Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Eze V. Okechukwu (2002) CLR 12(k) (SC)

Judgement delivered on December 13th 2002

Brief

  • Pre action notices
  • Service of pre action notice
  • Public officer
  • Waiver

Facts

The Respondents as Plaintiff instituted this action at the High Court of Anambra State holden at Nnewi against five (5) Defendants (of whom the Appellant was the fourth) claiming

  • (a)
    a declaration that the Appellant was improperly recognised as the Oluoha of Ihiala community and that the recognition was null and void;
  • (b)
    A declaration that in view of the 3rd defendant's declaration a declaration that the Appellant was not validly declared and presented for recognition;
  • (c)
    a declaration that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants (functionaries of the Government of Anambra State) were not entitled to nominate select, appoint or present the 4th Defendant/Appellant as traditional ruler of Ihiala;
  • (d)
    a declaration that the 1st Respondent was duly selected and against as the Oluoha of Ihiala;
  • (e)
    an injunction restraining the said Government functionaries presenting a certificate of recognition of the Appellant and gazetting the same as the traditional ruler of Ihiala; and
  • (f)
    an injunction restraining the Appellant from parading himself at the traditional ruler of Ihiala and performing the functions of the office.

The case is all about the selection, presentation and recognition of the Oluoha of Ihiala, a traditional rulership. The 1st Plaintiff claimed he was properly selected by the appropriate representatives of the families of the Okparas who joined in the action as the 2nd and 8th Plaintiffs. The Appellant also claimed he was duly selected and presented by the families and in addition recognised by the Government of Anambra State.

A large body of evidence was led before the Trial Court, including numerous documents. One of such documents was the town or community constitution which contains a detailed statement of the customary law of the town or community regulating the selection, appointment, suspension deposition, rights and privileges of the traditional ruler. Under Section 13(2) of the Traditional Rulers Law, Cap. 148, Laws of Anambra State (the Law), it is provided that;

    "Such town or community constitution after it has been duly forwarded to the Secretary to the Local Government shall not be amended unless the Governor is satisfied as to the reason for such amendment."

It is the town or community which the said Law gives the responsibility to draw up its constitution. It would appear in the present case that there was Government interference in amending the constitution of Ihiala. It was the amended version that the Appellant relied on for his defence since it was under it he was selected, presented and recognised.

The Learned Trial Judge carefully considered the evidence and the relevant aspects of the Law and made vital findings. Among those findings were that: (i) There is no provision m the Law empowering the Governor no amend the constitution of a town or community. What he can do is to give consent to any amendment proposed by the town or community if he was satisfied as to the reason for such an amendment.

At the conclusion of trial, the Learned Trial Judge granted relief (a) (b) (c) and (f) of the Plaintiffs and refused reliefs (d) and (e).

Appellant dissatisfied, appealed to the Court of Appeal Enugu division on points of law with regards to pre-action notice as prescribed under Section 11 (2) of the State Proceeding Law of Anambra State and the effect of Decree No. 13 of 1984 on the jurisdiction on the Court. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  • 1.
    Whether the majority of the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right...
    Read More