SUIT NO: HAM/72/2020- 1. MR. GODSPOWER EMENOGU 2. ELDER SUNDAY CHUKWUOCHA 3. NZE CHIDI CHUKWUOCHA 4. MR. OBED ANYANWU (Suing for themselves and as representing the people of Umuoriehi (Oriehi) Village in Eziama in Oporanadim Autonomous Community, Ahiazu Mbaise except any person or group of persons dissenting) VS. 1. H.R.H EZE LOUIS M. NWOKEKE 2. KENNETH CHIKA AGADA 3. ALOYSIUS OGOKE 4. ONESMUS OGOKE 5. GODFREY IWUANYANWU 6. SIMEON IBEKWE ANYANWU 7. JAMES NWAGWU 8. ZEPHANIAH ALOZIE – BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA-delivered ON FRIDAY THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023- Competence of action- mode of commencement of suit by Originating Summons and whether it was appropriate given the nature of the case – Abuse of court process- what constitutes an abuse of the judicial process-Interpretation and construction of documents-Parties in a representative capacity- the concept of parties in a representative capacity- Multiplicity of actions-whether the filing of multiple suits on the same subject matter, involving the same parties, and addressing similar issues constituted an abuse of court process.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF IMO STATE OF NIGERIA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MBAISE JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, AHIAZU MBAISE

ON FRIDAY THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA

SUIT NO: HAM/72/2020

BETWEEN:

MR. GODSPOWER EMENOGU
ELDER SUNDAY CHUKWUOCHA APPLICANTS
NZE CHIDI CHUKWUOCHA
MR. OBED ANYANWU

(Suing for themselves and as representing the people of Umuoriehi (Oriehi) Village in Eziama in Oporanadim Autonomous Community, Ahiazu Mbaise except any person or group of persons dissenting).

AND:

H.R.H EZE LOUIS M. NWOKEKE
KENNETH CHIKA AGADA
ALOYSIUS OGOKE
ONESMUS OGOKE
GODFREY IWUANYANWU RESPONDENTS
SIMEON IBEKWE ANYANWU
JAMES NWAGWU
ZEPHANIAH ALOZIE

JUDGMENT

By Originating Summons dated 19^th October 2020 and filed on 3^rd November 2020 the Applicants pray for the determination of the following questions:

Whether in view of a Community reading, construction and interpretation of EXHIBITS A, B, C annexed herein and more particularly section 2. page 1, Article 3(c) page 3 ARTICLE 8 (A) and ARTICLE 10 of EXHIBIT A being the EZESHIP, CHIEFTAINCY AND TRADITIONAL MATTERS 11^TH MAY 2012; and ARTICLE 1. SECTION (A) AS WELL AS THE SIGNATURE PAGE OF EXHIBIT B- Being the Constitution of EZIAMA TOWN ALADINMA UNION DATED 12^TH DECEMBER 2012; and Article 8(d) of Ezeship CONSTITUTION OF OPARANADIM AUTONOMOUS Community of 5^th April, 1979, the Applicants’ Village Umuoriehi is not the first son and “Di-Opara” of Eziama and the most senior of all the Villages in Eziama Oparanadim in order of inheritance, succession and seniority.
Whether by ties of affinity and or consanguinity, Umuoriehi Village is not one of the (7) Seven villages in Eziama namely Umuoriehi, Umuabazu, Umuduruahuru, Umuololochie/Uzu, Umuezevum, Umuekele and Umulomo as per Exhibits A, B, C.
If the Honourable Court finds and holds that the Applicants Umuoriehi Village is the 1^st Village, the most senior village and Di-Opara of Eziama Oparanadim Autonomous Community, Whether it is proper and Constitutional for the 1^st Respondent working alone and/or in concert with other Respondents to deny Umuoriehi Village its status as an Independent Village on its own, its proper place and recognition as “Di-Opara” Eziama in sharing things of common heritage, government largesse and palliative or donation from Non-Governmental Organizations and even Governmental.
Whether by working with only Six (6) villages instead of seven, the act or action of the 1^st Respondent in segregating, discriminating and/or excluding Umuoriehi village from participating or sitting in Council, and other meeting of the Community is not unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of the Constitutions.
Whether the Applicants have made out a Case warranting the grant of the reliefs sought?

Based upon the issues raised above, the Applicants pray for the following reliefs

A declaration that Umuoriehi Village is the most senior village in Eziama Oparanadim Autonomous Community.
A declaration that Eziama in Oparanadim Autonomous Community as constituted has (7) seven distinct ancestral villages namely Umuoriehi, (Oriehi) Umuabazu, Umuduruahuru, Umuololochie/Uzu, Umuezevum, Umuekele and Umulomo.
A declaration that Umuoriehi Village and (6) six other villages namely Umuabazu, Umuduruahuru, Umuololochie/Uzu, Umuezevum, Umuekele and Umulorno are direct descendants or progenitors of Eziama.
A declaration that Umuoriehi Village is and had been independent from time immemorial and in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution.
An order of this Honourable Court directing the 1st Respondent and indeed all the Respondent to accord proper recognition to Umuoriehi Village as the 1st son (Di Opara) and most senior village in Eziama.
An order directing the 1^st Respondent to restore all rights, privileges and status of Umuoriehi Village that enure to her as the first son of Eziama including items denied the village as palliative at the Heat of Covid-19 Pandemic.
An order of Perpetual Injunction Restraining the Respondent, their servants, agents, assigns, workmen and anybody claiming to represent them from further harassing and discriminating against the people of Umuoriehi Village and of treating it as non- existing Village or a Sub existing village in Eziama in Oparanadim Autonomous Community
Any other order that this Honourable Court may deem necessary in the circumstance.

Affidavit in support of the facts relied upon is deposed to by Godspower Emenogu the 1^st Applicant. He deposed: I have the consent of the other Applicants in this Suit to depose to this Affidavit. I am the current Secretary of Umuoriehi Village Aladinma while the 2^nd and 3^rd Applicants are the current Chairman and Nze of Umuoriehi Village respectively. The 4^th Applicant is the current Chairman of Home and Abroad meeting of Umuoriehi Village which is of Eziama in Oparanadim Autonomous Community.

The 1^st Defendant who is the Traditional Ruler of Oparanadim Autonomous Community alongside the other Respondents are discriminating against the leadership seniority or 1^st sonship status of my Village as “Di-Opara” Eziama. The 2^nd Respondent is the outgoing current President-General of our Town Union, who has been working in liaison with the 1^st Respondent. The 3^rd Respondent is the current Chairman of Umuabazu Village Aladinma, which is the village of HRH Eze Louis M. Nwokeke the 1^st Respondent. The 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 7^th and 8^th Respondents are the current Chairmen of Umuduruahuru, Umuololochie/Uzu, Umuezevum, Umuekele and Umulomo villages’ Aladinma respectively. The Umuoriehi Village is the most senior Village and “Di-Opara” Eziama in Traditional ranking in Eziama in Oparanadim Autonomous Community. The 1^st Respondent alongside other Respondents who are members of the Traditional Council, Agents have altogether been subordinating and subjudicating our village Umuoriehi (Oriehi) to the status of a mere kindred. Since the 1^st Respondent assumed office as Eze on or about 2013 he has been excluding my village from participating in any cultural and Traditional activities, ceremonies and functions of our Community, denying my village its status as a village and as Di-Opara of Eziama in Oparanadim.

Since the 1^st Respondent ascended the throne as the Traditional Ruler of our Community he has been making desperate efforts to undermine the status of our village and rob our village (Umuoriehi) our God-ordained status from time immemorial as Di-Okpara and most Senior and Independent Village in Eziama Oparanadim. All the Respondents have been holding meetings together to the total exclusion of my village (Umuoriehi) except on occasions they want to hoodwink and use my village to do a work and or collect levies and thereafter dump my village whenever there are dividends accruing to the villages in Eziama.

