CORAM

PARTIES

1. CHIEF J. O. EHIKHAMWEN(VILLAGE HEAD OF EWOKI)2. CHIEF ANTHONY AREWAN(VILLAGE HEAD OF OLINLIN)3. CHIEF J. I. OJEABULU(VILLAGE HEAD OF EBULEN) APPELLANTS

1. PRINCE ILUOBE (THE ONOJIE OF UZEA)2. S. O. OKHUELEIGBE, ESQ.3. THE MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR, EDO STATE.4. COMMISSIONER FOR SPECIAL DUTIES,DIRECTORATE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTAND CHIEFTAINCY AFFAIRS, EDO STATE5. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, EDO STATE  RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants as Plaintiffs in the High Court of Edo State, Benin Judicial Division filed a writ of summons against the Respondents as Defendants wherein they sought for  a declaration that the revocation of the Bendel State Legal Notice No. 55 of 1979 being a customary law regulating succession to the Traditional Ruler Title of the Clan Head of Uzea by Edo State Legal Notice of 1995 without any hearing from the Plaintiffs is contrary to the fundamental human rights provisions of the 1979 Constitution and provisions of the Traditional Rulers and Chief Edict of 1979, and also sought an order setting aside the appointment of Prince Itoya Iluobe as the Onojie of Uzea in the Esan North East Local Government Area with effect from 21st September, 1995 contained in the Secretary to the Edo State Government letter dated 23rd October 1995, among other reliefs. However, before the Appellants could file their Statement of Claim, the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a motion on notice seeking the an order of court dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim in that the Honourable Court had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The trial court in his considered ruling, granted the Respondents’ application and further dismissed the claims of the Appellants. Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial judge, the Appellant has lodged the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed.

ISSUES

?    Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that he lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit??    Whether the learned trial Judge was right in his view that the provisions of an Edict is superior to the provisions of the 1979 Constitution??    Whether the learned trial Judge was right in his view that “once a declared customary law regulating succession to traditional rulership title is registered, it is deemed to be the correct customary law and can therefore not be questioned by a Court of law” when issues were not joined by the parties as to whether or not the new declaration was registered?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979Court of Appeal Rules, 1981Edo State Legal Notice No. 11 of 199Traditional Rulers and Chiefs Edict, 1979

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT