CORAM
UTHMAN MOHAMMED JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1.CHIEF EMIMIGBE OMOKHAFE2. CHIEF ILAVBAEBOR IKHEAFE3. CHIEF OMOIGBERA USIKHIFO(For themselves and on behalf of Otuo Ikheheghoki Age-Group and members of Otuo Clan Community except the 4th Defendant and his supporters). PLAINTIFF(S) / RESPONDENT(S)
DEFENDANT(S) /RESPONDENT(S)
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants at the court of appeal raised for the first time the issue that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs’ claim by virtue of section 5 of Decree No. 1 of 1984 and section 1(2)(b)(i) of Decree No. 13 of 1984. The application was dismissed on the ground that it was not properly raised
HELD
The court held that the lower court was wrong to have dismissed the appellants’ application and that the whether or not there is a chieftaincy declaration is question of fact to be determined at the trial.
ISSUES
1. Has the lower court jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in view of section 5 of Decree No. 1 of 1984?2. Was the lower court right when it held in its judgment that “In fact the issue of ouster of jurisdiction does not arise and learned counsel has not followed the laid down procedure for raising such issues. It is contained in Order 3 Rule 14(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules which stipulate that a Respondent who decides to contend on appeal that the decision of the court below should be affirmed on grounds other than those relied.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CASES CITED
1. Ayman Ent. Ltd. V. Akuma Ind. Ltd. (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt.836) 22 (2003) 10 SCM, 35;2. Alao V. C. O. P. (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.64)3. Oredoyin V. Arowolo (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 114) 172.4. State V. Onagoruwa (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.221) 33;5. Okafor V. A.G. Anambra State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.200) 659
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Decree No. 1 of 1984