) A declaration that Osusu Aba village, situate within Eziama Autonomous Community is one homogenous entity with common ancestry, contiguity and affinity, comprising two broad kindreds of Umuonugha and Umudu/Umuafunkpo, bounded by same common native law/custom and “The Constitution And Bye Law Governing in Eziama Autonomous Community in Aba North L. G. A.”
(2) A declaration that Osusu Aba Village is not comprised of and had never had 7 Villages of Umunwagba, Umudu, Umuafunkpo, Umuanaba, Umunwakwo, Umukonu and Umuotuokere.
(3) A declaration that Umuonugha kindred of Osusu Aba Village is made up of the following family units, namely:- Umu-nwogwugwu family

unit, Umu-atata family unit, Umu-ikonne family unit, Umu-nwala family unit, Umu-nwankpa family unit and Umu-urakpa family unit.
(4) A declaration that the Umudu/Umuafunkpo kindred of Osusu Aba Village is made up of the following family units namely:-
Umu-anaba family unit, Umu-nwogu family unit, Umu-nwagba family unit, Umu-ezindu family unit, Umu-omenazu family unit (collectively referred to as Umu-ukonu); Umu-ukaku family unit and Umu-erengwa family unit; also Umu-nwakwuoke family unit and Umu-otuokere family unit.
(5) A declaration that the 1st to 8th defendants, materially misrepresented facts and fraudulently induced the 9th defendant to erroneously grant an autonomous status to a part of the said village, contrary to natural justice, equity and good conscience, and contrary to the law governing the creation, recognition and gazetting of new autonomous communities.
(6) A declaration that the appointment and recognition of the 1st defendant by the 9th defendant as traditional ruler of the purported Ozuzu Aba Autonomous Community, based on the aforestated fraudulent misrepresentation of facts, is otiose wrongful, illegal, irregular, null

and void as it relates to Osusu Aba Village.
(7) A declaration that the appointment and/or recognition of the 1st defendant is irregular, wrongful, null and void and not being a true reflection of the wishes of the majority of the indigenes of Osusu Aba Village in a plebiscite and amounts to an arbitrary imposition of the 1st Defendant by the 9th defendant, contrary to natural justice, equity and good conscience.
(8) An order setting aside the creation and purported recognition of Osusu Aba Autonomous Community, on the grounds that the creation and recognition is predicated on fraudulent misrepresentation of facts, to the detriment of Osusu Aba Village and the claimants and against natural justice, equity and good conscience.
(9) An order setting aside the appointment and recognition of the 1st defendant as the traditional ruler of the purported Aba Autonomous Community, on the ground, that the said appointment and recognition was predicated on fraudulent misrepresentation of facts, to the detriments of Osusu Aba Village and the claimants and against natural justice, equity and good conscience and contrary to the law governing the recognition of traditional rulers.

(10) An order setting aside the staff of office presented to the 1st Defendant as the traditional ruler of the purported Osusu Aba Autonomous Community, on the ground that the presentation of the said staff of office by the 9th defendant was predicated on fraudulent misrepresentation of facts by the 1st to 8th Defendants to the detriment of the Osusu Aba Village and the Claimants.
(11) An order of perpetual injunction, restraining the 1st Defendant from parading himself, or allowing himself to be so paraded, recognized and/or addressed as the Traditional Ruler of the purported Osusu Aba Autonomous Community under any guise, and performing the function and/or duties of a traditional ruler in any manner however, having been appointed based on fraudulent misrepresentation.
(12) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 9th and 10th Defendants by themselves, their agents, staff, privies or any other Abia State Governing Agency, from either addressing or according any form of recognition in any manner howsoever, including assigning any role or responsibility to the 1st defendant, as a traditional ruler having been appointed

based on fraudulent misrepresentation.
(13) An order of perpetual injunction, restraining the 9th and 10th Defendants, their agents, servants, privies or cronies, from installing or crowning the 1st Defendant or any other person as the traditional ruler of the purported Osusu Aba Autonomous Community.” (page 1 – 3 of the Record of Appeal)

Upon being served with the processes (Writ and Statement of claim) by the Plaintiffs, the Defendants filed their Statements of defence and accompanying processes (see the 1st to 8th Defendants’ Amended statement of defence on pages 368 -370). The 9th – 10th Defendants filed no defence.

The case went onto trial and the 1st to 4th Respondent (Plaintiffs) called three witnesses, while the Appellants (1st to 8th Defendant’s) called a sole witness. After hearing the case and considering the evidence and address of counsel, the trial Court held for the plaintiff’s as follows:
“… Where a defendant fails to traverse the claimant’s pleadings, it has been held that a claimant is not obliged to prove these averments. See Nwadike Vs. Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67)

In the instant case, the defendant have been completely silent on the fact that they made false and fraudulent representations to the 9th defendant about the existence of seven villages said to make up the Osusu Community, the fact that Osusu Aba Village had never been addressed as Osusu Community, the representation of the 1st to 8th defendants as being Chiefs, elders and leaders of Osusu Aba Community and the position they held as village heads, which they know were false. These facts are therefore deemed admitted.
Apart from these admissions, have the Claimants led credible evidence in proof of their case?
It is their evidence, which I believe, that there are two kindred in Osusu Aba Village, Umuonugha and Umudu/Umuafunkpo and that these kindred are bound by the same culture, norms, native law and tradition. See also Exhibit A, the Constitution and Bye law of Osusu Aba Village Council. The Claimants also led uncontroverted evidence (see the evidence of CW1 and CW3 as set out earlier) to the effect that the two kindred comprise of various family units and none of these family units of a village. It is also the evidence before the Court which

I believed, that the Osusu Aba Village had never been referred to as Osusu Community, prior to the letter written by the Defendant to the Governor of Abia State. A consideration of Exhibit D and G, the letter written by the “Osusu Community” to the Governor, dated 1st June, 2011, show that in paragraph 3 thereof, the defendants stated that Osusu Community comprised seven villages; Umunwagha, Umudu, Umuafunkpo, Umuanaba, Umunwankwo,Umukonu and Umuotuekere. DW1, under cross-examination, however, stated that these seven villages were the seven kindred that made up Osusu Aba Village before the creation of the Osusu Aba Autonomous Community. When asked where Umuonugha kindred was situate, he admitted that it was also in the Osusu Aba Village. He admitted that prior to the creation of Osusu Aba Autonomous Community, there were only two villages in Eziama Autonomous Community, namely Eziama village and Osusu Aba Village. He said he gave these kindred the status of village. His evidence is clearly, at variance with his pleadings, particularly paragraph 3. From his evidence, under cross-examination, it is clear that, his evidence was full of contradictions

and he was not a credible witness.
It is trite that, where a party contradicts himself, the Court will not choose what part of his evidence to believe, rather the Court will treat his entire evidence as incredible. See Alhaji B. Jawando Vs. Madam Falilat Bakare (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt. 332) 1590 at 1609. I believe the evidence of CW1 and CW3 and find, as a fact, that there were two villages in Eziama Autonomous Community, prior to the creation of Osusu Aba Autonomous Community; that Osusu Aba Village was one of them and that there were two kindred in Osusu Aba Village. I also find that the facts, in paragraph 3 of Exhibit G and D were clearly false and a misrepresentation of facts. I find as a fact that the seven villages therein referred to as villages did not exist as villages to the knowledge of the 1st to 8th Defendants.
A further consideration of Exhibits G and D shows that the 1st Defendant signed that letter headed request for the creation of Osusu Community as Osusu Community head, the 2nd Defendant signed as Umudu village head, the 3rd defendant as Umuafunkpo village head, 5th defendant as Umuotuekere Umunwagba village head, 7th defendant

as Umuahaba village head and 8th Defendant as Umukonu village head.
The Claimants however led “evidence to show that there is no “Osusu Community” at the time, but Osusu Aba Village, and no “Community head”. They led credible evidence to show that the 2nd and 7th Defendants are brothers and live in the same compound, and so could not be village head of Umuafunkpo and Umunwankwo. DW1, under cross-examination, admitted these facts. From the evidence before the Court, I find as a fact that the signatories to Exhibit D (and G) knowingly misrepresented facts, when they signed as village heads of non-existent villages. I also find that Exhibit H, the map presented at the time of applying for autonomy, showing the Osusu Aba Community and the “seven villages” was not a true representation as no such villages existed at the time…
After a consideration of the pleadings, evidence led and the address of counsel, I hold that the Claimants have proved their case on the preponderance of evidence. Judgment is therefore entered for the Claimants as set out (sic) reliefs a, b, c, d, e, f, h, I, j, k, l and

m…” (see pages 485 – 487 of the Records).

Piqued by the above decision, Appellants filed this Appeal on 26/10/2017, as per pages 493 to 502 of the Records of Appeal, disclosing 10 grounds of Appeal. They filed Amended Notice of Appeal on 23/11/2018, which was deemed duly filed on 28/3/2019. They filed their Brief of Arguments on 23/11/2018, which was also deemed duly filed on 28/3/2019, and distilled 6 Issues for the determination of the Appeal, as follows:
(1) Whether the 1st – 4th Respondents had the locus standi to file this Suit (Ground 6).
(2) Whether this Suit is statute barred (Ground 4).
(3) Whether the allegations of fraud or crimes, leveled against the Appellants, were proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Grounds 1, 2 and 3)
(4) Whether the 1st – 4th Respondents exhausted the domestic forum before invoking the forensic forum, in line with Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law of Abia State (Ground 8).
(5) Whether the learned trial judge’s treatment of the evidence of CW1, CW2 and CW3 was proper in law or whether it occasioned a miscarriage of

justice (Ground 7).
(6) Whether the evidence of CW1 had probative value, as to have determination of the question whether Osusu Aba Autonomous Community was validly created. (Ground 5).

The 1st to 4th Respondents (1st set of Respondents) filed their Brief of Arguments on 24/01/2019, which was deemed duly filed on 28/3/2019. They adopted the issues as distilled by Appellants for the determination of the Appeal.

The 5th and 6th Respondents (2nd set of Respondents) filed their brief deemed duly filed on 21/5/2020, and also adopted the issues as distilled by the Appellants

Appellants filed Replies to the Briefs by the 1st and 2nd sets of the Respondents, on 25/2/2019 and 1/6/2020, respectively, and the Reply to the 1st set of Respondents’ Brief was deemed duly filed on 28/3/2019.

Arguing the Appeal, on 19/11/2020, Appellants’ Counsel, David Onyeike, Esq., who settled the brief, on Issue 1, said the 1st – 4th Respondents had no litigable interest in the creation of the Appellants’ Autonomous Community; that the power to object and litigate over the creation of autonomous community is Abia State is statutory. He relied

on Section 13(4) of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law, which says:
“No person other than the indigenes of the community applying for autonomy may object in accordance with Subsection (3) hereof.”

He argued that from the evidence before the Lower Court, that the CW1 admitted, under cross-examination, that none of the 1st to 4th Respondents was from the same kindred with the Appellants; that on page 331 of the Records, the Claimants’ witness also admitted that all the Claimants are from Umuonugha kindred; that at page 332, he admitted too, that Eze Ikonne, the Traditional Ruler of Eziama, was from the Claimants’ Umuonugha kindred, and at page 334 of the Record, the witness admitted that the creation of the community does not cover his Umuonugha kindred.

