The two separate but related communities of Amainyi Ukwu and Amainyi Nta, lived independently with their own kindred head.

A Legal Notice No. 9 of 1978 merged them into one. The two kindreds now became one community with 27 wards. The community now become known and was called Amainyi Autonomous Community.

Under s. 3 of the Chieftaincy Edict No. 22 of 1978 of Imo State each Autonomous Community was required to select and present a traditional ruler in accordance with the provisions of a Constitution drawn up and accepted by the Community. The people of Amainyi Autonomous Community accordingly and in compliance gave to themselves on the 9th July, 1978 a Chieftaincy Constitution. The traditional ruler of Amainyi Autonomous Community of the time as required section 12(a) of the Chieftaincy Edict No. 22 of 1978, signed Exhibit A. Eze Ogwuegbu Ndiegbe. He was also the first traditional ruler of the merged Autonomous Community. He died in 1982 and this led a need to fill the stool

Four candidates applied for the stool. The cabinet, in compliance with Article 5(d) of the Constitution, conducted the selection proceedings. Chief Dennis Oguegbu, the 3rd respondent emerged as the successful candidate and was selected to fill the position. The appellant rejected the exercise. Some persons who are not members of the cabinet published a document declaring the appellant selected.

Appellant then challenged the selection of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd Defendant/Respondent counter claimed. Appellant’s contention was that the true intention of the provisions of the Amainyi Chieftaincy Constitution is as expressed in its preamble. It was argued that the selection and appointment was intended to be rotatory and clearly not hereditary.

The learned trial Judge agreed that a rotatory method of selection was envisaged in the Chieftaincy Constitution. He therefore dismissed the appellant’s claims and granted the 3rd respondent’s counter claim.

Appellant dissatisfied with the judgment, appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the appellant having participated in the contest for the selection and presentation of the traditional ruler of the Amainyi Community, was estoppel from challenging the validity of the exercise.

The appellant, dissatisfied appealed to the Supreme Court.