H.R.M BENJAMIN IKENCHUKWU KEABONEKEZI & ORS V. UBOH SOLOMON IHEANMOSI EZERIOHANYE & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-02) Legalpedia 73475 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Asaba

Mon Feb 3, 2025

Suit Number: CA/AS/191/2020

CORAM

Ita George Mbaba Justice of the Court of Appeal

James Gambo Abundaga Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abdul-Azeez Waziri Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

1. H.R.M BENJAMIN IKENCHUKWU KEABONEKEZI
2. PA. GODWIN IMASUAN AGBOR
3. PA. JOSEPH

APPELLANTS

1. UBOH SOLOMON IHEANMOSI EZERIOHANYE
2. GOVERNMENT OF DELTA STATE
3. COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND CHIEFTAINCY AFFAIRS OF DELTA STATE
4. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DELTA STATE
5. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELTA STATE
6. CHIEF IKENCHUKWU OKOH
7. CHIEF ANTHONY ONWU OKONTA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, FAIR HEARING, PRELIMINARY OBJECTION, TRADITIONAL RULERS, COURT’S JURISDICTION, ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS, RATIO DECIDENDI

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case originated from a decision of the Delta State High Court, Asaba, in Suit No. AG/6/2018, delivered on 2nd June, 2020 by Hon. Justice C. N. Ogadi. The 1st Respondent (who was the Claimant at the lower Court) filed a suit seeking declarations that Ekuku-Agbor community in Ika South Local Government Area of Delta State has been an autonomous community under the headship of Uboh; that he was rightly installed as the Uboh of Ekuku-Agbor community in accordance with the customs and practice of Ekuku-Agbor; an order directing the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants to accord recognition to him as the Uboh and issue staff of office to him; and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from intimidating, harassing or deposing him as the Uboh of Ekuku-Agbor Community.

The Appellants (who were the 1st, 8th and 9th Defendants at the lower Court) filed a preliminary objection to the suit on the grounds of non-disclosure of a reasonable cause of action and lack of locus standi to sue. They contended that there was no dispute disclosed between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant/Appellant, that there was no registered declaration of Ekuku-Agbor as an autonomous community, and that under the Traditional Rules and Chiefs Law of Delta State, only the Obi of Agbor and Obi of Abavo are recognized monarchs in Ika South Local Government Area.

The 1st Respondent contested the preliminary objection by filing a counter-affidavit. After hearing arguments, the trial Court struck out the preliminary objection, stating that a similar application was previously filed by the 6th and 7th Defendants raising issues of the Claimant’s lack of capacity, authority and locus standi to institute the action, and the Court had already ruled on that application. Since that earlier decision had not been appealed against or set aside, it remained valid, binding, subsisting and presumed acceptable to parties.

Dissatisfied with this decision, the Appellants filed this appeal.

HELD

1. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.

2. The Court held that Appellants cannot complain of denial of fair hearing after having been fully heard, or given the opportunity to be heard, on the issues raised in their preliminary objection.

3.The Court found that the Appellants’ preliminary objection was similar to the one earlier filed by the 6th and 7th Respondents, which had already been ruled upon by the trial Court.

4. Since the earlier decision on a similar preliminary objection was not appealed against or set aside, it remained binding, valid and subsisting, and raising similar issues again amounted to an abuse of court process.

The Court ordered Appellants to pay a cost of N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) to the 1st Respondent.

ISSUES

1. Whether the trial Court’s refusal to pronounce on the merit of all the issues raised in the Preliminary Objection robbed the Appellants of their right to fair hearing?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – WHEN A PARTY CANNOT COMPLAIN OF DENIAL OF FAIR HEARING

Appellants cannot, sincerely, complain against being denied fair hearing by the trial Court, having been heard, fully, on the issues raised in the preliminary objection, which the Court considered to be akin to objection earlier raised by the 6th and 7th Respondents in the same case! One cannot complain of denial of fair hearing after he had been fully heard, or given opportunity to be heard. – Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – NEED TO FLOW FROM RATIO DECIDENDI OF JUDGMENT APPEALED AGAINST

…a ground of appeal (and issues for determination of appeal) must be founded on the judgment appealed against, flowing from the ratio decidendi of that decision, to be valid. See the case of OLAWOYE v. THE STATE (2022) LPELR -57832 (SC). “Appellate Courts are enjoined to examine the record in relation to the grounds of appeal filed and issues for determination; and “thereafter determine whether such issues were properly decided having regard to the evidence adduced by the Parties and the applicable laws– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

RATIO DECIDENDI – MEANING AND IMPORTANCE IN APPEALS

In the case of Amobi Vs Nzegwu & Ors (2013) LPELR -21863 (SC), the Supreme Court stated the meaning of “ratio decidendi” as: “the reason for deciding” or reasoning principle or ground upon which a case is decided; the legal principle formulated by the Court, which is necessary in the determination of the issue raised in the case, in other words, the binding part of the decision is its ratio decidendi, as against the remaining parts of the judgment, which merely constitute obita dicta.– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS – RAISING SIMILAR ISSUES ALREADY DECIDED UPON