Counsel said that the trial Court had made findings to the effect that, the Claimants were not within the autonomous community created by the government; that it was therefore difficult to understand how a person, adjudged by Court not to be within the autonomous community applying for autonomous, within the frame work of

Section 13(4) of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Community Law, can become an indigene of the same community.

He argued that the Courts have consistently held that, where it is shown that a claimant is not ventilating a personal right to the throne, or claiming the right of his community or group to the throne, he has no business being in Court. He relied on Odeneye Vs Efunuga (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt.164) 618; Adewumi Vs A.G. Ekiti State (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt. 751); Emezi Vs Osuagwu (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt. 939) 340; Ladejobi Vs Oguntayo (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 904) 149; Daniyan Vs Iyagin (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 766) 346 at 370.

Counsel said, in this case, the Claimants were not asserting personal interest or rights to the throne of Osusu Aba Autonomous Community, rather they were claiming that nobody should be an Eze of another community, different from theirs or that no autonomous community should be created from the Eziama Autonomous Community of Umuonugha kindred. Counsel said that the Claimants had said that the decision to create the autonomous community was taken in their absence and without their consent. Counsel asserted that Appellants’ community is different from that of the Claimants,

and so they (Claimants) had no right to prevent them (Appellants) from seeking autonomy; he said that freedom of association is a constitutional right of the Appellants, and that cannot be curtailed by a person who has not shown how his interest has been affected by the exercise of that freedom by the adverse party; he said that the Claimants were attempting to play dog in the manger, in these proceedings.

On Issue 2, whether the Suit was statute barred, Counsel answered in the affirmative. He relied on Section 28 of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law, to the effect that, a party has 21 days of the recognition of an Eze, to appeal to the High Court for review of same, where he feels that the exercise of the recognition has affected his interest. He referred us to paragraph 12 of the Statement of Claim, where the Claimants pleaded that the announcement of the creation of the new autonomous community was made over the media, on or about 30th September, 2011; that the 9th Defendant had created the Osusu Autonomous Community and given staff of office to some individuals as Ezes of the new Autonomous Community. Counsel said that was the kernel

of the Suit, and that the case should have been filed within 21 days of the said creation/recognition, in compliance with the Section 28 of the Traditional Rulers Law; thus, he said the Suit was statute barred.

He relied on the case of Asaboro & Anor Vs Pan Ocean Oil Cooperation (Nig) Ltd & Anor (2017) LPELR – 41558 (SC) on the implication of a Suit that is statute barred, that the claimants automatically lose the right to approach the Court for relief in such circumstance. He urged us to hold that the case should have been dismissed by the trial Court, and relied on some cases, including Emiator Vs Nigeria Army (1999) 12 NWLR (Pt.631) 632; Egbe Vs Adefarasin (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.47) 1; Sanda Vs Kukawa LG (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt.174) 339 and Texaco Panama Inc. Vs Shell Petroleum Dev. Corp. of Nigeria (2000) 4 NWLR (Pt.653) 480.

Counsel restated that the claimants were not persons interested within the community as provided by the law, to take out the Suit.

On Issue 3, whether the allegation of fraud or crimes leveled against Appellants were proved beyond reasonable doubt, Counsel answered in the negative. He said that the whole

architecture of the case was founded on allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation of facts and so it had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He said that the claimants did not discharge that standard of proof.

Counsel also argued that issue of fraudulent misrepresentation was placed before the lower Court, having been pleaded canvassed by the party and decided by the Court, and so allegation of fraud cannot be considered a new or fresh issue. He relied on FJSC Vs Thomas (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt.1384) 531, on what constitutes new or fresh issue, counsel said that the question was whether the issue of fraud had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, as envisaged by law – Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act; Ikpeazu Vs Otti (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt.1513) 38 at 108; Bayo Vs Njidda (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt.896) 544; Arebi Vs Gbabijo (2008) 2 LRECN 467; Agi Vs PDP (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt.1595) 386 at 452.

Counsel added that the trial Court greatly misdirected itself on the standard of proof, when he said:
“After a consideration of the pleadings, I hold that the Claimants have proved their case on the preponderance of evidence…”

He argued that the standard of proof, in the circumstances, was not to be on the preponderance of evidence. He also referred us to pages 485 – 486 of the Records, where the trial Court considered the fraudulent misrepresentation alleged, and said that the trial Court had wrongly founded its decision on the section of the Constitution and bye law of Osusu Aba Village Council, which had been set aside by the Court’s judgment in Suit No. A/49/2004, for being inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution (of the Federal Republic of Nigeria). He added that, even if the Appellants were dishonest or wrong with regards to the number of villages in Osusu Aba, this on its own, cannot impeach the new community created as the misrepresentation did not relate to the rules of eligibility under the law; he said that the condition, guideline or rule of eligibility for creation of a new autonomous community in Abia State is statutory, as per Section 15 of the Traditional Rules and Autonomous Communities Law, which states that:
“Any community or group of communities seeking autonomy shall have a common tradition, identity and be homogeneous.”

Counsel said, where there is a matter of falsification of facts, misrepresentation or fraud in the application for autonomy, to impeach the exercise, the falsification, misrepresentation or fraud must relate a qualifying or disqualifying factor by virtue of the Section 15 of the law; that it is not in the province of the Court to create new vistas of qualification, outside the frame work of the Section 15 of the Law; that it is not the duty of the Court or of the parties to create new conditions of eligibility relied on outside the framework of the Law. He relied on the case of Agi Vs PDP (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt.1595) 386 at 454 – 455.