The 1^st Respondent asserts everywhere he goes that Eziama is made up of six villages instead of 7 villages as provided for by our constitutions and as inherited from our forebears. The existence of our village as the most senior village in Eziama Oparanadim Autonomous Community apart from been recognized by the Customs, Culture, Ethos, Norms and Traditional of the people of Eziama is also a creation of the various constitutions and Instruments that regulate and govern the people of Eziama. The life and Ethos as well as the general Welfare and Administration of the people of Oparanadim Autonomous Community are regulated by The Ezeship, Chieftaincy And Traditional Matters Constitution Of Oparanadim Autonomous Community dated 11^th May, 2012 annexed and marked ,EXHIBIT “A”, The Constitution Of Eziama Town Aladinma Union dated 12^th DECEMBER, 2012 marked EXHIBIT “B” as well as Ezeship Constitution Of Oparanadim Autonomous Community of 5^TH April 1979 annexed and marked EXHIBIT “C”.

These Constitutions affirm the distinctiveness of the 7 villages in Eziama namely: Umuoriehi (Oriehi), Umuabazu, Umuduruahuru, Umuololochie/Uzu, Umuezevum, Umuekele and Umulomo villages. Before the 1^st Respondent ascended the throne as Eze, all the 7 (seven) G villages in Eziama Oparanadim had their respective Nzes namely 1. Nze Chidi Chukwuocha (Umuoriehi village) 2. Nze Godwin Onyemauche Enwereji (Umuabazu village) 3. Nze Raymond Nwosu (Umuduruahuru village) 4. Nze Jude Agu (Umuololochie/Uzu village) 5. Nze Kerian Obasi (Umuezevum village) 6. Nze Romanus Kalu (Umuekele village) and 7. Nze Augustine Egbughara (Umulomo village). The 1^st Defendant is vigorously fighting, harassing, intimidating, humiliating and oppressing my village and relegating my village to a kindred status because somebody from my village contested the Ezeship stool with him.

In the Month of April, 2020 our sons and daughters in United States of America sent palliative/relief materials to entire Eziama Community which were shared by the Respondents and they excluded my village (Umuoriehi). That my village was denied all the palliatives received from the State government. The actions of the Respondents are discriminatory and oppressive against my village Umuoriehi Village and 1^st Respondent and others do not permit my village Nze to sit in the Cabinet meetings and do not allow the participation of my village as 1^st son village in cultural and customary rites. The Respondents will not be prejudiced by the orders sought. It has become necessary for the Court to interpret relevant provisions of these constitutions annexed hereto to state their True imports regarding our statues. There is urgent need to interpret the Constitutions of our Community along with other operational documents and instruments of the Community to set the Records straight and stop the Community from Drifting into constitutional crisis.

In the accompanying written address, the counsel formulated issues for determination as

Whether in view of a Community reading, construction and Interpretation of Exhibits A, B, C annexed herein and more particularly section 2 page 1, Article 3( c) page 3, Article 8 (A) And Article 10, Of Exhibit A being the Ezeship, Chieftaincy and Traditional Matters Constitution Of Oparanadim Autonomous Community dated 11^th May 2012; and Article 1. Section (A) As Well As The Signature Page Of Exhibit B- Being The Constitution Of Eziama Town Aladinma Union dated 12^th December 2012; and Article 8 (D) Of Ezeship Constitution Of Oparanadim Autonomous Community of 5^th April, 1979, the Applicants’ Village Umuoriehi is not the first son and “Di-Opara” of Eziama, and the most senior of all the Villages in Eziama Oparanadim in order of Inheritance, Succession and Seniority.
Whether by ties of affinity and or consanguinity, Umuoriehi Village is not one of the (7) Seven villages in Eziama namely Umuoriehi, Umuabazu, Umuduruahuru, Umuololochie/Uzu, Umuezevum, Umuekele and Umulomo as per Exhibits A, B, C.
If the Honourable Court finds and holds that the Applicants Umuoriehi Village is the 1st Village, the most senior village and Di-Opara of Eziama Oparanadim Autonomous Community, Whether it is proper and Constitutional for the 1^st Respondent working alone and/or in concert with other Respondents to deny Umuoriehi Village its status as an Independent Village on its own, its proper place and recognition as “Di-Opara” Eziama in sharing things of common heritage, government largesse and palliative or donation from Non-Governmental Organizations and even Governmental.
Whether by working with only Six (6) villages instead of seven, the act or action of the 1st Respondent in segregating, discriminating and/or excluding Umuoriehi village from participating or sitting in Council, other meeting of the Community is not unconstitutional and ultra vives the provisions of the Constitutions.
Whether the Applicants have made out a Case warranting the grant of the reliefs sought?

ARGUMENT

According to the counsel, the Applicants filed this instant Originating Summons seeking the Reliefs adumbrated on the face of the Originating Summons brought pursuant to Order 3 Rule 8 of Imo State Civil High Court Procedure Rules 2017. Sequel to the above, the Applicants filed this Application for the interpretation of the said Exhibit in favor of the Applicant. In support of this Summons is a twenty four [24] paragraph Affidavit deposed to by Godspower Emenogu to which three [3] Exhibits: Exhibits, A, B, C, are annexed.

The counsel craved the indulgence of this honorable Court to adopt and rely upon all the paragraphs of the Affidavit in support and the Exhibits annexed thereto in urging the Court to grant the reliefs sought in the Originating Summons.

It is stated that the gravamen of the case of the Applicants is that having regards to the clear and compelling provisions of Sections of the EXHIBITS this honorable Court is under the solemn and bounden constitutional duty to interpret, construct, enforce and give effect to relevant sections in these Exhibits. It is now elementary that in the construction or interpretation of statues, clear and unambiguous words used in a statue or enactments are to be given their ordinary and natural meanings. See NYESOM Vs PETERSIDE (2018)7 NWLR (PT.1512) PG 452, OJOKOLOHO Vs ALAMU (1987) 3 NWLR (PT. 61) PG 377, ADISA Vs OYINWOLA (2000)10 NWLR (PT. 674) PG 116 respectively.

According to the counsel the pith and substance of the Applicants, case is that having regards to the Exhibits annexed to the Affidavit in support of the Originating Motion namely; Exhibits A, B, C, Applicants village Umuorioehi otherwise called (Oriehi) is the most senior village in Eziama and enjoys Independent, and Social, Cultural and Traditional Status of a village.

The counsel stated that to buttress this submission, the attention of this Court is invited to salient portions of Exhibits A, B, C, respectively in order to drive home their point. It is submitted that the Language of the various Constitutions regarding the number of villages in Eziama are clear.

It is submitted by that a document must be read holistically, not in fragments so as to garner the intention of the author. In order to read the mind of a maker or author of document, it is necessary to subject such document to an appropriate rule of interpretation that a passage is first interpreted by reference to what follows it. This makes it mandatory for one to read the whole passage or document and every part of it should be taken into account. See, F.R.N. vs. Dariye (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1265) P. 521. See also, Nigeria Army v. Aminun-Kano (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1188) 429; Agbareh v. Mimra (2008) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1071) 378.

It is submitted that in the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, a Court is mandated to take into account some variable factors as paramount consideration. The approach of the Court should be one of liberalism, probably a variation on the theme of the general maxim ut res magis va/eat quarn pereat. It is not the duty of a Court to construe any of the provisions of the Constitution to defeat the obvious ends the Constitution was designed to serve where another construction equally in accord and consistent with the words and senses of such provisions will serve to enforce and protect such ends. See, F.R.N. vs. Dariye (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1265) P. 521.

It is submitted that where the words of a statute are plain and free from ambiguity, as in the present case same should be given their ordinary grammatical meaning. See A. G., Nasarawa State vs. A. G; Plateau State. Suit No. SC 214/2007. Also cited in (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1309) p. 419.

