CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

LUCKY AMADI

---

PRINCE OHAHURU AMADI

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

Not Available

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondents had initiated an action at the Rivers State High Court, by a Writ of Summons against the Appellants wherein they sought for a declaration that the Respondents who reside at No. 55 Rumuagholu Road, Rumuagholu Town Obio/Akpor Local Government Area of Rivers State, being their matrimonial home and family house of late Chief Godson O. Amadi, are entitled to its peaceful occupation and enjoyment without any interference of any kind and perpetual injunction restraining the Appellants. The Respondents’ claims before the lower Court was that they are sons and the 1st Claimant was the 3rd wife of late Chief Godson O. Amadi. and No. 55 Rumuagholu Road, Rumuagholu Town Obio/Akpor Local Government Area of Rivers State, was the family house and their matrimonial home; which they had continued to live in even after the demise of their father. That the Appellants seeks to eject the Respondents out of the house. In reaction, the Appellants stated that the 1st Claimant was never married to the late Chief Godson O. Amadi neither were the Respondents his son. That the 1st Claimant and Respondents only lived with late Chief Godson O. Amadi at one point or the other, spanning some years before his death, hence they cannot participate in the burial of late Chief Godson O. Amadi nor inherit any of his properties as they are not his children. The Appellants counter-claimed against the Respondents. At the end of the trial, the lower Court in its judgment dismissed the Appellants’ counter-claim and granted the Respondents reliefs. Aggrieved, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt vide their Notice of Appeal, which was later amended.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the trial Court was right to grant Respondents’ claims but dismissed the Appellants’ Counter-claim on ground that issues raised in Appellants’ pleadings and Counter claim are unconstitutional, vain and unenforceable and are issues that ought to have been raised during the life time of Chief Godson O. Amadi? Whether the trial court was right when it refused to act on the evidence adduced by the Appellants and their witnesses in proof of the Ikwerre Native Law and Custom governing marriage of Mrs. Sylverline Ahuruele Amadi and devolution of the property of late Chief Godson O. Amadi? Whether the trial Court was right in awarding cost of N100,000.00 against the Appellants and in favour of the Respondents?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PATERNITY OF A CHILD – POSITION OF THE LAW ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN IN STATING THE PATERNITY OF HER CHILD

---

“The law acknowledges the right of a woman to say who the father of his child is See. Anozia Vs. Nnani (2015) 8 NWLR (pt. 1461) P. 241.-

---

UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE – STATUS OF UNCHALLENGED DEPOSITIONS

---

“The deceased took pictures with the 2nd Claimant and gave the 1st and 2nd Claimants personal residence as he did for his other children. See paragraphs 10-12 of the unchallenged deposition of 2nd Claimant at the lower Court. See page 179 of the Record of Appeal. This deposition should be deemed accepted since they were not challenged. See Kopek Const. Coy Vs. Ekisola (2010) 3 NWLR pt.1182 P. 618”.-

---

LEGITIMACY OF A CHILD – WHETHER A PERSON CAN BE SUBJECT TO DEPRIVATION BY REASON OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS BIRTH

---

“It is in this respect that I fully agree with the finding of the learned trial Judge that the case of the Counter Claimants hinged on unconstitutionality. It confronts the provision of Section 42(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
Section 42(2) of the Constitution reads thus:
“No citizen of Nigeria shall be subjected to any disability or deprivation merely by reason of the circumstances of his birth.”
There is evidence that the 1st Claimant (mother of the 2nd and 3rd Claimants had access to Chief Godson O. Amadi at all material times. There is evidence that the 2nd and 3rd Claimants lived with Chief Godson O. Amadi in his life time and were never disclaimed. There was the evidence of 1st Claimant that the 1st and 2nd Claimants were children of Chief Godson O. Amadi. There was evidence that the deceased allowed the 1st – 3rd Claimants to stay with the remaining members of his family in his life time. The issue of validity of the marriage between 1st Claimant and the deceased Chief Godson O. Amadi is in view of the present state of the law in this country of no consequence. The Claimants cannot be subjected to deprivation by reason of the circumstances of their birth.-

---

CUSTOMARY LAW

---

NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM – APPLICABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF ANY CUSTOM WHICH IS REPUGNANT TO NATURAL JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE “The devolution of the property of late Chief Godson O. Amadi was not under Ikwerre Native Law and Custom and was not in doubt. However if the Native Law and Custom would operate to render the other children of Chief Godson O. Amadi (the 2nd and 3rd Claimants) homeless and destitute, such custom would be repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience. And it would be if such Native Law and Custom did not provide equitably for the other children of the deceased, as in this case, such Native Law and Custom would not be enforced.
In Agbai & Ors Vs. Okogbue (1991) 7 NWLR (pt. 204) 391,Nwokedi, JSC explained the reason thus:
“… Customary laws were formulated from time immemorial. As our society advances, they are more removed from its pristine social ecology. They meet situations which were inconceivable at the time they took root. The doctrine of repugnancy in my view afford the Courts the opportunity for fine tuning customary laws to meet changed social conditions where necessary, more especially as there is no forum for repealing or amending customary laws. I do not intend to be understood as holding that the Courts are there to enact customary laws. When however customary law is confronted by a novel situation, the Courts have to consider its applicability under existing social environment.”
–

---

PROOF – EFFECT OF FAILURE OF A PLAINTIFF TO PROVE ITS CASE

---

“Where Plaintiff fails to prove his case, the Defendant is entitled to cost. See Melifeonwu Vs. Adazie (1964) 1 ALL NLR 346. –

---

AWARD OF COSTS – INSTANCE WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT INTERFER WITH AN AWARD OF COST BY A TRIAL COURT

---

“I have deeply considered the amount of costs awarded, I am of the firm view that it is not excessive and therefore should not be disturbed. See Bobo Vs. Anthony (1931) 1 WACA 169. –

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)|Evidence Act Cap 112 LFN 1990|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---