On Issue 4, whether the Claimants (1st to 4th Respondents) had exhausted the domestic forum, before invoking the forensic forum in line with Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Traditional Rulers Law, Counsel answered in the negative. He reproduced the provisions of Sections 13, 14(1) (2) and 16 of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Community Law of Abia State, and said that the Suit relates to the creation of Osusu Aba Autonomous Community and Selection of Appellants for that community; that it is not for the Court to read

extraneous materials into the Section 16 of the Law, which states:
“Whenever there is protest against the creation of an Autonomous Community and selection of an Eze from the said community, the Commissioner responsible for Chieftaincy Affairs shall have power to appoint any person or persons to conduct an election in the Community to ascertain their true wishes.”

Counsel said that the claimants did not explore the provisions of that Section 16 before resorting the Suit; he said that all the claims of claimants relate to the creation of the community and selection of the 1st Appellant for the community as Eze; that the Claimants were therefore obligated to protest about the section of the 1st Appellant, to exhaust the local remedy, before resorting to Court action. He relied onEguamwense Vs Amaghizemwen (1993) NWLR (Pt. 315) 1 at 22; Aribisala Vs Ogunyemi (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt.921) 212; Akintemi Vs Onwumechili (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.1) 68; Ayeni Vs Obasa (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt.611) 1509 at 1537, on the implication of failure to exhaust all remedies provided before resort to Court action, he said that the Suit was improperly raised, being premature.

On Issues 5 and 6, which Appellants argued together, Counsel said the evidence of CW1, which formed the fulcrum of the claimants’ case, are on pages 331 to 338 of the Records; and that of the CW3 (pages 359 – 367 of the Records) showed that:
(1) All the claimants were from Umuonugha kindred;
(2) Have a traditional Ruler, Eze Ikonne of Eziama Autonomous Community from Umuonugha kindred;
(3) There is nothing in the Constitution of Eziama Autonomous Community that makes the community indivisible;
(4) There is nothing in the Constitution that makes or empowers the Umuonugha kindred to approve or ratify the creation of another community;
(5) That Umuonugha kindred of the claimants was not mentioned by the Appellants in the application for the creation of the new autonomous community and
(6) The kindred seeking for autonomy is distinguishable from Umuonugha kindred.

Counsel also referred us to the evidence of CW2 (Pages 336 – 340 of the Records) and said that he complained that he did not sign the application letter for the creation of the new Autonomous Community, and admitted he was not from

Appellants’ community. Counsel said it was clear from the said evidence that the Suit was aimed solely at preventing Appellants from seeking autonomy or independence, but that they did not plead or prove the law custom or convention that gives them such right to dictate to/for Appellants, who applied for autonomy. Counsel argued that the grant of the desires of the Claimants, denied the Appellants their constitutional rights of freedom of association. He urged us to resolve the Issues for Appellants.

Responding, Nanmdi Ahunanya, Esq., on Issue 1, said Appellants had set up similar issue at the Lower Court and made similar arguments at the Court below as done in this Court. He referred us to pages 414 to 415 of the Records. He said that the trial Court had therefore ruled on Appellants’ challenge about the 1st to 4th Respondents’ locus standi to bring the Suit in the light of the same Section 13(4) of the Traditional Rulers Law. He submitted that the law is trite that to determine whether a claimants has locus standi or not, the judge is bound to confine himself within or to the claim of the Plaintiff. (Adesokan Vs Adegorolu

(1991) 3 NWLR (Pt.179) 293; A.G. of Federation Vs A.G. Abia State & Ors (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt.725) 689 at 742.

Counsel said the entire arguments of Appellants on the issue were predicated on evidence by a witness and not on the writ of summons and statement of claim by the claimants, and so were totally misconceived. He added that even the evidence of CW1, under cross examination, were misrepresented, as CW1 had said, clearly, that Osusu Aba Village has Umuonugha Kindred (where CW1 hails from) and Umuodu/Umuafunkpo kindred (page 326 of the Records); that whereas the witness stated that the two kindreds are in Osusu Village, Learned Counsel for Appellants posited that the witness stated that the two kindreds are in Eziama Autonomous Community, an attempt to misdirect or mislead this Court. He also said that Appellants’ Counsel also attempted to misrepresent or mis-state the findings of fact of the trial Court; had he alleged that the trial Court had adjudged the witness not to be within the new autonomous community created, and so not being an indigene of the community applying for autonomy, within the framework of

Section 13(4) of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Community Law, cannot object to the creation of the Autonomous Community!

Counsel said the trial Court had resolved the issues relating to the locus standi of the Claimants on page 480 of the Records, vis-à-vis the Section 13(4) of the Traditional Rulers Law, when it held:
“… it is clear that the claimants are not claiming right to the throne, this in my view, is because this is not a chieftaincy matter per se, but a complaint about the creation of an autonomous community out of Osusu Aba Village, based on false representation of facts, excluding the claimants. Therefore, it is not incumbent on the claimants to prove the locus standi required for chieftaincy dispute.”

Counsel submitted that Appellants had not appealed against that finding and holding by the trial Court, and so cannot canvass the same argument in this Court, in another guise. He relied on the case of Koya Vs UBA Ltd (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt.481) 251; Kraus Thompson Ltd Vs UNICAL (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt.879) 631 at 653.

He asserted that the kernel of the Suit was that Appellants presented false and fraudulent facts/misrepresentation to

the 9th Defendant (Respondent herein) to procure the creation of a new Osusu Autonomous Community out of the Osusu Aba Village (which they belong).

On Issue 2, whether the Suit was statute barred, Counsel said the issue was also canvassed by Appellants at the trial Court (Pages 416 – 417 of the Records) Counsel said the Appellants never faulted the way the trial Court resolved the alleged claim of statute bar, except saying the “the learned trial Judge’s treatment of the issue of statute of limitation, is with respect, most unacceptable.”

Counsel relied on the case of MFA Vs Inongha (2014) 24 WRN I at 27, to the effect that:
“The law is trite, that in a circumstance, where issues for determination does not attack the merit of the judgment delivered by the Court, it is settled law that appellants are deemed to concede that the judgment is correct on the merits as regards the issues joined in the matter.”