The Court is urged to interpret all the Sections and Articles mentioned in issue No.1 in their liberal meaning.

In the interpretation of constitutional provisions, the Court should, whenever possible and in the interest of justice, lean to the broader interpretation unless there is something in the text or in the rest of the Constitution indicating that the narrower interpretation will best carry out the objects and purposes of the Constitution. See, A.G., Nasarawa State vs. A.G; Plateau State. Suit No. SC 214/2007. Also cited in (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1309) p. 419. See also, Rabiu v. State (1980) 8 – 11 SC 130.

It is submitted that having regards to the tenor of relevant Sections and Articles of ‘Exhibits A, B, C, regarding the status of the Applicants Village – Umuoriehi, the village is a full and Independent village that had been in existence from time immemorial and even long before the 1st Respondent became the Traditional Ruler of Oparanadim Autonomous Community.

It is submitted that the Ezeship Constitution of Oparanadim Autonomous’ Community of 1979 that gave Birth to all other constitution defined constituent villages that made up Oparanadim as it then was. When it came to Opara Nweke which is Eziama that constitution clearly placed Umuoriehi as the first village.

It is submitted in conclusion, that the Applicants have made out a Case warranting the grant of the Reliefs Sought. According to the counsel, to illuminate his arguments ante, he respectfully submitted in summary as detailed infra:

Exhibit A found conclusively that Applicants are indigenes of Umuoriehi village in Eziama Oparanadim Autonomous Community.
Applicants’ village is distinctly and clearly placed topmost in the hierarchy of villages in Eziama.
Applicants village is the most senior in the Order of Seniority
That there are (7) seven villages that make up Eziama Oparanadim
Exhibits A, B and C show that there are (7) seven “NZE” with each NZE presenting each of the (7) seven villages.
The Constitution upon which the 1^st Respondent was made an Eze or Traditional Ruler clearly mapped out Umuoriehi as a component village.

It is submitted that this in-depth and exhaustive examination of facts contained in the Affidavit, is to assist this Hon. Court in coming to a conclusion, that the only Relief that can flow from the pen of the Court that will meet the justice of the Case is one which will confirm the seniority ladder and the village status of the Applicants village as the PRIMUS INTERPERES of all the villages .of Eziama Oparanadim Autonomous Community.

Further and Better Affidavit is deposed to by Godspower Emenogu. He deposed: I deposed to the Originating Affidavit in Support and have been shown a copy of the 1^st Respondent’s Counter-Affidavit dated 18^th February 2021. Paragraph 1 of the said Counter-Affidavit is only correct to the extent that the Deponent is the 1^st Respondent on record, the rest of that paragraph is false. That in further answer to the above, the 1st Respondent works and sits in his Cabinet meetings with elected village Chairmen Representatives in the (Eze) 1^st Respondent Council/Cabinet to the exclusion of my own village representative. The 1^st Respondent who now queries why he was sued alongside other Respondents immediately dissolved the Association of Village Chairmen in his Cabinet by FIAT as soon as the 1^st Respondent was served with this Suit. That the persons sued alongside the 1^st Respondent are proper as well as Desirable parties elected by their villages as their representatives to work with the 1^st Respondent in his Council/Cabinet and in further denial of paragraph 2, all the Respondents are members of the Town Union. I am informed by my lead Counsel, Chief Noel Agwuocha Chukwukadibia; that all the parties sued are proper parties. The dissolution of the Village Chairmen and its association by the 1^st Respondent by FIAT is an aftermath of the Suit as 1^st Respondent felt betrayed when he could not secure their signatures to authenticate his purported and imaginary six village structure. There is no liability or defect attached to any of the Respondents and this confers jurisdiction on the Court; The present Suit No. HAM/72/2020 does not constitute Abuse of Court Process. This Suit No. HAM/72/2020 is Dissimilar to Suit No. HAM/61/2012 as parties are not the same, and subject matter is not the same. In Suit No. HAM/61/2012 both the Governor of Imo State, Attorney-General and Chairman, Ahiazu Mbaise. Local Government Council were made parties. None of the 22 Defendants in that Suit and the 1^st Respondent in suit No HAM/72/2020 is a Defendant. That the issue of exclusion, segregation, subjugation and discrimination are FRESH DEVELOPMENTS arising after the 1^st Respondent had become a Traditional Ruler and outside of the subject matter of Suit No. HAM/61/2012; The Applicants are seeking the Interpretation and Construction of Documents/Instruments and have come by way of Originating Summons as allowed by Imo State High Court Civil Procedure Rules in dealing with non contentious issues such as this; this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this Suit; the 1^st Respondent has conceded on Oath that he has been excluding the Applicants Village Umuoriehi from sitting, or participating in Traditional and Cultural activities since the 1^st Respondent became the Traditional Ruler; the 1^st Respondent conceded that the Applicants Village Umuoriehi is the most senior in Traditional ranking as well as did not specifically deny the fact that he has been excluding the people of Umuoriehi village from participating of customary events and Ceremonies.

Paragraph 5 of the Counter-Affidavit is not true. The truth is that the 1^st Respondent prefers to deal with six villages administratively instead of seven villages when there is something to share but when there is work to be done Umuoriehi village will be included. Paragraph 6 of the Counter-Affidavit is not true. The 1^st Respondent did not deny that the 2^nd Respondent is the acting President-General of the Town Union who worked with the 1^st Respondent both at the defunct Community Government Council and in the community. In further answer to paragraph 6 to Counter-Affidavit, the 2^nd Respondent must not be the maker of the constitution sought to be interpreted before he can have Locus. Exhibit ELI of paragraph 6 of the Counter-Affidavit particularly paragraphs, 1, 2, of the 1^st Respondents letter to Hon. Speaker Imo State House of Assembly dated 20-09-2016 abundantly show 2^nd Respondent Chika Agada working in concert with the 1^st Respondent in his Council. Paragraph 7 of the Counter-Affidavit, the Applicants do not have to be makers of the constitution to have Locus to seek the interpretation of same given that the 1^st Respondent usually work in his Council with six village Chairmen in exclusion of the Applicants village Chairman. Anybody born in this community and who is subject to the constitution, and who is a Tax Payer can seek to know the import or clarifications of the constitutional provisions.

