Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Aku V. Aneku (1991) CLR 11(b) (CA)

Brief

  • Chieftaincy matters
  • Repugnancy doctrine
  • Custom, Usage, Practice
  • Jurisdiction
  • Omnibus grounds of appeal

Facts

By a Writ of Summons issued from Idah High Court in Benue State against the defendants, jointly and several plaintiff claimed as follows:

  • a
    "A declaration that the 1st defendant is by Igala Native Law and Custom not eligible for appointment to the stool of Achadu and consequently that his purported appointment by the 2nd defendant is null and void. (The 2nd defendant is Igala Traditional Council).
  • b
    A declaration that the mode and procedure for appointment was contrary to the laid down native law and custom on this subject matter and ALTENATIVELY, that the 1st defendant’s appointment is null and void being contrary to the rules of natural justice as the whole exercise was conducted in secrecy to the detriment of the founded and unabridged right of the plaintiff to ascend to the Achadu stool.
  • c
    A declaration that the plaintiff is the legitimate and recognized appointee supported by the three accredited ruling houses to the exclusion of the 1st defendant’s house which according to Igala Native Law and Custom is now extinct as far as ascendancy to this stool is concerned and; consequently, that the plaintiff is the only candidate that should be recognised as a member of the 2nd defendant’s council (Igala Traditional Council).
  • d
    A perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from recognising and parading the 1st defendant as the duly appointed Achadu and member of the Council”.

Pleadings were filed and delivered. Thereafter, the case was set down for hearing before Ogebe J.

Four witnesses, including the plaintiff himself, testified in support of the claims, while five, in all supported the 1st defendant’s die of the controversy.

At the conclusion of the evidence and addresses of counsel, the learned trial judge declined to declare the 1st defendant, Shaibu Aku, as the only candidate for the stool of the Achadu. Rather he declared it vacant to enable:

“…….the Ruling Families carry out another exercise to appoint a candidate in accordance with their native law and custom”.

The 1st appellant appealed against the decision.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the learned trial judge had jurisdiction to entertain this suit....
  • Read More