There are two appeals between the parties. The Respondents, Briggs (Oruwari) House, were the Plaintiffs at the trial Court. From their statement of claim, they aver that they represent one of the four main autonomous groups of Houses in Abonnema town in Rivers State. The three others are Jack (Iju) House, Georgewill (Otayi) Group of Houses and Manuel (Owukori) Group of Houses

The town of Abonnema had been governed, and remains so, by the consensus of the four paramount chiefs representing the four Houses as their heads respectively. The stools of Briggs, Jack, Georgewill and Manuel were created and made heads and paramount chiefs of their respective War-Canoe Houses many years before the founding of Abonnema on 16 June, 1881. The above-stated facts are contained in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the statement of claim.

The Respondents then further narrated what appears to be the cause of action which led to the present suit.

The 1st Defendant/1st Appellant was elected to succeed late Chief Clement I.G. Bob Manuel who was on the stool of Manuel (Owukori) group of Houses of Abonnema. The invitation cards from the Defendants/Appellants contained words inscriptions which described and styled the first Defendant as (H.R.H) the Amayanabo of Abonnema.

When the Chiefs of the Briggs House received the said invitation card, a protest letter dated 20th December, 1988 addressed to the 2nd Defendant and copied to the secretary, Abonnema Council of Chiefs, Abonnema, was sent and delivered to the Defendants/Appellants. The Defendants/Appellant replied by a letter dated 20th December, 1988 that they were going to install a new Amayanabo on 24th December, 1988.

The Plaintiffs/Respondents instituted an action at the High Court of River State and the Defendants/Appellants joined issue with the Plaintiffs/ Respondents in their Statement of Defence. The Defendants/Appellants thereafter brought a motion to have the case dismissed or struck out principally on the grounds that the Court lacked Jurisdiction to entertain the case.

The learned trial Judge granted the motion and struck out the suit on the bases that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine it.

Dissatisfied, Plaintiffs/Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division. The Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the trial Court on the ground that the ousted clause in the 1978 Edict ceased to have effect of the inception of the 1979 constitution.

Dissatisfied, Defendants/Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

For the second appeal, the Appellants sought to stop judgment being delivered in the appeal heard by the Court of Appeal on 13 July, 1995. The appeal had been fixed for hearing on 12 June, 1995. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to "arrest the proceeding" of the Court on 12 June, 1995, and delivered the judgment.