Paragraph 8 of the Counter-Affidavit is an admission that Umuoriehi Village is most senior. Paragraph 9 of the Counter-Affidavit is false. The truth is that 1^st Respondent does not and has not allowed the participation or involvement of the people of Umuoriehi village in any cultural and traditional ceremony such as “Ala-Ubi” as a village in addition to denying the village chairman the right of place or representation in the Eze’s Council/Cabinet. Paragraph 10 of Affidavit of the Applicants was not denied by 1^st Respondent specifically. In further, answer to paragraph 10 Oriehi Village is standing alone. It is not true that “Abazu na Oriehi” is number one in Traditional ranking in the Community. Oriehi is number one, Abazu is number two. There is no polling Booth designated as Oriehi and Abazu Village polling Booth in the Community. Paragraph 11 of the Counter-Affidavit is false to the extent that the 1^st Respondent stated that traditionally “ABAZU NA ORIEHI” is number one in ranking in the Community, and their names are used interchangeably. Oriehi is number one village and does not share that position with Abazu which is number two village. Paragraph 12 of the Counter-Affidavit is not true. The truth is that Exhibits A, B are extant & relevant to the day-to-day Administration of Oparanadim Autonomous Community and Eziama Aladinma respectively. Exhibits A, B, C specifically mentioned Oriehi as Opara and number one in traditional seniority and numerically. They are documents of history, constitution and Ethos of the people of Eziama Oparanadim. In further answer to the above, Exhibit B is the extant constitution that regulates/governs the administration of Aladinma of the Community. Exhibit C which is the constitution which governed erstwhile Oparanadim Autonomous Community is a historical document for which the Court is urged to undertake community reading and construction in order to facilitate the appraisal of issues and facts before the Court. Paragraph, 13 of the Counter Affidavit is an admission of the seven village structure by the 1^st Respondent. In further answer to paragraph 13, the 1^st Respondent did not deny the fact that Nze Chidi Chukwuocha was Nze representing Umuoriehi as a village in the previous cabinet. The truth is that whenever the 1^st Respondent wants to extract money or do some jobs in the villages, he resorts to the use of 7 villages structure; and immediately thereafter he resorts and reverts back to use of 6 villages administratively. This brings confusion and near crisis in the Community. Paragraph 14 of the Counter-Affidavit is denied. None of the Applicants contested the Ezeship with the 1^st Respondent. The issue here is not chieftaincy matter. The issue concerns exclusion, subjugation, segregation as well as the use of six villages for Administrative convenience. Paragraph 15 of the Counter-Affidavit is false. The truth is that, there is established leadership in Umuoriehi Village which includes the Nze Chidi Chukwuocha – the 3^rd Applicant and the executive of village Aladinma. No member of the Executive of village Aladinma including the Oriehi village chairman was allowed to get close during the sharing of the Covid pandemic largess by 1^st Respondent. Paragraph 16 of the Counter-Affidavit is false. The truth is that the Applicants did not plant any of the Respondents to destroy or weaken the Respondents defence. Paragraph 17 of the Counter-Affidavit is not true. The Court is only being urged to interpret and construct specified Areas of the various constitutions-Exhibits A, B, C, and particularly Exhibit A and Exhibit B particularly and not whip up sentiment in interpreting the constitutions and making consequential orders which will not in any way prejudice or ridicule the 1^st Respondent. Granting the orders will straighten the operation of the constitution Exhibit A and save the Community from Crisis. Paragraph 18 of the Counter-Affidavit is not true. The truth is that the 1^st Respondent raised the issue of 7 villages as constitutionally provided and clearly stated that 1^st Respondent deals with six (6) villages for administration convenience thereby necessitating the Court to interpret the constitution to bring out the intendment of the constitution.

The further and better affidavit is accompanied by written address. On proper parties it is submitted that proper party is one made a party for good reason though not ordinarily a party. (good reason depends on facts of each Case) Desirable Parties whose interests are affected by the results of the Suit. It is submitted that the 1^st Respondent intentionally and freely referred to EXHIBIT A as, “the offending constitution” in line (3) three of their Argument under the issue B. The above is an admission by the 1^st Respondent that something is wrong inherently with the Constitution Exhibit A. In his Exhibit EL2, 1^st Respondent alluded to the existence of a certain village called “ABAZU/UMUORIEHI” which is not so called in the constitution “EXHIBIT A” In paragraph 1.02 of the 1^st Respondent’s written submission and in paragraph 12 of his Counter-Affidavit, 1^st Respondent conceded he became the Traditional Ruler of Oparanadim Autonomous Community on the basis of Exhibit “A” which is extant. The complaint of the Applicants is against the actions of the Respondents in discriminating against the Applicants village by treating it as kindred which are not in consonance to the provisions of “EXHIBIT A”. Applicants complain against the way and manner as well as placement of Applicants village as a mere kindred and not a village.

It is submitted that the 1^st Respondent being the Traditional Ruler whose acts or actions are been challenged is a proper person to be made Party in the Suit. it is submitted that the rest of the Respondents meet and hold Council with 1^st Respondent, without caring or asking for the whereabouts or absence of any or the representative of Umuoriehi village. When it comes to sharing of government largesse and palliatives in addition to participating in Cultural activities in the Community, all the Respondents exclude the Applicants village from participating. The submission of the 1^st Respondents Counsel that because the Respondents are not the makers of the constitutions sought to be interpreted and therefore ought not to have been sued, is a misconception of the law. It is submitted that the Respondents are competent parties as Applicants are also competent. All the parties took part in the making of the Constitutions particularly EXHIBITS A and B either directly or in a representative capacity.

The persons qualified to ask questions and seek clarification from or about the constitutions are persons directly affected by the constitution, such as the Applicants and Respondents like. However, in this context or circumstance it is the Respondents and more particularly, the 1^st Respondent that is manipulating the provisions of EXHIBIT “A” while the 2^nd – 8^th Respondents who work with the 1^st Respondent are liable to proffer answers for keeping unduly quiet in the presence of wrong doings by the 1^st Respondent. Thus all the Respondents jointly and severally segregate against the Applicants village by further subjugating the Applicants village to a kindred status. Humbly referred to EXHIBIT EL2, where the 1^st Respondent did not hide his disdain for Applicants village by referring ABAZU/UMUORIEHI as a village.

It is submitted that 1^st Respondent needs not be the maker of the constitution to be made party. Likewise, the rest of the Respondents need not be makers of the constitution before they can bring the action. It is submitted that in so far as the 1^st Respondent is the Traditionally Ruler of the Community and one whose actions seem to be running against the spirit of the EXHIBIT “A”, 1^st Respondent is one to be made a party and has been so named. All the Respondents who sit together to hold meetings and are affected are proper parties to the Suit.

It is contended that as soon as the 1^st Respondent was served a copy of this Suit, the 1^st Respondents immediate reaction was to dissolve and abrogate the leadership of the committee of village chairmen which is a committee of elected village representative in the cabinet, and who are sued here as 3^rd to 8^th Respondents. The Case of NWORKA VS ONONEZE MADU (2019)7 NWLR (PT. 1672) 422 e 429 R 14 cited by the 1^st Respondent is distinguishable and does not apply in the instant Case. The case Nworka vs. Ononeze – Madu deals on the issue of Locus which ironically the 1^st Respondent is not complaining about. It is submitted that it is trite that every litigant chooses whom to sue. The Applicants sued proper parties and that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the Suit as constituted. The 3^rd – 8^th Respondents are a group of elected village chairmen who sit with the 1^st Respondent in his Council but who knowing that Eziama is made of 7 villages, but would not ask questions or challenge the 1^st Respondent on his continued exclusion of the village or discriminating against the Umuoriehu village. All the Respondents are jointly liable for sharing Humanitarian largesse and palliatives to the total exclusion of Umuoriehi Village. When the 1^st Respondent celebrated the cultural “ALAUBI” festival, for the past 3 years they all excluded Umuoriehi Village from participating as a village in spite of it being a village from time immemorial.

On abuse of the judicial process it is trite that “jurisdiction is determined by the Plaintiffs’ claim or Relief. In other words, it is the claim before the Court that has to be looked at or examined to ascertain whether or not it comes within the jurisdiction conferred on that Court”. It is submitted that the parties in that Suit HAM/61/2012 are radically different from parties in the present Suit. See “EXHIBIT EL” in paragraph 3(6) of the 1^st Respondents Counter-Affidavit. The 1^st Respondent H.R.H Louis Nwokeke was not sued and rather the Court will find as follows: the name of the 1^st Respondent, HRH Louis Nwokeke is not contained anywhere in EXHIBIT “EL”; subject matter in that Suit No. HAM/61/2012 is not the same as subject matter in the present Suit; the Suit No. HAM/61/2012 concerns selection, installation, presentation of Ezeship candidate in a chieftaincy matter and not on the number of villages; present Suit has as its main claim exclusion, segregation, subjugation and discrimination leading to the quest for construction, interpretation of selected sections of the relevant constitutions – EXHIBITS ‘A’ ‘B’ ‘C’ and more particularly, EXHIBIT ‘A; It is submitted that the subject matter in the two Suits are different.

It is submitted that the two suits are not talking about seniority of Umuoriehi village/ kindred over other villages. It is submitted that the parties are not the same and the present Suit harps on subjugation of the Applicants village to the status of a kindred. It is submitted that the presence of CHIDI CHUKWUOCHA in both Suits out of the whole lot does not make the subject matter or parties the same. Besides, the issue of exclusion, discrimination, subjugation, segregation is entirely a fresh development arising after the Suit No. HAM/61/2012 had been instituted and after the 1^st Respondent had become the Traditional Ruler and evolved his own type of Administrative style.