Counsel submitted that, Appellants had submitted at the trial Court that going by paragraph 12 of the statement of claim, the Suit ought to have been filed within 21 days, as required by

Section 28 of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law, but that the trial Court had held:
“From the wordings of this section, it is clear that the time within which to appeal to the High Court applies to any interested person within Autonomous Community created. This does not apply to the Claimants. I hold that the Suit is not statute barred.” (See page 482 of the Records)

Again, Counsel said that Appellants did not appeal against the substance of the said decision, that the Section 28 of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law, did not apply to the 1st to 4th Respondents’ case. Counsel also argued that, since the Claimants had pleaded and led evidence on the Appellants’ fraudulent misrepresentation to obtain the said creation of the new autonomous community, there could not be time bar against the Suit. He relied on Arowolo Vs Ifabiyi (2002) FWLR (Pt.95) 296 at 313 – 314.

On Issue 3, whether the allegations of fraud/crime were proved beyond reasonable doubt, Counsel answered in the affirmative. He said that the claimants had pleaded, with particulars, and led evidence to prove the said fraudulent

misrepresentation orchestrated by the Appellants to obtain the creation of the purported new Autonomous Community. But that Appellants were rather setting up a different issue, when they (in their arguments) either tacitly or deliberately chose to anchor their argument entirely on what Counsel termed “allegation of fraud”, and submitted “that the entire architecture of this case was built on fraud, is indubitable.”

Counsel said that slant of Appellants’ argument was baseless, vis-à-vis, the grounds of the Suit and did not arise from the pleaded facts. Thus, the Appellants were raising an issue not contemplated by the case of the 1st to 4th Respondents, and joined by the pleadings of the parties.

Counsel further submitted that contrary to Appellants’ assertion that except for the ipse dixit of CW1, CW2 and CW3, there was no evidence to prove the allegation of fraud (fraudulent misrepresentation) leveled against Appellants, the trial Court had found and held that:
… the defendants have been completely silent on the fact that they made fraudulent misrepresentation to the 9th Defendant about the

existence of seven villages said make up the Osusu Community, the fact that Osusu Aba Village has never been addressed as Osusu Community, the representation of 1st to 8th Defendants as being Chiefs elders and elders of Osusu Aba Community and the position they held as village heads, which they knew were false. These facts are therefore deemed admitted (Page 485 of the Records)
“I believe the evidence of CW1 and CW3 and find as a fact that there are two Villages in Eziama Autonomous Community, prior to the creation of Osusu Aba Community, that Osusu Aba Village was one of them and that there were two kindreds in Osusu Aba Village. I also find that the facts in paragraphs 3 of Exhibits G and D were clearly false and a misrepresentation of facts. I find as a fact, that the Seven Villages therein referred to as villages did not exist as villages, to the knowledge of 1st to 8th Defendants.” (Page 486 of the Records).
From the evidence before the Court, I find as a fact, that the signatories to the Exhibits D (and G) knowingly misrepresented facts, when they signed as Village heads of non-existence Villages. I also find that Exhibit H, the map

presented at the time of applying for autonomy, showing the Osusu Aba Autonomous Community and the “Seven Villages” was not a true representation, as no such villages existed at the time.” Pages 486 – 487 of the Records.

Counsel said all these findings of the trial Court, borne out of undenied, uncontroverted and uncontradicted evidence of witnesses, were not appealed against (not being the subject of this Appeal), and so remain valid and binding. He relied on Sulu Gambari Vs Bukola (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt.853) 122 at 135.

Again, Counsel said that the Court was clear and unequivocal, that the case of the claimants rested or was anchored on allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation and not on allegation of crime, which Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act was about. He referred us to page 487 of the Records. He explained that fraudulent misrepresentation has to do with falsehood, presented by Appellants, which induced or misled the 9th Defendant to create the Autonomous Community, not necessary criminal wrong; he said that Appellants’ Counsel had admitted the falsehood or dishonesty of Appellants, when he argued, as follows:<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

“Even if the Appellants were dishonest or wrong with respect to the number of Villages in Osusu Aba, this, on its own, cannot impeach the new community created, as the misrepresentation did not relate to the rules of eligibility under the law… (That) where there is a matter of falsification of facts, misrepresentation or fraud in the application of autonomy to impeach an exercise, it must relate to a qualifying or disqualifying factor by virtue of Section 15 of the law…” (See Paragraphs 1 and 2, Page 9 of the Appellants’ Brief).

On Issue 4, whether claimants had exhausted domestic remedies before resort to the Suit, Counsel said the trial Court had also dealt with that contention by the Appellants; that the Sections of the Traditional and Autonomous Communities Law relied upon by Appellants, did not apply to this case, as the Suit was a complaint against the creation of an autonomous community out of part of Osusu Aba Village, based on false misrepresentation of facts, excluding the claimants. (Page 480 of the Records)

Again, Counsel said the Appellants did not appeal against this vital findings, and that on page

483 of the Records, where the trial Court considered the Sections 13, 14 and 16 of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law and said the same did not operate against Suit, especially as they (1st to 4th Respondents) were not aware of the mischief of the Appellants, until after the announcement of the creation of the new Autonomous Community!

On Issues 5 and 6, Counsel said as a preliminary issue, that the two Issues by Appellants did not flow from the grounds of Appeal upon, which they were based. He also argued that the said Issues had been argued under other proceeding issues. He said that the argument that the suit was filed solely for the purpose of preventing a group from seeking autonomy or independence was unfounded, regards being had to the pleadings and evidence led in the case, and the findings of the Lower Court. He said that Appellants did not proffer any argument as regards the treatment of the evidence of the CW1, CW2 and CW3, neither did he address this Court on whether the evidence of CW1 had probative value as to the determination whether Osusu Aba Autonomous Community was validly created. Also Counsel said Appellants did

not proffer any argument as to what the rules of eligibility were under Section 15 of the law, where and how the Lower Court had lost sight of the said rules.

