The 3rd – 8th respondents sued the 1st – 4th appellant and the 1st and 2nd respondents, as defendants, at the High Court seeking declaratory reliefs and injunctions.

The 3rd – 8th respondent, thereafter filed an application for interlocutory injunction

Upon the hearing and determination of the application, pleadings were yet to be exchanged by the parties.

The affidavit evidence of the 3rd – 8th respondents in support of the motion showed that the respondent and appellant belong to the Ihioma Community in Orlu Local Government of Imo State. This community is made up of three villages namely; Ebenese, Okwuabala, and Umuezennachi. The 3rd – 8th respondents have through series of petition, consistently opposed the creation of the said villages as three separate communities. But the Imo State Government however, went on and created Okwuabala as an autonomous community.

The reasons for their protest against Okwuabala Autonomous Community seems to be that the creation has no popular support even within Okwuabala village itself which is made up of nine kindreds. That only some members of three kindreds supported the creation and that Ihioma Autonomous community is a closely knit community with one cultural identity and a desire to remain together.

The affidavit further deposed that when the 1st appellant started in 1990 to parade himself as a Chief of Okwuabala against the custom and tradition of Okwuabala people, the people of Okwuabala brought an action against the 1st appellant at the High Court, Orlu. Moreover, the 1st appellant was at no time identified, selected, appointed and installed as Eze of Okwuabala and that he is not so entitled to be identified and selected according to the customs and tradition of the people moreso when no meetings were held by the people of Okwuabala to identify, select, appoint and install him as such.

It was the respondents' further contention that unless there was an injunction to restrain the 1st respondent from recognising the 1st appellant, the 3rd – 8th respondents' customs and traditions would be violated, there would be breakdown of law and order and that the 3rd - 8th respondents would suffer irreparable damage.

The appellants in their affidavit in opposition deposed to by the 1st appellant denied most of the vital facts in the affidavit in support to the motion. The appellants stated that Ihioma was made up of three distinct villages each with its chief, market and deity and that Okwuabala village is made up of five kindreds and the generality of its people, that the third village in Ihioma, Umuezennachi, has also applied to the Government of Imo State for an autonomous status.

The 1st appellant stated further that all oppositions to the creation of Okwuabala Autonomous Community were challenged, that the representatives of the Kindreds of the said community met at the central school Okwuabala and later in his palace on the 13th and 19th July 1996 during which time he was identified, selected, appointed and installed as the Eze and traditional ruler of Okwuabala Autonomous Community, that the event took place in public attended by people including the 3rd respondent; that the installation took place on the morning of 19th July 1996 and later that day he was presented to the Chief Executive of Orlu Local Government Council by the leaders of Okwuabala; that all the events were widely publicised and video-taped without protest from anyone, and that a large delegation came from Umuezennachi led by one Mark Nnayelugo Ndugba; that since those events took place there has not been one single incident of disturbance of breach of peace in the community and there will be none if he is recognised by government as the Eze; that the respondents were fully aware of all the activities and it will not be in the interest of Okwuabala community to be denied their traditional leadership for an indefinite period.

The trial court granted the application for interlocutory injunction in the following terms: