CORAM
ADEMOLA CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
BRETT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
TAYLOR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BAIRAMIAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
JOSEPH JIDEOFOR ENWEZOR
APPELLANTS
JOSEPH OKWUDILI ONYEJEKWE & ANOR
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CHIEFTAINCY TITLE-DECLARATION-INJUNCTION-STRIKING OUT
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant’s action was struck out at the trial court as the court held that it had no jurisdiction to try the matter being one involving chieftaincy title
HELD
The Court held that the matter was of chieftaincy and that the Obi of Onitsha comes under the definition of a chief. therefore has abated under Sec. 158(4) of the Constitution of the Federation, and the objection was sustained.
ISSUES
Whether the matter before the Court is a chieftaincy matter
RATIONES DECIDENDI
THE ESSENCE OF A NATURAL RULER
“The essence of a natural ruler to our mind is that his “authority and control” be recognized by the men in his community over whom he is accepted as a “ruler”.” Per ADEMOLA, C.J.N
WHERE A COURT CAN REFUSE AN ORDER FOR PLEADING AND STRIKE OUT THE CLAIM ON SUBMISSIONS MADE TO IT
CASES CITED
Wright v. Prescot Urban Council 115 L.T. 772,
Electrical Development Company of Ontario v. Attorney-General of Ontario & Ano. [19191 A.C. 687
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Chiefs Law, No. 9 of 1960
Constitution of the Federation, 1963.
Constitution of Eastern Nigeria, 1963.
Recognition of Chiefs Law, Eastern Nigeria, E.R. No. 9 of 1960
Interpretation Ordinance, Cap. 89 of the 1958 Laws of the Federation