He urged us to resolve the Issues against the Appellants and to dismiss the Appeal.

The 2nd set of Respondents’ Brief was settled by Chinedu Onyike Ogwo Esq (Chief State Counsel, Abia State). They however agreed with the claimants (1st and 4th Respondents) even though they were also defendants (9th and 10th Defendants) at the Lower Court, on the same side with the Appellants. Counsel for 5th and 6th Respondents agreed, substantially, with that of 1st to 4th Respondents on the Issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and in summary, said, in conclusion:
(1) That 1st to 4th Respondents have shown they have a legal right in challenging the illegal excision of their village into an autonomous community, based on false representation.
(2) That the Suit of the claimant is not caught up by Section 28 of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law of Abia State, because the section talks about recognition of an Eze not autonomous community.
(3) The 1st to 4th Respondents built

their case at the Lower Court on fraudulent misrepresentation requiring preponderance of evidence and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
(4) The 1st to 4th Respondents (sic) within the group of persons envisaged by the Provisions of Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law of Abia State, bound to exhaust any forum, more so, the proper complainants from the content of the provision are the commissioner for Chieftaincy Affairs and the Governor and these (sic) no evidence, they complained at the Lower Court.
(5) The Appellants ultimately did not prove that 1st to 4th Respondents’ evidence were impeached at the Lower Court.

Thus, the 2nd set of the Respondents (who were the 9th and 10 Defendants) had accepted the Judgment of the Lower Court that Appellants, in fact, misled the 9th Defendant at (5th Respondent) to balkanize the Osusu Aba Village and create Osusu Aba Autonomous Community by means of false and fraudulent misrepresentation of facts!

RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES
I must state that Appellants’ Replies to the Briefs by the two sets of Respondents, were, in my opinion, merely attempt

to further rehash their earlier arguments in the main Brief. Counsel had tried to fault the 1st to 4th Respondents’ argument, trying to differentiate between allegation of fraud (as a crime) and “fraudulent misrepresentation of facts”, as act of giving false information and/or to mislead, which is not necessarily a crime.

I also noticed that the Reply by Appellants to the 5th and 6th Respondents’ Brief, appears to be the same as that to the 1st to 4th Respondents’ Brief. This is not surprising as the 5th and 6th Respondents’ Brief clearly supported the position of the 1st to 4th Respondents, on appeal, even though Appellants and the 5th and 6th Respondents were in the same camp at the trial Court, as Defendants. That means the Government had accepted the decision of the Lower Court, that they wrongly created Osusu Aba Autonomous Community on Appellants’ false and fraudulent misrepresentation of facts.

I noticed that the Appellants, actually, pursued this Appeal, substantially on the same issues they canvassed at the trial Court, and which the Learned Trial Judge had resolved, admirably, in my opinion.

The Appellants were expected to challenge and/or dislodge those findings and holding of the Lower Court in this appeal, by raising credible evidence and legal points to fault the said findings and holding of the trial Court. But they did not. In the circumstances, I think the real Issues for the determination of this Appeal are:
(1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right to hold for the 1st to 4th Respondents, that they were properly located to challenge the purported creation of Osusu Aba Autonomous Community out of their Village – Osusu Aba Village, by the 5th Respondent, based on the false and fraudulent misrepresentation of facts by the Appellants, as shown in Exhibits D and G?
(2) Whether the Suit was statute barred and/or incompetent by reason of non-compliance with condition precedent to filing it?

I think the above two issues can summarize the 6 Issues by Appellants – the issue 1 taking care of Appellants Issues 1, 3, 5 and 6, while the Issue 2, takes care of Appellants Issues 2 and 4. I shall start with the 2nd Issue.

A brief facts of this case at the Lower Court, shows that Appellants and the 1st to 4th Respondents

belong to the same Village – Osusu Aba Village in Eziama Autonomous Community, in Aba North Local Government Area of Abia State.

The said Village comprises two main kindreds – Umuonugha and Umudu/Umuafunkpo, whereof Umuonugha is made up of the following family units – Umu-Nwogwugwu, Umu-Atata, Umu-Ikonne, Umu-Nwala, Nmu-Nwankpa and Umu-Urakpa, and Umudu/Umuafunkpo is made up of the following family units: Umu-anaba, Umu-nwogu, Umu-nwagba, Umu-ezindu (collectively referred to as Umu-ukondu), Umu-ukaku, Umu-erengwa, Umu-nwakwuoke and Umu-otuokere, with same native law and custom, and a common Constitution and bye law, governing the Village, under one Village Council. The Appellants had schemed to create a new Autonomous Community, out of the Osusu Aba Village, and in fact, got the 5th Respondent (the Governor of Abia State) to create the new Autonomous Community – by name Osusu Aba Autonomous Community, without the knowledge and consent of the 1st to 4th Respondents, (who represented a cross section of the Village) and based on false/fraudulent misrepresentation of facts. Part of the said false and fraudulent misrepresentation of

facts showed that Appellants had falsely claimed that there was an “Osusu Aba Community”, made up of seven Villages, where they (Appellants) were the Village heads and elders, and the 1st Appellant was the Eze (overall head) of the said Osusu Aba Autonomous Community. The Exhibits D and G carried their Application to the Government of Abia State, stating those false claims, and signing off, as the Eze/Village heads of the non-existing Villages.

