The appellants in this appeal were plaintiffs in Suit No. HAU/40/89 which originated in the Auchi Judicial Division of the High Court of the former Bendel State of Nigeria. The respondents herein were the defendants. There were three sets of defendants and each set filed a Statement of Defence. The 1st defendant who is the 1st respondent in this court stands alone. The second set is represented by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents and the third set is represented by the 5th and 6th respondents.

In paragraph 63 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim, the plaintiffs claimed the reliefs in the form of Declarations that the Apa of Okpekpe is the customary title of which the Clan Head of Okpekpe is known and addressed, that the Imiekpe kindred of the plaintiffs is the sole and exclusive ruling kindred in Okpekpe, that the 1st plaintiff is entitled to be recognised by the 2nd to the 4th defendants as the holder of the chieftaincy title of Apa of Okpekpe, that the 1st plaintiff is entitled to be appointed to the vacant stool of the Clan Head of Okpekpe in Etsako Local Government Area in the former Bendel State, that the Declaration made by the Bendel State Government relating to the chieftaincy title of Onwueweko (Clan Head) of Okpekpe which was published as Bendel State Legal Notice No.2 of 1990 in the Bendel State of Nigeria Gazette No.4 Vol.27 of 15th January, 1990 is illegal, unconstitutional, null and void as it is contrary to the customary law of Okpekpe and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 and that the creation of the new traditional chieftaincy title of Onwueweko of Okpekpe by the 2nd to 4th defendants and the appointment of the 1st defendant thereto is illegal, null and void. The last three reliefs were prayers for orders of perpetual injunction.

The case was tried on the pleadings filed and exchanged by the parties by Maidoh, J. on 30th May, 1991, in a reserved judgment; he dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal substantially but granted one declaratory relief sought by the appellants. They have further appealed to the Supreme Court.