The “Declaration” in Suit No. HAM/61/2012 refers to “direct Biological sonship of Eziama” whereas the present Suit in harping on the status of Umuoriehi, ie whether it is a village or a kindred or whether it is lawful to exclude Umuoriehi in participating in cultural activities and Ezeship Council in the Autonomous Community, and whether it is right for the 1^st Respondent to refer to “ABAZU/UMUORIEHI” as a village or threat the two villages as one and at the same time rely and use (6) Six villages for “Administrative Convenience” when the Constitution has not said so.

The two reliefs stated by the 1^st Respondent and extracted from the two suits are clearly distinguishable. The relief in Suit No:- HAM/61/2012 as stated seeks two clear relief: (1) Declaration or sonship and this Declaration constitutes the principal relief: the issue of Headship of Umuoriehi is merely ancillary to the Declaration of sonship because once sonship is established; the sequence of occurrence among other sons becomes implied. The counsel reproduced paragraph 3.10 of the 1^st Respondent brief of Argument and submitted that the present Suit No. HAM/72/2020 is dissimilar to Suit No. HAM/61/2012 and subject matter is not same. In Suit No. HAM/61/2012 the Governor of Imo State, Attorney-General and Chairman, Ahiazu Mbaise Local Government Council were made parties are not same. Whereas HAM/61/2012 is talking about direct biological son of Eziama and the head of Eziama village this present Suit is complaining about discrimination, subjugation and congregation against the Plaintiffs village by the Respondent as the main cause of action. Assuming but without conceding their similarity, it is submitted further that exclusion, segregation, subjugation, and discrimination against the Applicants is. the 1^st Respondent is a “Fresh Development’’ arising since the 1st Respondent became the traditional ruler against the backed up of constitutional provision. The 1^st Respondent has argued that the Plaintiffs process filed on 3/11/2020 constitutes an abuse of judicial process. It is a misconception of the law.

It is submitted that citing and sighting Nze Chidi Chukwuocha in both Suits do not amount to abuse of Judicial Process. There is a fresh development in the current/present. Relied on Central Bank of Nigeria v Saidu H Ahmed & Ors Amaefule v The State (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.75) 156 at 177.

The Applicants are seeking the interpretation and construction of Documents/Instruments and have come by way of Originating Summons as allowed by Imo State High Court Civil Procedure Rules in dealing with none contentious issues such as this. The Hon. Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this Suit which main trunk is the 1^st Respondents intentional and deliberate exclusion of the Applicants village – Umuoriehi from sitting or participating in traditional and cultural activities since the 1^st Respondent became the Traditional Ruler, hence he is being called upon to explain his actions against the Applicants knowing fully well that the Applicants have a village and ought to be treated as such and not as a kindred. See paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, of Applicants further and Better Affidavit. REFERENCE TO Exhibit E – being a Writ of Summons in Suit No HAM/61/2012 by 1^st Respondent is misleading. We further refer the Hon. Court to 1^st Respondents “EXHIBIT EL2” at paragraph 9 of his Counter-Affidavit and submit that 1^st Respondent referred to “ABAZU/ORIEHI” a village. Apart from stating in his submission that the 1^st Respondent is using six villages instead of seven villages for Administrative convenience. It is submitted that this Hon. Court has jurisdiction to entertain this Suit in the absence of any inhibiting factor even as raised by the 1st Respondent.

On the appropriateness of originating summons, it is reiterated that “Jurisdiction is determined by the Plaintiff’s claim or relief. In other words, it is the claim before the Court that has to be looked at or examined to ascertain whether or not it comes within the jurisdiction conferred on that Court.” It is submitted that the Cause of action is for the interpretation of relevant sections of the constitution(s).- the same Exhibit A which the 1^st Respondent refer to as the, “offending Constitution” The 1^st Respondent had in various places in the Counter Affidavit and written Argument mentioned or given reasons for treating the two distinct villages of “Umuoriehi” and “Abazu” as ONE ENTITY OR VILLAGE for, “ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE” even when the Constitution has not said so. See paragraph 13 of the Counter -Affidavit. It is submitted that this requires the interpretation of the Court. This can only be done by ORIGINATING SUMMONS.

Again under ISSUE B paragraph 3.08 of the 1^st Respondent Argument dated 18/2/2021, the 1^st Respondent referred to EXHIBIT A as the “offending constitution”. It is submitted that the use of the words, “offending Constitution” is an admission by 1^st Respondent that there are issues in the “Exhibit A” which require clarifications which only this Hon. Court can do by interpretation and construction which can only be achieved by way of originating summons Procedure.

In the treatment of this Issue, counsel referred to Applicants paragraph 18 of supporting Affidavit Vis-a-vis paragraph 14 of the 1^st Respondents and submitted that the 1^st Respondent did not deny specifically averment in paragraph 18 admitting that 1^st Respondent has been relegating Applicants village to the a kindred level contrary to the provision of the Exhibits A- being the Ezeship, Chieftaincy, And Traditional Matters Constitution Of Oparandim Autonomous Community dated 16^th May, 2012.

It is submitted that an Affidavit not challenged or controverted in a Counter Affidavit must be accepted and acted upon by the Court as true. Also paragraphs of Affidavit not specifically denied are deemed admitted. Referred to IKONO L.G.C. V DE BEACON FINANCE AND SECURITY LTD (2002) 4 NWLR (PT. 756) 128 Ratio 6 at P 142 Para “E-G” NWOSU V ISESA (1990) 2 NWLR (PT. 106) 773. It is suggested that that paragraphs 8, 11 and 13 of the Counter Affidavit constitute the bulwark on which the Defence of the 1^st Respondent rests. If the three paragraphs are expunged, the Case of the 1^st Respondent collapses. It is submitted that paragraph 8, 11, and 13 are all contradictory averments on the position of Umuoriehi by the same 1^st Respondent. Where there is or are contradictions in the averments in the body or evidence of a witness, the trite position of the Law is that the contradictory evidence shall be jettisoned or expunged.

In paragraph 8, of the 1^st Respondent Counter -Affidavit, H.R.H Eze Louis Nwokeke clearly conceded that the Applicants Umuoriehi Village is the most senior village in Traditional ranking and yet the 1^st Respondent virtually had excluded the same Umuoriehi Village from standing and doing things on its own, and more particularly from participating in cultural festivals. However, the 1st Respondent in paragraph 11 of the Counter-Affidavit made a sudden summersault when he said again, “traditionally (Abazu na Oriehi) is number one in ranking in the Community”- a shift or an opinion often canvassed and put forward by the 1^st Respondent in his dealings and relationship with the Applicants. -It is the contention of the 1st Respondent that the two names “Abazu na Orieh” are used interchangeably. The 1st Respondent has gone too far by using only six (6) villages to administer the Autonomous Community then leading to the quest to seek the interpretation of the constitution. It is submitted that there is no place in the Constitution-EXHIBIT A where such is stated and hence this Application for the Community reading and interpretation of named sections and Articles of relevant parts of enabling instruments.

It is submitted that Reliefs in this proceedings are predicated on fact which facts are already before this Court to even determine. These facts are not contentious in any way. It is contended that the argument that Issues raised by Applicant the Originating Summon are Contentious is a ploy to paint this procedure by which the Applicants came with a colour of hostility as the 1^st Respondent would like the Court to believe.