The 1st to 4th Respondents, (acting for themselves and as representatives of Umuonugha Kindred of Osusu Aba Village in Eziama Autonomous Community of Aba North Local Government Area), took out the Suit to protest against the creation of the new autonomous community, and to challenge the Appellants for using false and fraudulent misrepresentation of facts, to balkanize the Osusu Aba Village, and seeking the nullification of the new autonomous community.

Of course, the trial Court had found, as a fact, that Appellants “made false and fraudulent representations to the 9th defendant about the existence of seven Villages said to make up the Osusu Community”; that “Osusu Aba Village had

never been addressed as Osusu Aba Community, and that “the representation of the 1st to 8th defendants as being chiefs, elders of the Osusu Aba Community and the positions they held as village heads which they knew were false”, were established by the Claimants.
The trial Court further, said:
“I believe the evidence of CW1 and CW3 and find as a fact that there are two Villages in Eziama Autonomous Community, prior to the creation of that Osusu Aba Autonomous Community; that Osusu Aba Village was one of them and that there were two kindreds in Osusu Aba Village. I also find that the facts in paragraphs 3 of Exhibits G and D were clearly false and a misrepresentation of facts. I find as a fact that the seven Villages therein referred to as Villages did not exist as Villages to the knowledge of the 1st to 8th Defendants.” (Pages 485 and 486 of the Records of Appeal).
The trial Court further, held:
“From the evidence before the Court, I find as a fact that the signatories to Exhibit D (and G) knowingly misrepresented facts, when they signed as Village heads of non-existent villages. I also find that the Exhibit H

– the map presented at the time of applying for autonomy showing the Osusu Aba Autonomous Community and the “Seven Villages” was not a true representation, as no such Villages existed at the time.” (Pages 486 – 487 of the Records).

With such clear findings and holdings of the trial Court, showing the dishonest and fraudulent disposition of the Appellants (which Appellants appear to have admitted, wholly, as they raised no appeal against those finding, and did not fault same), one would have expected them (Appellants) to bury their faces in shame and show remorse, but they are even turning tiger and sounding daring, in their dishonesty and mischief! Their Counsel even exuded some strange courage and audacity in defending the wrongful and fraudulent conduct of the Appellants, and justifying same, when he argued:
“Even if the Appellants were dishonest or wrong with respect to the number of villages in Osusu Aba, this on its own, cannot impeach the new community created, as the misrepresentation did not relate to the rules of eligibility under the law… Where there is a matter of falsification of facts,

misrepresentation or fraud in the application of autonomy, to impeach an exercise, it must relate to a qualifying or disqualifying factor, by virtue of Section 15 of the law. It is not the province of the Court to create new vistas of qualification, outside the frame work of Section 15. It is not the duty of the Court or of the parties to create new conditions of eligibility, outside the framework of the law.” (See page 9 of the Appellants’ Brief)

I think that argument was sad effrontery/admission and endorsement of the falsification and misrepresentation of facts to obtain their curious desire to create the autonomous Community, and assumption of the offices of Village heads and Eze of the imaginary Villages and Autonomous Community!

Appellants’ Counsel, in my opinion, appeared to be very insensitive and aversed to the real issues in contention, which was the falsification and fraudulent misrepresentation of facts to obtain the creation of the Autonomous Community, when he rather concerned himself with what he termed conditions, guideline or rule of eligibility under the law, for the creation of new autonomous community.

He had placed reliance on Section 15 of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law of Abia State, which provides:
“Any community or group of communities seeking autonomy shall have a common tradition, identity and be homogeneous.”

I think the said Section 15 of the Traditional Rulers Law, was completely irrelevant to this case, as the real issues had nothing to do with the conditionalities or qualifications for creation of new autonomous community, but with false and fraudulent misrepresentation of facts to obtain it, against the wish of the 1st to 4th Respondents, who represented themselves and a good segment of the Osusu Aba Village.

I had earlier said that Appellants did not appeal against the salient issues resolved in the case, and the findings of facts thereof. Just as submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, Appellants’ Counsel merely reproduced the same issues Appellants raised at the trial Court, and the arguments they canvassed on those issues at the trial Court in this Appeal without impeaching the decision of the trial Court on those issues, that is, without attacking the resolutions on the trial Court of those issues.

The law is trite that a finding or holding of a Court, not appealed against, remains binding and conclusive. See Nmanumeihe Vs Njemanze (2016) LPELR – 40212 (CA); C.P.C. Vs INEC (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 493; Opara Vs Dowel Schlumberger (Nig.) Ltd & Anor (2006) LPELR – 2746 (SC); Daniel Vs FRN (2015) LPELR – 24733 (SC).
I should also emphasize that, where a party has raised an issue for determination of a suit at the trial Court, and the trial Court resolved that issue, one way or the other, and made a conclusion, a party is not expected to raise that same issue again at the appellate Court, and advance the same argument he canvassed at the trial Court, seeking the appellate Court to come to a different decision. What the party should do, in that circumstance, would be to contest the way the trial Court resolved the issue, by picking a ground(s) of appeal on it, challenging the reasoning/conclusion of the trial Court on the issue, and seeking a reversal of the same.
In this Appeal, the Respondents’ Counsel had submitted:
“… the gamut of Appellants contention of lack of

locus standi by the 1st to 4th Respondents is predicated in the misconceived fact that this Suit is a chieftaincy matter. The trial Court after considering the arguments posited by both sides in respect of the issue of locus standi held as follows:
“As submitted by learned Counsel for the Defendants, it is clear that the Claimants are not claiming the right to the throne, this in my view is because this is not a chieftaincy matter, per se, but a complaint about the creation of autonomous community out of a part of Osusu Aba Village, based on false representation of facts, excluding the claimants. Therefore, it is not incumbent on the claimant to prove locus standi required for a chieftaincy dispute.” (See page 480 of the Records)
The law is trite that a finding not challenged by an appellant in any of the grounds of appeal, remains, rightly or wrongly, the settlement of that issue as between the parties to the appeal. Koya Vs UBA Ltd (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 481) 251… The above finding was not challenged on appeal, the appellate Court is entitled to refer to such finding in its consideration of the matter placed before it, to the effect

that such unchallenged decision of the trial Court is binding on the parties. See Kraus Thompson Ltd Vs Unical (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 879) 631 at 653.” (See Paragraphs 4.06 of the Appellants Brief).
Of course, that submission remains the law, and so Appellants’ Issues 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, which merely repeated the earlier issues raised and resolved at the trial, without challenging the findings/resolutions of the trial Court on them, was a serious flaw in the argument of this Appeal by the Appellants’ Counsel.
Appeals are argued on Issue(s), founded on ground(s) of Appeal, challenging and/or questioning the way the trial Court or Lower Court resolved the substantive/relevant issues at the trial. See the cases of Ajala & Ors Vs Aladejana & Anor (2018) LPELR – 44579 CA; Poroye & Ors Vs Makarfi & Ors (2017) LPELR – 42738 (SC); Obosi Vs NIPOST & Ors (2013) LPELR – 21397 (CA); Yusuf & Anor Vs State (2019) LPELR – 46945 (SC) and the case of Nze Vs Aribe (2016) LPELR – 40617 (CA), where we held:
“This point seems to have enjoyed some notoriety in the law governing appellate

proceedings, that the grounds of appeal and/or issues for determination of appeal, must relate to and flow or derive from the judgment appealed against, touching on the ratio decidendi. See Anozia Vs Nnani & Anor (2015) LPELR – 24277 CA; (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1461) 241, where it was held… that an appeal (the grounds and issues therefrom) must be founded on and derived from a valid complaint touching on the ratio decidendi (life issue) of the decision appealed against.”

I therefore resolved the Issue 1 against the Appellants.

On Issue 2, whether the Suit was statute barred and/or that 1st to 4th Respondents did not comply with condition(s) precedent to bringing the Suit, the Respondents’ Counsel had also argued that the trial Court had resolved similar issues raised by the Appellant, in favour of the Claimants (1st to 4th Respondents) and that Appellants never faulted those reasoning or never appealed against those decisions or findings of the trial Court, but simply repeated the same issues on appeal.

My reasoning on the Issue 1 (above) would therefore apply to this Issue 2 on the point that a finding or decision of

trial Court not appealed against, remains valid, subsisting, binding and conclusive. See again Kraus Thompson Ltd Vs Unical (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt.879) 631; Nmanumeihe Vs Njemanze (2016) LPELR – 40212 (CA); Daniel Vs FRN (2015) LPELR – 24733 (SC); Anyanwu Vs Ogunewe & Ors (2014) LPELR – 22184 (SC); Nze Vs Aribe (2016) LPELR – 40617 CA.

Also on the Issue of statute bar, Appellants had simply said that the way the trial Court treated the Issue was unacceptable, without stating any flaw in the said treatment by the trial Court. The trial Court had held:
“This Suit was filed on the 8th December, 2011, the Claimants became aware of the creation of autonomous communities on or about 20th September, 2011… Counsel for the defendants, in his submission on this issue, relied on Section 28 of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law… From the wording of this Section, it is clear that the time within which appeal to the High Court applies to any interested person within the autonomous community created. This does not apply to the Claimants. I hold that the Suit is not statute barred.” Pages 481 – 482 of the Records.

The said Section 28 of the Traditional Rulers Law says:
“Where any interested party within the autonomous community feels that in the exercise of recognition of an Eze, the rules of natural justice have been contravened, then that party may within 21 days of the recognition, appeal to the High Court for review of the recognition…”

Of course, the trial Court had earlier held (and rightly in my view) that this case was not a chieftaincy matter, quarreling about wrongful recognition of an Eze for existing Autonomous Community. It is/was a case of wrongful, creation of autonomous community, based on false and fraudulent misrepresentation of facts, and alleged appointment of the leaders/heads of the purported Villages/Communities. The said section of the law was clearly not applicable to this case.

established, certainty operates against and defeat the plea or application of limitation law. See the case of Tropics Securities Ltd & Vs AMCN (2019) LPLER – 47275 (CA); Sifax Nig. Ltd & Ors Vs Migfo (Nig) Ltd & Anor (2018) LPELR – 49735 SC; (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt.1623) 139.

Appellants were also wrong to seek to invoke the Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law, to stall the Suit, particularly, Section 16 which require a person protesting against the creation of autonomous community and selection of an Eze from the said community to give the Commissioner responsible for Chieftaincy Affairs opportunity to appoint intervener or conciliator to intervene and conduct election to ascertain the true wishes of the community.

It has earlier been stated that this was not a case of chieftaincy dispute, per se, as the claim of 1st – 4th Respondents bothered on use of false and fraudulent misrepresentation to create a new Autonomous Community, and the trial Court had held that the said Section 16 of the Traditional Rulers Law did not preclude the respondents from instituting the action to

ventilate their grievance, which bothered on fraudulent misrepresentation of facts.

I cannot therefore see any merit in this Appeal and so resolve the issues against the Appellants and dismiss the Appeal with cost of Two Hundred Thousand Naira (N200,000.00) only against the Appellants to be paid to the 1st to 4th Respondents.

RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO, J.C.A.: I agree.

IBRAHIM ALI ANDENYANGTSO, J.C.A.: I agree.

Appearances:

David Onyeike, Esq. For Appellant(s)

Nnamdi Ahunanya, Esq. – for 1st to 4th respondents
Chinedu Onyike Ogwo, Esq. (CSC ABIA STATE) – for 5th and 6th respondents
For Respondent(s)