The 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs/Respondents suing for themselves and members of the Onicha Amairi Autonomous Community Council of Ndi Eze, together with the 3rd and 4th Plaintiffs/Respondents, claimed in an action instituted in the High Court of Imo State, sometime in November 1993, against the Appellants and the Defendants/Respondents, a declaration that the purported recognition of Chief I.U. Okeahialam, the 1st Appellant, as the Traditional Ruler of Onicha Amairi Autonomous Community "is illegal, and a nullity having been obtained fraudulently and contrary to the provisions of the relevant law;" and, consequential reliefs.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents' case in the High Court was that the 1st Appellant was neither selected, presented nor installed as traditional ruler pursuant to what they described as a 'chieftaincy constitution which they alleged came into force on 12th May, 1979, and that the 4th Defendant was deceived into recognising him. The gist of their case was thus the alleged 'unconstitutionality', in terms of the chieftaincy constitution, of the steps taken leading to the recognition by the 4th Defendant of the 1st Appellant as traditional ruler of the Respondents' community by the letter of recognition dated 28th September, 1993 written by the Deputy Governor.
The Appellants raised objection to the suit on several grounds, two only of which are material to this appeal. They are that:
-
1
"The Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit, the suit having been instituted in gross violation and or contravention of Section 25 of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law No.11 of 1981”, and,
-
2
"The suit is tainted with a fundamental vice of improper joinder and mis-joinder of parties."
The trial Judge struck out the suit on the grounds first, that it was filed fourteen days after the mandatory period of 21 days from the date of recognition, that is, outside the time permitted for bringing such suit by Section 25 of Law No.11 of 1981 and, secondly, that the procedure stipulated for challenging such recognition by the provisions of that Section was by means of an appeal. He held that the suit was defective for improper joinder of parties as the Plaintiffs were also the Defendants in the same suit.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal which took the view that the appeal raised three issues, namely: (i) whether the suit was statute-barred by reasons of the provisions of Section 25 of the Law No.11 of 1981; (ii) whether Section 25 of the Law was inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the 1979 Constitution; and, (iii) whether there was a misjoinder of parties.
The Court of Appeal held that Section 25 was in conflict with Sections 6 and 236 of the 1979 Constitution, in that it denied an aggrieved person his right of access to the Court and, therefore, without effect. Consequently, it held that the action of the Appellants was not statute-barred. It went on to hold, among other things, that a proper complaint against such recognition is not by way of appeal but by action begun by writ of summons or by certiorari proceedings; that Section 25 was in conflict with Section 7 of the same law which makes recognition given the Governor to a person as an Eze subject to confirmation of the Imo State House of Assembly and finally, that the action was properly constituted in that the Respondents must be deemed to have been excluded from the parties sued. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the Plaintiffs/Respondents and set aside the order of the High Court striking out the suit. It ordered that the suit be relisted for hearing before another judge of the High Court. The Appellants herein appealed.