The averments in the Affidavit in support namely paragraphs 9,10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15,16,17, 18,19,and 23 all talk about relegation, subjugation and discrimination of the Applicants village by the 1^st Respondent particularly as well as other Respondents as a non-village entity only existing for “Administrative convenience” in the contemplation of the 1st Respondent. It is submitted that the Counter-Affidavit of the 1^st Respondent is replete with averments that reflect Ambiguities needing the intervention of the Hon. Court. Paragraphs 7, 8, and paragraph 13 clearly refer to the inherent ambiguities in the EXHIBITS A where the 1st Respondent conceded the existence of (7) seven villages but he (1^st Respondent) chose to settle and work with (6) six villages for what 1st Respondent calls, “Administrative Convenience” It is little wonder if the use of the words, “Administrative Convenience” which the 1^st Respondent actively resorts to or uses in his day-to-day administration of his Autonomous Community is coterminous with the words, in Article 3(c) (iii) the constitution – EXHIBIT “A”, “Umuoriehi and Umuabazu” shall be a constituency, does in any way diminish the seven (7) village structure as envisaged by the Constitution EXHIBIT “A”. The Adoption of six village structure by the 1^st Respondent for “Administration convenience” calls for interpretation, it is submitted. It is contended that the phraseology of “Administrative convenience” used by the 1^st Respondent is the reason the 1^st Respondent is discriminating, against the Umuoriehi village as well as subjugating it to a Kindred status. The writers/makers of the constitution expressly left nobody in doubt about the number of villages that shall be used administratively or otherwise to administer the Autonomous Community. With leave of Court, let me make an X-Ray the places in Exhibit A where 7 villages are clearly mentioned and not 6 villages. “On page 1 of the constitution under Preamble states shall comprise the following seven ancestral villages namely: 1. Oriehi 2. Abazu 3. Duruahuru 4. Uzu/Ololochie 5. Ezevum 6. Ekele 7. Lomo. On page 3, Article 3 (c) succession It stated “it shall rotate among the seven villages specified under INTRODUCTION. Seven villages are mentioned. “Rotation shall be deemed completed when the Ezeship stool shall have gone round the number one (no. 1) village and eldest in Community ranking i.e., Umuoriehi, Umuabazu, Umuduruahuru, Ololochie/Ozu, Umuezevum, Umuekele and Umulomo. Seven villages are mentioned. On same page 3 Article 4 sub 4 states that “membership of the committee shall spread amongst the seven distinct villages of the Community”. On page 4, Article 5 (A) (a) it states that “it shall be constituted of the Traditional Prime Minister and Palace Secretary, President General of EDU and Aladinma Chairman, representatives of each of the seven villages” seven villages are mentioned and not six. On page 5, Article 8(A) it states “King-makers is a title given to a group of persons selected from the most senior village and the seven Nze title holders representing each of the villagers needed for the purpose of installing an Eze. On page 6, Article 10: the Cabinet. It states on paragraph 4 that “The villages heads, i.e. the seven Nze title holders from the seven villages and chiefs so appointed on merit”. Paragraphs 5, states “seven Advisers – appointed by the Eze from the villages” On page 10 will on Appendix (Endorsement), the provision on endorsement is strictly on the bases of seven distinct villages.

It is therefore, submitted that the above requires the construction and interpretation of the constitutions. Hence Applicants resort to Originating Summons Proceedings. Referred to 1^st Respondents Exhibit “EL1” of the Counter-Affidavit at page 3 at paragraph numbered and with leave of Court we quote, “For Administrative Convenience, the constitution of the community operates with six villages, Umuabazu and Umuoriehi are regarded as village”. We contend that this opinion of the 1^st Respondent is the reason the 1^st Respondent is treating the Applicants village as a Kindred. There cannot be a better admission than this. FATCS admitted need no further Proof. See S 75 of Evidence Act. See also NBN L TD VS OLAOYE OMOTA YO (2004) 9 FR 69 at 182. ADESINA VS 8AC ELECTRICAL Co. L TD & ANOR (2007) ALL FWLR (PT. 369) 1279 at 1322 Paras B-C . One of the accepted cannons of interpretation of statutes is that the enactment must be read as a whole – Ifekwe v Madu (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt. 688) Page 459 at Page 479, Para F per Edozie lCA (as he then was).

It is the duty of the Courts of Justice to try to get at the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be construed –Kato v CBN (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt. 214) Page 126 scat Page, para c per Akpata JSC The well-established cannon of interpretation required that, if the intention of the framers of a Statute or Constitution must be ascertained, it can be from no other source than the words used by them on couching the provisions and it is there, their intention is entrenched – Action congress v Independent National Electoral Commission (2007) 12 MWLR (pt.1048) Page 220 at page 318, paras E-H per Aderemi JSC

In seeking the interpretation of a particular section of a statute, the Court does not take the section in isolation but as part of a greater whole. It is only when the literal meaning will result in ambiguity or injustice that the Court may seek internal aid within the body of the statute itself or external and from statutes in pari material, in order to avoid the ambiguity or avoid doing injustice ADEWUNMI V A-G Ekiti State (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt. 751) Page 474 at Page 522 Paras G-H Per Onu JSC. The Golden rule of statutory interpretation imposes on a Court the duty to give a Construction that seeks to liberate and expand the horizon of the law to make it a living law that will cater for the future. An ambiguous provision should be given a beneficial interpretation that will be for the public good- Associated Discount House Ltd v. (2006) AFWLR (Pt. 320) Page 1008 SC at 1018-1019, paras H-A per pats-Achnolonu JSc. A statute which encroaches on the rights of a subject, whether as regard/person or property, are to be constructed as penal, strictly in favour of the subject – Okotie -Eboh v Manager (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905 page 242 at Page 282- 283 Paras A-B per Edozie JSc. It is also trite that were an action is seeking for declaratory reliefs, the best procedure is by originating summons. The law is well settled that Originating Summons may be employed to commence an action where the issue involved is one of construction of a Written law, instrument, deed, will or other documents or some question of pure law or where there is unlikely, to be any substantial dispute on issue of fact between parties – KAYAMO V HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY LAGOS STATE (2002) 18 NWLR (pt. 799) 605 @ 613 paragraph E-F Per Iguh JSC.

On whether the court can make community reading unrelated las, it is submitted that paragraph 6 of the Counter-Affidavit is simply an opinion while paragraphs 16 and 18 are arguments and offend against section 115 (2) of the Evidence Act 2011. By its own admission in 1^st Respondents paragraph 3.04 of the Written Address, the Town Union is an integral part of the Autonomous Community with a defined role of development”. We submit that this makes it more relevant in the consideration by the Hon. Court in undertaking a Community reading of all the Exhibits. We submit that Exhibits A, B, C are related and fall within the same milieu contrary to the submission of the 1^st Respondents Counsel that these are unrelated. Eziama Town Union does not exist in vacu. It has some Duties to the people Town Union imposes levies on subjects and such levies are collected village by village. In paragraph 1.03 of the 1^st Respondent Written Address, the 1^st Respondent made reference and relied on what the 1st Respondent called “(6) six functional villages”, when the constitution did not describe or provide for (6) six functional village hence the need for interpretation. Further to ISSUE A raised by the 1^st Respondent and Argued in 300 to 3.06 of the Legal Argument, Applicants submit that section 31 of law No.6 of 2006 (as amended) and 5.34 as well which the 1st Respondent invoked to support his Case rather supports the Case of the Applicants. EXHIBIT B the Town Union Constitution is relevant. Exhibit B provides for Scio-Economic development of the people of Eziama within the matrix of and the Ethos and the History of the people of Eziama. The Town Union Constitution shows (7) seven villages. It is submitted that every Town Union such as this must have its Regulatory and enabling Instruments such as EXHIBIT B. The reason for bringing forth Exhibit B, i.e., Town Union Constitution was not to depict or settle any conflict between the Traditional Ruler, i.e., 1^st Respondent but more essentially to show the structure and village constituents of the Oparanadim Autonomous Community. Members of the Town Union, that is, the people of Eziama prepared Exhibit A the constitution on the basics on which the 1^st Respondent was produced as Eze. In other words, the Town Union Constitution – Exhibit B predates Exhibit A. and remains its processor. The people who prepared Exhibit A, on a representative capacity, also prepared Exhibit B. All the Constitutions are related. It is submitted that all the three (3) Exhibits are talking about constituents villages that make up Eziama. The Exhibit C talks about Eziama as it was in 1978, while exhibit A and B re-echo the villages that constitute Eziama. It is submitted that the 1^st Respondent cannot be seen or heard to challenge the statute which gave birth to the constitution that produced him as Eze.

It is submitted that at all material to this Suit, the 1^st Respondent who is from Umuabazu village, which village Representative co-signed the Town Union Constitution Exhibit B, knew about the existence of Exhibit B and was indeed part of the mark of Exhibit B, having been so represented. The Court can resort to a Community reading of Exhibits A, B, and C and interpretation in order to bring out the real intention of the makers of the Constitution to ensure that the Community is not thrown into turmoil.

It is contended that 1^st Respondent Issue “A” gives the impression that this Hon. Court would be acting on its own if it undertakes the duty of Interpreting, reading and construction of Exhibits A,B,C. This is wrong and represents a narrow view. It is a misconception of the laws. It is submitted that this Hon. Court is urged or is been invited by the Applicants to embark on doing the needful to save the Community from running into constitutional crisis. Besides, this Court is a Court of unlimited jurisdiction and can embark on doing anything to ensure substantial justice is done wherever anyone runs to the Temple of justice for relief.

CASE of the 1^st Respondent

The Counter – Affidavit Of 1^st Respondent is deposed to by HRH Eze Louis M. Nwokeke. He deposed that: I am the 1^st Respondent in this matter and I do not know why the Applicants must sue me along with the other Respondents. The Respondents in their individual capacities as they are sued do not constitute Eziama/Oparanadlm Development Union whose duty it is to make or amend the Constitution of the Community. My Counsel, Joe Njoku, Esq, informed me on 26/1/2021 that failure on the part of the Applicants to sue the proper parties, robs this Honourable Court the jurisdiction to hear this suit; Suit No: HAM/72/2020 is an abuse of the judicial process in view of the fact that the Applicants filed a similar suit in HAM/61/2012 on the same subject matter, still pending before this Court; a C.T.C of the Writ of Summons of the earlier suit is annexed hereto and marked Exhibit “EL”; The commencement of this suit by Originating Summons is procedurally wrong and offends Order 3 Rule 9 of the Imo State High Court (civil procedure) Rules, 2017; That he shall contend in my defence that this Court lacks the Jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

Paragraphs 1 to 4 are domestic matters of the Applicants which I need not enquire. Paragraph 5 of the Applicants’ affidavit is false, whether personally as the Traditional Ruler of Oparanadim Autonomous Community or alongside with any person(s), I have never discriminated against the Applicants in the community in any manner. Paragraph 6 of the Applicants’ affidavit is not only blatant lies but mischievous; I don’t work with the 2^nd Respondent who was planted as a Respondent, he is a pathological petition writer who colluded with the 1^st and Applicants to use every blackmail in their repertory to dethrone me as the Eze of my Community. I retained a copy of my responses to some of the malicious petitions the 1^st and 2^nd applicants wrote against me to Imo State House of Assembly, which I hereby annex as Exhibit “EL1” (dated 20/09/2016). Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Applicants’ affidavit may be true but they did not make the Constitution which the applicants seek interpretation. Except as to admit that in traditional ranking Umuoriehi Village is the most senior, every other facts in paragraph 9 therein are false and sentimental. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of Applicants’ affidavit are completely false, Umuoriehi Village had always received her rights and privileges in the Community, and the only problem is that the Nze representing the village is a truant, at a point Eze’s Cabinet wrote a warning letter to him against absenteeism from Cabinet meetings. A copy of the said warning letter dated 26/10/2016 is annexed hereto and marked Exhibit “EL2”. Paragraph 13 of the Applicants’ affidavit is false, I never asserted anything rather the Constitution of Eziama Oparanadim Autonomous Community provides for everything on how we cohabit as a Community; Oriehi and Abazu village even share one polling booth.

Paragraph 14 of the Applicants’ affidavit is true to the extent that traditionally Abazu na Oriehi is number one in ranking in the Community, and their names are used interchangeably. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Applicants’ affidavit are only true to an extent that Oparanadim Autonomous Community has only one extant Constitution dated 11/5/2012, which is in operation that is Exhibit “A”. Paragraph 17 of the Applicants’ affidavit is neither here nor there; I may not know who was who before I ascended the throne as an Eze but I know that the Constitution which brought me as an Eze provided in its Preamble for seven villages numerically but for administrative convenience same Constitution settled for six villages.

Paragraph 18 is false, I cannot and do not fight my subjects, rather a few of them who contested with me but failed with very wide margins are the ones who refused to acknowledge defeat and are still writing frivolous petitions and filing incompetent suits against me under one subterfuge or the other. Paragraph 19 of Applicants’ affidavit is false; Eziama Family Union resident in the United States contributed money and sent palliative through a Committee they sent in the month of May 2020 and not April; they also defined the method of sharing among the six villages which they are conversant with, and the Applicants’ village which is number one with Abazu Village also received their share through their respective representatives; Umuoriehi’s share was collected by one Mr Ugochukwu Eleaka. The document of distribution and the forwarding letter dated 1^st May, 2020 is annexed hereto and marked Exhibit “EL3”.

Paragraph 20 of Applicants’ affidavit is false; some of the Respondents are detractors planted by the Applicants to destroy or weaken our defence, and I could not have been working with them to discriminate and oppress the Applicants’ Village in any manner. Paragraph 21 of Applicants’ affidavit is completely false in the sense that all the allegations in the Applicants’ affidavit and prayers are fabricated and amount to blackmail against me; granting them will greatly prejudice me and ridicule the Constitution of the Community. Paragraphs 22 and 23 of Applicants’ affidavit are uncalled for because there is no ambiguity in the sections of the Constitution of the Community cited, that is, in Exhibit “A”. The Applicants’ suit is brought malafide, vexatious, and most frivolous.

1^st Respondent Counsel filed a written address. The counsel adopted the five issues raised by the Applicants’ Counsel, but also raised about four (4) additional issues which according to the counsel are bothering essentially on jurisdiction and competence.

In view of the fact that the Law establishing Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities is distinct from that of Town Unions, whether this Honourable Court can on its own make a Community reading/interpretation of unrelated laws.
In view of the fact that the Respondents are not the ones who made the Constitutions sought to be interpreted, whether the Applicants have sued the proper parties in this suit.
In view of the fact that the Applicants had earlier sued in Suit No: HAM/61/2012 still pending before this Court on the same subject matter and between same parties, whether this present suit does not constitute an abuse of the judicial process.
Whether the commencement of this suit by Originating Summons does not offend Order 3 Rule 9 of Imo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017.

The counsel stated that Section 31 of the Imo State Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities and Allied Matters Law No.6 of 2006 (as amended) provided that: There shall be established for each Autonomous Community in the State a Town Union for the purpose of socio-economic development of the people and land. Section 34(1) and (2) of same Law provides on how to register a town union which must provide a Constitution and register same with the Chairman of the Local Government. Section 5 of Imo State Traditional Rulers, Autonomous Communities and Allied Matters, Law No.6 of 2006 (as amended) on the other hand stipulates the manner of identification, selection, appointment, installation and presentation of an Eze in accordance with the custom and tradition of the people or through a constitution. The two different establishments have two different constitutions. The implication of the establishment of the traditional institution and the town union is that while the Ezeship and Autonomous Community Constitution deals essentially with the custom and tradition of the people and how they are organized and governed, that of the town union deals essentially with the rural development. In other words, the town union is an integral part of the Autonomous Community with a defined role of development, and not a rival to the entire community. Therefore, any attempt to make a community reading of the Constitution of the Autonomous Community with a sub-unit of the Community that is the town union, may amount to unhealthy rivalry.

