The appellants and the respondents are all from Amankalu Alayi a village lucked away somewhere in Imo State and now in the area recently constituted as Abia State. The panics are however all resident in Aba. The plaintiff/respondent commenced the suit in the Chief Magistrate Court, Aba. On 10th August. 1978. He claimed against the defendants/appellants for a sum of N2,000.00 made up as follows -

The evidence led shows that the defendants/appellants invaded the premises of the respondent in Aba, and seized and carried away his butterfly sewing machine. The respondent is a tailor by trade. The reasons for the invasion and seizure, according to the appellants, were that the appellants and the respondent were members of the Umunkalu age grade in their village. The respondent was grouped under the age grade. The age grade had undertaken to build a health centre for the village and had levied its members for the project. The respondent refused or neglected to pay up his levy of N109.00. The appellants, contended, that the grouping of persons into age grade was a custom of their village, that the age grade levying its members financial contributions for their development project was also a custom of the village: that compulsory membership of an age grade was equally a custom of their people. The respondent was therefore bound to pay the levy.

The respondent, on the other hand, contended that he was not averse to payment of levies for community development if called upon by the community. He infact tendered Ex. 'B'. B1. B2. B3, B4. B5 to show that he had paid such levies. As regards the levy ordered by the Umunkalu age group of Amankalu Alayi, he contended that he was not a member of the age group and did not want to associate with the group. He admitted that he was grouped under the Umunkalu age grade as has been their custom but that he refused to join the association of the age group. When in 1975 he received Ex. C. signed by the second defendant/appellant as "their Organising Secretary", inviting him to attend the inauguration of "a new age group in Amankalu Alayi comprising of young talented patriotic men" he declined to attend the function. He contended that he was not a member of this new age group which decided to build a health centre for the community. His refusal to associate with the group was based on his religious principles. Not being a member of the said group, he was not subject to the levy of the group. The appellants therefore had no business seizing his sewing machine in order to force him to pay their levy.

The learned Chief Magistrate considered two questions pertaining to his decision. The first was"(I) whether there was a custom that compels a citizen to join an age group whether he likes or not and if there is such a custom in Amankalu Alayi whether such a custom is lawful or has acquired the force of law and the second is "whether the respondent was in fact a member of the Umunkalu Age Group". In answer to the first question, the learned Chief Magistrate found that the custom that compelled every person to join an age group whether he likes it or not did not exist. He further held "that a custom which deprives a citizen a free choice of association runs contrary to Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and therefore cannot acquire the force of law". The learned Chief Magistrate further found as a fact, that the respondent was not a member of the Umunkalu age group of the appellants and was not therefore bound by the decisions of the group. He ordered the return of the respondent's sewing machine or its value of N115.00. He further awarded the respondent the special damages of N740.00 and general damages of N200.00. with costs assessed and fixed at N100.00. Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed to the High Court.

The High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs claim holding that the custom of plaintiff's people is to seize and keep any goods of a person who fails to pay his own share for the communal project until the person pays and that the custom is not repugnant to natural justice equity and good conscience nor does it offend any section of the Constitution.

Plaintiff dissatisfied appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the High Court and held that the custom of the Amankalu Alayi people was unconstitutional.

Defendants dissatisfied, appealed to the Supreme Court.