Thus, having earlier dismissed the preliminary objection by 6th and 7th Respondents, which decision was not appealed against, nor set aside, it appeared to me to be an abuse of the Court process to raise those or similar issues again by Appellants (who were 1st, 8th and 9th Defendants) in the same case! – Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

VALIDITY OF UNAPPEALED JUDGMENTS – EFFECT OF NOT APPEALING AGAINST A DECISION

It is settled law, that the decision of Court not appealed, against, remains valid, binding subsisting and presumed acceptable to parties. I rely on ORUPABO & ORS. VS. PUAMBE & ORS (2014) LPELR 22673 CA. – Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

FAIR HEARING – OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT CASE AND BE HEARD

Responding, Counsel for the 1st Respondent, Gabriel Otor, Esq. (who settled the brief) said that Appellants were not denied fair hearing; that the motion which brought about this appeal, was heard on the merits and Appellants participated, in full, and the Court gave ruling, after hearing both sides and considering addresses.– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – MEANING UNDER SECTION 36(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION

He added that fair hearing within the meaning of Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of FRN, means a trial or hearing conducted according to all legal rules formulated to ensure that justice is done to all the parties; that it requires the observation of the twin pillars of rules of Natural justice — (audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua) — the rules to hear the other side of a dispute or right of a party in dispute to be heard.– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

POWERS OF COURT OF APPEAL – SECTION 15 OF COURT OF APPEAL ACT

Counsel urged us to invoke the provisions of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, and decide the issue of non-compliance with the condition precedent to instituting the action by the 1st Respondent. Alternatively, he prayed that the case be remitted back to the lower Court for another Judge to hear it.– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

TRADITIONAL RULERS AND CHIEFS LAW – RECOGNIZED MONARCHS

He referred us to Section 22(3)to(5) and the schedule to the Traditional Rules Council and Chiefs Law, Cap T2 Vol. 5, Laws of Delta State 2006 and to Exhibits ABC and D, which he said revealed that: (1) There are two monarchs in Ika South LGA, namely Obi of Agbor and Obi of Abavo; (2) The Ekuku-Agbor is under Agbor Kingdom.– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES – NEED TO EXHAUST DOMESTIC REMEDIES IN CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS

Counsel stated the relevant judicial decisions on Section 22(3)to(5) of the Schedule to the Traditional Rulers Council and Chiefs Law, on the need to exhaust domestic remedies as a chieftaincy matter as follows: UWANDI & ORS VS. EXECUTIVE GOV. DELTA STATE & 6 ORS. (2019) 22 WRN 151 AT 153; AYENI VS. OBASA (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 611) 1509 AT 1533; ADEYEMI VS. OJO (2004) ALL FWLR (PT. 233) 1798; ARIBISALA VS. OGUNYEMI (2005) ALL FWLR (PT. 252) 451; EGUAMWENSE VS. AMAGHIZEMWEN (1993) 9 NWLR (PT. 315) 1 AT 25.– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

HEARING OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – NEED TO HEAR PRELIMINARY OBJECTION ON THE MERITS

Counsel also relied on INT’L BEER & BEVERAGES LTD. VS. MUTUNCI CO. LTD. (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 670) 1253 AT 1281 to the effect that it is the statutory responsibility of all Courts to consider properly all issues placed before them and failure to do so will lead to denial of fair hearing which is capable of rendering the proceedings a nullity. – Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

CONDITION PRECEDENT TO INSTITUTING ACTIONS – IMPORTANCE OF FULFILLING CONDITION PRECEDENT

Counsel said the trial Court totally ignored these legal authorities which if it had averted its mind to would have found that a condition precedent to the institution of the case was not met; he said that the trial Court was pre-occupied with issues of locus standi earlier raised by the 6th and 7th Respondents, without considering the provision of the Chiefs Law of Delta State.– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

DUTY OF THE COURT – DECISION ON ALL APPLICATIONS BEFORE IT

Arguing the appeal on 5/12/2014, Appellants’ Counsel, C. F. Ebu, Esq. said that it is duty of the trial Court to pronounce on the merit all issues in every application brought before it. He relied on KEAZOR VS. IKEAZOR (1994) 5 NWLR (PT. 346) 609; ONYEDIBE VS. MADUEKWE (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 630) 1342 AND AFRO-CONTINENTAL LTD. VS. CAP. INC. (2003) FWLR (PT. 149) 1610 AT 1618, where it was held: “A Court must make a decision and pronounce on every application which is before it and failure to do so is a breach of fair hearing.– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Section 36(1)

2. Court of Appeal Act, Section 15

3. Traditional Rules Council and Chiefs Law, Cap T2 Vol. 5, Laws of Delta State 2006, Section 22(3)-(5) and Schedule

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT