INYANG ETIM AKPAN VS THE STATE
July 4, 2025AGWAM OBIOHA VS CHIEF NWOFOR DURU
July 4, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1994) Legalpedia (SC) 19414
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Dec 16, 1994
Suit Number: SC. 143/1993
CORAM
M.L. UWAIS – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.B. WALI – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
M.E. OGUNDARE – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U. MOHAMMED – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
Y.O. ADIO – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
GRACE ABRAHAM AKPABIO APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Dr. Okechukwu, a former Senior Lecturer at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka was appointed and installed as the Oluoha, in December 1986. Before which, Eze J.M. Udoji was the incumbent who had been recognized by the Government of the State; Eze Udoji was still the recognized Oluoha when the respondent was appointed and installed as the Oluoha. The reason given for the action of the Okparas of the community was that Eze Udoji had not been seen in the community for about 5 years
HELD
The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the court below acquitting the respondent on the two counts for which he stood trial was set aside and restored the judgment of the trial High Court convicting him on those counts.
ISSUES
“(i) Were the learned Justices in the Court of Appeal right in placing the onus of proof that Eze J.M. Udoji was a life (sic) on the prosecution in view of Section 18(b) of the Traditional rulers Law No. 14 of 1981 of Anambra State under which the accused was charged.(ii) Were the orders for costs made in the Court of Appeal against the ‘private prosecutor’ supported by any law assuming but by no means conceding that a private prosecutor was even involved and should be allowed to stand?(iii) Having found that the accused actually held himself out as ‘the Oluoha of Ihiala’ are the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal right in failing to uphold the conviction and then sentencing the accused in terms of the successful cross-appeal, in view of the clear words of Section 19(a) of the Traditional Rulers Law No. 14 of 1981?(iv) After recognition of a Traditional Ruler by the Government under the relevant law to whom does the power to suspend or depose the Traditional Ruler belong, under the law?”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CASES CITED
Udove v. State (1967) NMLR 197
STATUTES REFERRED TO
