PRINCE PAUL OMOMZUAWO & ANOR v. CHIEF YAKUBU UGBODAGA (JP) & ORS.

CORAM

OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

PARTIES

APPELLANTS

CHIEF YAKUBU UGBODAGA (JP)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

ACTION, APPEAL, CHIEFTAINCY MATTER, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, COURT, ESTOPPEL, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, RES JUDICATA, STATUTE,

SUMMARY OF FACTS

By a Writ of Summons and their 6th Amended Statement of Claim, the Appellants before the High Court of Edo State, Fugar Judicial Division, claimed against the Respondents for declaratory reliefs, Order of perpetual injunctions, amongst other reliefs. The action was instituted by the Appellant over Chieftaincy disputes relating to the appointment of the Annegbette Village headship and the Clan head of South Uneme Clan in Etsako Central Local Government Area of Edo State challenging the selection and appointment of the 1stRespondent as the Clan Head of South Uneme made on 3/9/80 by the 2nd Respondent. In reaction, the Respondents denied the Claims of the Appellants and by their 6th amended Statement of Defense challenged the competence of the Appellants’ suit on the ground that it was incompetent by reason of failure to comply with the provisions of Section 19(2) of the Traditional Rulers and Chiefs Edict 1979, a condition precedent prescribing the making of a complaint within 21 days of the appointment of a Traditional Ruler to the Executive Council of Edo State before an action challenging the appointment of the Traditional Ruler can be commenced in Court. The trial Court delivered its ruling in which it upheld the preliminary objection of the 1st Respondent and dismissed the Appellants’ Suit for being incompetent. The Appellants being dissatisfied with the said ruling, had appealed against it vide their Notice of Appeal containing four Grounds of Appeal

HELD

Appeal Allowed In Part

ISSUES

1. Whether from the Appellants’ Pleadings as contained in their Statement of Claim they have not shown substantial and sufficient compliance with the provision of Section 19 (2) of the Traditional Rulers and Chiefs Edict 1979?

2. Whether it is not an abuse of Court process to re-argue the issue of noncompliance with Section 19 (2) of the Traditional Rulers and Chiefs Edict 1979 after the issue had been previously raised by the 1stDefendant as noncompliance with Section 20 of the Chiefs Law Cap 37 Laws of Bendel State 1976 which is identical with the provision Section 19 (2) of the Traditional Rulers and Chief’s Edict 1979 and which had been argued and determined by the Court below?

3. Whether the Court below was right to dismiss the claim of the Appellants’ Suit for want of Jurisdiction?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

LACK OF JURISDICTION – EFFECT OF LACK OF JURISDICTION

My lords, the objection of the 1st Respondent challenging the Appellants’ Suit, and which was set down for hearing by the Court below dealt with the radical issue of competence, which is a threshold question of jurisdiction. In law the issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental to adjudication because it goes to the foundational competence of any cause or matter or action before the Court. It is indeed the epicenter of the entire litigation process and thus, without it there can be no validity in any proceedings or resultant judgment or ruling of the Court. Thus, without jurisdiction there can be no competence in the Court to exercise its adjudicatory powers. In such a sitaution, zealousness to do substantial justice, where there is no competnece, is not a virtue! It is simply over zealousnesss. This is so because ‘without jurisdiction, the laborers that is the litigant and counsel on the one hand and the court on the hand labor in vain’ See AG. Lagos State V. Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 552, per Kayode Eso JSC (God bless his soul). See also Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) SCNLR 341. See also Tukur V. Gongola State Government (No. 2) (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517; Western Steel Works Ltd. V. Iron & Steel Workers Union (1987) 1NWLR (Pt. 49) 284. – PER B. A. GEORGEWILL, J.C.A