The appellants are indigenes of Ebiraland and each one of them claims to be entitled under the Ebira native law and custom and particularly under Edict No. 3 of 1997 to vie for and ascend the stool Ohinoyi of Ebiraland. Each one of them had shown interest for the stool and each one of them was sponsored by his clan. When Mohammed Sani Omolori the erstwhile Ohinoyi died in 1996, the stool became vacant. The 3rd to the 11th respondents are the kingmakers who, under the native law and custom are entitled to elect the Ohinoyi of Ebiraland. The 12th respondent vied for the stool as Attah of Ebiraland immediately the stool of Ebiraland became vacant. Edict No. 3 of 1997 came into force on the 6/5/1997. The native law and custom and Edict did not recognise the stool of Ebiraland as “Atta” but only as “Ohinoyi”. It is alleged that the kingmakers in violation of the Native Law and Custom and the provision of the Edict frustrated the appellants by refusing to accept their candidatures for the Ohinoyi of Ebiraland but recommended the 12th respondent by the 1st respondent as the Ohinoyi of Ebiraland was alleged to be contrary to the Edict and the Native Law and custom. It is the case of the appellants that the 12th respondent still refers to himself as the Atta of Ebiraland and not the Ohinoyi, hence the appellants’ claims. The respondents denied all of the allegations in their pleadings.

The respondents filed a motion on notice raising preliminary objection that the appellants’ suit was statute-barred by Kogi State.

The trial court ruled that the 12th respondent was protected by the law but that the 1st and 2nd respondents were not protected.f the Jos North Local Government Council or Plateau State.

On 19/7/99, counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents applied for a stay of proceeding as they had filed an appeal against the ruling of the trial court on the dismissal of their preliminary objection. Appellants opposed this and then applied that the status quo be maintained. The court then ordered the parties to maintain the status quo.

On 22/7/99, respondents filed application praying the court to discharge, vacate or set aside its order directing the parties to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the appeal. The motions came up for hearing on 27/7/99 but Appellants counsel wrote the court to adjourn the motions because of his illness. The trial court adjourned.

On the 29/7/99, the matter came up but counsel to the appellants had written a letter to the court stating his inability to appear in court. The respondents opposed further adjournments.

On 2/8/99, the trial court in a ruling refused further adjournment and another ruling on the motions filed by the respondents, vacating the order maintaining status quo.

Dissatisfied, appellants appealed against the ruling of the trial court given on 19/7/99 and 2/8/99.

Respondents also filed an appeal against the ruling of the trial court on their preliminary objection, having earlier obtained leave to do so. The three appeals were consolidated.