The plaintiffs (now appellants) commenced this action at the High Court, Owerri by writ of summons on 4 November, 1993. In it, as also contained in the statement of claim they subsequently filed on 30 November, 1993, they sought four reliefs against the defendatns (now respondetns). I shall henceforth refer to the parties as appellants and respondents as appropriate.

The first relief seeks a declaration that the recognition given to the 1st respondent (Chief I.U. Okeahialam) as the Traditional Ruler of Onicha Amairi Autonomous Community in Ezinihitte Local Government Area was obtained by fraud and therefore illegal and a nullity. The second relief seeks an order of court nullifying the recognition. Third and fourth reliefs ask for injunctive orders restraining the respondents from holding out the 1st respondent as such Traditional Ruler and also restraining him from so parading himself.

The 1st respondent investigated the said petition and found that a prima facie case of professional misconduct was made out against the appellant necessitating his having to face the 2nd respondent on a complaint of professional misconduct contrary to Rules 1, 30 and 47 of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Legal Profession 2007.

The appellants pleaded that the Traditional Ruler, by the constitution of the community, must be identified, selected, installed and presented by 10 persons from each village of the community and members of the Ndi Nze Council which procedure is to be supervised by any of the existing cultural organisations of the people, such as Onicha Si. But they stated that Onicha Si having been mutually dissolved the Onicha Town Union was formed to take its place.

The 1st and 2nd respondents were sued for themselves and on behalf of the Onicha Town Union, the 2nd respondent being the Secretary General of the Union. It is said that it is the function of Onicha Town Union to organise the selection of a successor to a late Traditional Ruler (the late one being Eze J.H. Onyenebo). A further averment is that by section 41 of constitution of the community, it is the responsibility of the Nze Onicha (or Council) to organise the installation of a Traditional Ruler.

The appellant's complaint is that they became aware that the 2nd respondent conspired with others to pervert the constitution. They aver that the 1st respondent was never identified, selected, appointed and installed by the community according to the custom of the people and presented for recognition according to the Law.

The respondents in their statement of defence pleaded a number of facts and issues, some of which they raised as preliminary points and thereafter argued in a later motion they brought. The appellants filed a reply to the respondents said statement of defence. It was after this, that the respondents brought their said notice of motion on 25 May, 1994.

In the said motion, the respondents prayed that the trial court should dismiss or in the alternative strike out the appellants' suit.

The Learned trial Judge struck out the appellants' suit on the basis that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it.

The appellants appealed.