CHIEF EDMUND OBI v. CHIKEZIE UZOEWULU

CHIEF EDMUND OBI  ||  CHIKEZIE UZOEWULU

APPEAL

CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

By a Writ of Summons and an Amended Statement of Claim, the Appellant before the High Court of Anambra State sought against the Respondent declaratory reliefs and a restraining injunction. The Appellant claimed that Ezeakwuabo established an Obiship known as Isi-Obi. That under Nnewi Customary Law, inheritance to the stool of Isi-Obi is patrilineal. When Ezekwuabo died, his stool was inherited by his first son called Ezeomu. The stool remained and continued in Ezeomu lineage following the same custom of patrilineal inheritance until it came to a descendant of Ezemuo, called Dibia-Agu. While Dibia-Agu was the Isi-Obi, of Ezekwuabo village, the village was faced with series of wars (the war of nine fronts, popularly called Mbu Agha Teghete), with its neighbors. The then Isi-Obi could not control the situation so he handed over the mantle of Obiship to one of the descendants of Ezekwuabo called Ezekpo who was a great warrior and strategist, to lead the people in the war. Since then, the title of Isi-Obi Ezekwuabo remained in the lineage of Ezekpo up to date, with the Appellant as the present/incumbent Obi. Contending that the Respondent who is claiming the title is not even a descendant of the Ezekwuabo family, because his ancestor, Dim Onyenagolum was brought into the Ezekwuabo family from Dim Mnaniogu family and was assimilated into the Ezekwuabo family. In reaction, the Respondent filed a Statement of Defense and Counter-claimed against the Appellant; stating that he descended from the same great ancestor Ezekwuabo, just like the Appellant. According to him, the ancestor begat Ikeogu and other sons. Ikeogu in turn begat Dim Onyenagolum, the ancestor of the Respondent, and Dim Ughanwa, Appellant’s ancestor. The first son of Ezekwuabo was Ezemuo, who died during his father’s lifetime. Ikeogu thus became the Okpala and successor to the office of Isi-Obi Ezekwuabo when Ezekwuabo died. He said that when Dim Onyenagolum died, his son, Dim Aguluebo, was a minor and Ezekpo then stepped in and acted as a Regent, and that thence on, the Ezekpo line of the Appellant usurped the family Isi-Obi. In its judgment, the trial Court dismissed the Appellant’s claim and entered judgment for the Respondent in respect of his counter claim. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, via a Notice of Appeal, Enugu Division, which in a unanimous decision dismissed the Appellant’s appeal. Still aggrieved, the Appellant filed a four ground Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court. The Respondent’s brief was accompanied with a Notice of Preliminary Objection urging this Court to strike out ground 2, 3, and 4 of the Appellant’s notice of appeal alongside all arguments rendered in relation to the grounds.

||INTERESTED IN GETTING SUMMARIES LIKE THIS FOR FREE?||

||Click Here||

Appeal Dismissed

Whether the Court of Appeal below (sic) was justified when it affirmed the judgment of the Court of first instance to the effect that what happened during the time of Ezekpo was an involuntary handover and therefore, Ezekpo was a Regent and the title is reversible no matter how long it lasts. Whether having regards to the pleadings, the evidence, the finding made by the Court of first instance and the parties before the Court of first instance, the decision of the Court of Appeal sustaining

Actions Law, Cap 3, Laws Of Anambra State Of Nigeria, 1991|Supreme Court Rules|

Appellant unrepresented.For Appellant(s)|Victor AgunziFor Respondent(s)|

||INTERESTED IN GETTING SUMMARIES LIKE THIS FOR FREE?||

||Click Here||