Both parties are members of the Diepiri Section of Opobo town within the ancient conglomerate of Opobo Kingdom. The Diepiri Section is made up of six War Canoe Houses the head of which is the Ogolo Main House.

By tradition from time immemorial the Chief of Ogolo Main House is the traditional Head of the Diepiri Section. With the demise in 1981 of the then incumbent Chief of Ogolo Main House, Chief Raymond D. Ogolo, the chieftaincy stool became vacant and it was in the process of the selection and installation of a successor that dispute erupted.

The Plaintiffs/Respondents’ case is that the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent was in accordance with native law and custom validly and duly selected and installed as the Chief of Ogolo Main House on 29th November, 1985 and therefore the Head of Diepiri Section. Angered by this assertion, the Defendants/Appellants instituted suit No. BHC/66/85 at the High Court of Bori to challenge the claim. During the pendency of that suit, the 10th Defendant/Appellant and his supporters underwent traditional ceremonies in April 1986 in consequence of which the 10th Defendant/Appellant was said to have become duly installed as the Chief of Ogolo Main House. This gave rise to another suit No. BHC/16/86 instituted by the Plaintiff/Respondents wherein they sought two declaratory reliefs, i.e. a nullification of the installation of the 10th Defendant/Appellant and the recognition of the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent as the Chief of Ogolo Main House. They also claimed damages for trespass on the Palace of Ogolo Main House and injunctive reliefs restraining the Defendants/Appellants from holding out the 10th Defendant as the Chief of Ogolo Main House. In the aforesaid suit No. BHC/16/86 which culminated in the present appeal, pleadings were duly filed, exchanged and subsequently amended with the Amended Statement of Claim, the Further Amended Statement of Defence and Reply to the Statement of Defence as the terminal pleadings upon which the case was contested.

At the trial, each party called witnesses and tendered several exhibits to substantiate its case. After the conclusion of the final addresses of learned counsel for both parties, the learned trial Judge Opene J (as he then was) meticulously and painstakingly evaluated the evidence and in a well considered judgment delivered on 28th of July, 1993 dismissed the Plaintiffs/Respondents’ case. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs/Respondents lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division which Court in a unanimous decision delivered on 15th April 1987 allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial before the High Court. Against this decision of the Court of Appeal, the Defendants/Appellants have lodged the instant appeal