CORAM

---

HON. JUSTICE ITA.G. MBABA (PJ), OFR JCA

HON. JUSTICE M. DANJUMA JCA

HON. JUSTICE H. R. SHAGARI JCA

---

PARTIES

---

1. GARY ENWO-IGARIWE

(President General, Ohaneze Ndigbo, APPELLANTS For himself and on behalf of Ohaneze Ndigbo)

2. HRH EZE (Dr.) C.I. ILOMUANYA, CON

APPELLANTS

---

1. CHIEF JOSEPH NWIGWE (Substituted for Late Dr. Alex Anozie by Order of this Honourable Court made on 18 th March, 2024)

2. CHIEF NDIDI E. EZEAKO

3. CHIEF ALLOY OKWUDILI CHUKWUOBI

RESPONDENTS

4. MR. ADOLF OKOLI

5. MR.ANDREW DURU

6. MR. JOHN IDOKO

7. MR. FELIX IGBOANUGO

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, FAIR HEARING, CUSTOMARY LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants (President General of Ohaneze Ndigbo and HRH Eze Dr. C.I. Ilomuanya) appealed as interested parties against a High Court judgment that made adverse findings against them despite not being parties to the original suit. The underlying case involved a dispute over the leadership title of”Onyendu Ndigbo “of Ibadan and Oyo State. The trial court had criticized the Appellants dissolution of two Igbo associations (ICDA and ICOS) and questioned their authority to make such decisions, despite the Appellants not being parties to the proceedings.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was allowed.

2. The trial court’s judgment was set aside.

3. The original suit was dismissed.

4. Parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the trial judge violated the Appellants’ constitutional right to fair hearing by making damaging findings against them when they were neither parties nor heard in the proceedings.?

2. Whether the trial judge acted without jurisdiction in making perverse findings unsupported by evidence and relied on inadmissible evidence and extraneous matters.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ORDERS AGAINST NON-PARTIES – VIOLATION OF FAIR HEARING RIGHTS:

---

“The effect of order(s) made against persons not joined as a party is that such order is a nullity and of no effect… where person who ought to be joined to the suit had orders made against them by the trial judge, such proceedings ought to be a nullity, being a denial of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing.” – Per Bage, JSC

 

---

SCOPE OF JUDICIAL FINDINGS – LIMITATION TO PARTIES BEFORE THE COURT:

---

“A Court cannot pronounced against a person who is not a party before it.”- Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

COURT’S DUTY TO CONFINE ITSELF TO PARTIES’CASE:

---

“The law is trite, that a trial Court must not go outside the case presented by the parties, to make case for any party, and it must dwell within the confines of the credible evidence, adduced, to base its decision.”- Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONS – AUTHORITY OVER AFFILIATES:

---

“Having subordinated their Association (ICDA) to regulatory powers of the Ohaneze Ndigbo and Traditional Customs and Rules of the Igbos… the Claimants had brought themselves and their Association under the powers and control of the Ohaneze Ndigbo, to which it affiliated.”- Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

PERVERSITY OF FINDINGS – TRIAL COURT’S ERROR:

---

“The findings and decision of the trial Court was on a wild frolic and outside the confines of the case, when it attacked the Appellants and undermined their traditional powers over the Claimants and Defendants.” – Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

JUDICIAL BIAS – DESCENDING INTO ARENA:

---

“Certainly, the learned trial Judge, in my opinion, went beyond his brief and mandate; descended into the arena of conflict to take sides and make a case, different from what was presented.”- Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – IMPROPER SHIFTING:

---

“The trial Court appeared to have forgotten that the 1st and 2nd Respondents (as Claimants) were, in fact, counting on the support and ratification of the same Appellants (it vilified) to succeed.”- Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS – BINDING NATURE OF PARENT BODY DECISIONS:

---

“As affiliate, the ICDA was a member of the parent body and bound by the decision of the parent body.”- Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

CAUSE OF ACTION – LOCUS STANDI:

---

“Having not taken part in the said election by Igbo General Assembly (IGA) that produced 1st Defendant, certainly the Claimants had no ground to complain and had no cause of action against the Defendants.” – Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW – VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS:

---

“The intervention by the South East Council of Traditional Rulers (and later ratified by the Ohaneze Ndigbo) in the proscription and removal complained of were not restricted to the 1st Claimant and his Organization (ICDA), but directed against the two factions.”- Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

JUDGMENT AGAINST NON-PARTIES – NULLITY:

---

“It is also the Law, that a Court cannot pronounced against a person who is not a party before it.” – Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

JUDICIAL RESTRAINT – SCOPE OF FINDINGS:

---

“When an issue is not properly placed before the Court, the Court has no business whatsoever to deal with it.”- Per Musdapher, JSC

 

---

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – RESTRICTION TO PLEADINGS:

---

“Judges are not allowed by the law to speculate or conjecture on possible facts. They do not have such jurisdiction.”- Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1.Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT