Dikan Fwanghan Gukwat was the Madaki Kerang which is the title of the stool or district head of Kerang a community in Mangu Local Government Area of Plateau State. For many years he was the title holder of that stool but due to his incapacity arising from senility and infirmity, he appointed his son Aristavkus to act for him and when the son predeceased him, he appointed the plaintiff to carry out his official duties. It is the plaintiff’s case that Dikan Fwanghan Gukwat subsequently presented him to the elders and ward heads of Kerang who all endorsed his selection as the successor to the throne. Notwithstanding this, when Dikan Fwanghan Guwat eventually died on 10th February, 1990 the Mangu traditional council in the minutes of its meeting of 20/2/90, Exh A mandated the 1st defendant who is he paramount. Chief (Mishkalam Mwaghavul) of the chiefdom to which kerang is a part to meet the Kerang community to ask for a successor. The mandate was to the effect that should the community not agree on a candidate, the holder of the title of Galadima should act in order to avoid confusion, pending the selection of a successor On 1st March, 1990 an election for a successor was allegedly conducted by 1st and 2nd defendants with the 3rd defendant emerging as the successor. The plaintiff’s case is that he, having earlier been appointed by the late Fwanghan as the Madaki, the subsequent appointment of the 3rd defendant by the 1st and 2nd defendants was irregular. It was also his case that his ruling house, Kromdukur which is the only ruling house was not invited to participate in the selection exercise. For the defence it was contended that there are six ruling house in Kerang and that the selection exercise was in keeping with the custom and tradition of the people and further that the absence of the plaintiff’s people at the venue of the selection was deliberate. Upon a careful evaluation of the above facts and contentions of the parties, the learned trial Judge Damulak J held inter alia, that the method of selection of the 3rd defendant was in line with the custom of the people, that there are six ruling houses in Kerang instead of one as suggested by the plaintiff, that both the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant were eligible for the title I question, that the plaintiff’s people were duly invited to the selection exercise and finally that the 1st defendant acted within the mandate of his authority, Based on these findings, the court below dismissed the plaintiff’s case in toto and affirmed the selection of the 3rd defendant as her new Madaki of Kerang.

It is against that judgment that the plaintiff has lodged the instant appeal.