It is submitted that in any case, where there is a conflict between the Autonomous Community Constitution and that of the town union, the latter shall abate. This is very much so as Exhibit “A” is the Constitution that brought the 1^st Respondent to power and which he swore to defend. The 1^st Respondent had expressly stated at paragraph 12 of his Counter-affidavit that Oparanadim Autonomous Community has only one extant constitution that is Exhibit “A”. In other words, the 1^st Respondent is not yet aware of the existence of Exhibit “B”. Therefore the Community reading of Exhibit “A”, “B” and “C” would be counter-productive. It is submitted that in issue (a), Exhibits “A” and “B” are functionally unrelated and their community reading would be counter productive.

On whether the Respondents have sued the proper parties in this suit, the Applicants by paragraph 10 of their affidavit had admitted that the 1^st Respondent ascended the throne as Eze on or about 2013, which means that he was not the one who made the offending Constitution, in fact Exhibit “A” at page 11 (the last page) was conducted and approved by one Chief D.C Egere who was the President-General of Eziama Development Union as at 11/5/2012 when Exhibit “A” came into operation. The same Chief (Sir) Daniel C. Egere, rather than embarking on the amendment of the Constitution he approved, embarked on suing the 1st Respondent in another suit before this Court in Suit No: HAM/71/2020, where he also made Exhibit “A” an issue.

It is submitted that the 1^st Respondent is not the maker of Exhibits “A”, “B” and “C” and cannot be called upon to answer to its errors if any, when the principal maker is alife and even the one instigating the suits in the person of Chief (Sir) Daniel C. Egere. The position of the Law is that for the Court to be competent to exercise jurisdiction over a matter, it is necessary condition that the proper parties shall be identified. Referred to NWORKA VS. ONONEZE-MADE (2019)7 NWLR (PT.1672) 422 @ 429 R 14. In the instant case, the 1^st Respondent did not make any of the Exhibits “A”, “B” and “C” and none of the other Respondents is member of his Cabinet, rather some of them are planted as respondents in order to weaken his defence. The court is urged to also resolve issue (b) in favour of the 1^st Respondent.

On abuse of court process, the counsel stated that a look at Exhibit “EL”, a Writ of Summons in HAM/61/2012, claim one on that Writ states: A DECLARATION that Umuoriehi Village Kindred otherwise known as ORIEHI of the Claimants are the direct biological son of Eziama and the head of Eziama Village in Oparanadim Autonomous Community. A look at the relief one in the present suit reads as follows: A declaration that Umuoriehi Village is the most senior village in Eziama Oparanadim Autonomous Community. The two suits are harping on the seniority of Umuoriehi Village/Kindred over the other villages; in other words, the subject matters in the two suits are the same.

The Plaintiffs/Claimants in Suit No: HAM/61/2012 sued in representative capacity as Nze Chidi Chukwuocha as the 1^st Claimant; while in the present suit, the applicants also sued in representative capacity, representing Umuoriehi Village also, with the same Nze Chidi Chukwuocha as the 3^rd Applicant. In Suit No: HAM/61/2012 the Claimants (Plaintiffs) identified whom they sued, including Chief Dan Egere as the President-General of Eziama Development Union and Chairman of Ezeship Election Committee, as well as others. But in Suit No: HAM/72/2020 (present suit), the Applicants mischievously omitted identifying whom they sued to restore their ranking in the Community which they feel is the making of the 1^st Respondent. Abuse of Court process involves circumstances and situations of infinite varieties and condition. The common feature of abuse of judicial process is the improper use of judicial process to interfere with the due administration of justice.

Instances that have been held to constitute abuse of Court process include: a. Multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issue; b. Litigation or re-litigation over the same issue which by operation of law and on the principle of res judicata, a party is barred or stopped from re-opening. c. Taking out a process where there is no law supporting it or where the action is premised on frivolity or recklessness. Referred to the cases of: OGAR VS. IGBE (2019)9 NWLR (PT.1678) 534 @ 540R 6. A-G KWARA STATE VS. LAWAL (2018)3 NWLR (PT.1608)266 @ 278 R 13; F.R.N Vs. Duru (2019)11 NWLR (Pt.1683)280 @ 286 R 3.

It is submitted that all the evidences before this Court from both parties point to the fact that the Applicants are involved, in multiplicity of suits on same subject matter, on same and similar issues and between same parties, either as privies or in representative capacity. Most essentially, the suits of the applicants are wanting in bona-fide, they are vexatious, oppressive and frivolous. The court is urged to also resolve issue ( c) in favour of the 1^st Respondent who is the target of the applicants.

It is submitted that the commencement of this suit by Originating Summons offend Order 3 Rule 9 of Imo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. Order 3 Rule 9 of this Court provides that hostile facts and contentious issues ought not be commenced by Originating Summons not withstanding it could go for question of construction. In this case, the Applicants planted the adversaries to the 1^st Respondent, thereby building up hostility within a side; this is vexatious and utmost bad faith. Where it is alleged that a particular village is denied her rights and discriminated against is not a matter that can be settled on affidavit evidence or originating summons where oral evidence cannot be called.

It is my submission that this suit is commenced by a wrong procedure which would not allow truthful disclosure of the facts of the case. I therefore urge My Lord to resolve issue (d) in favour of the 1^st Respondent. Issue 1 of the Applicants’ Counsel had already been treated under issue (a) of the 1^st Respondent where it was argued that the establishment of an Autonomous Community is different from the establishment of a town union, and since they have separate constitutions which provide distinct functions, a community reading of the two functionally distinct constitutions would be counter-productive. The town union is an integral part of the Community and where its constitution in any of the provisions conflict with that of the Autonomous Community which is the parent body, that section to the extent of its inconsistency shall abate.

According to the counsel, it is discernible that other issues: 2, 3 and 4 are basically the same and a mere repetition. Answer to issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Applicants can be found at page 1, paragraph 2 and page 3, Article 3(c) (iii) of Exhibit “A”. The 1^st Respondent in answer to paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Applicants’ affidavit stated at paragraph 18 of his Counter-affidavit that there is no ambiguity at page 1, paragraph 2, and page 3, Article 3(c) (iii) which provide the names of the villages in the Community as follows: 1. Oriehi (2) Abazu (3) Duruahuru (4) UzujOlolochie (5) Ezevum (6) Ekele, and (7) Lomo. Article 3(c)(iii) provides as follows: “For the commencement of this Constitution, it was unanimously agreed that Umuoriehi and Umuabazu shall be a constituency and the Community’s right to accept any nomination shall not be abridged.

It is submitted that the language of the instrument as stated in Exhibit “A” is clear and unambiguous. In fact, the main intention of the makers of Exhibit “A” can be found in Article 3(c) (iii) and not in the preamble. Another look at Exhibit “EL3” shows that even the sons and daughters of Eziama Family Union in diaspora are conversant with the fact that at home Umuoriehi/Umuabazu form one constituency or village and do share things in common. This trend is bound to continue this way until the Constitution of Eziama Oparanadim Autonomous Community is amended, it is not a question of community reading of unrelated constitutions.

On issue 5 it is submitted that the Applicants have made no case, rather they are in fragrant abuse of the judicial process. First, they filed same suit still pending before this Court on the same subject matter and without suing the proper defendants. Second, they want this Honourable Court to combine 3 different and unrelated constitutions, in fact one of them proscribed, for interpretation. Third, they planted hostile members amongst the Respondents to the annoyance of the 1^st Respondent. Fourth, the Applicants’ suit is frivolous and vexatious. Fifth, there is no grain of evidence to prove that the 1^st Respondent by himself or in alliance with any of the Respondents violated the rights or denied or discriminated against the Applicants in the distribution of the resources of the Community.

According to the counsel, the position of the Law is that the onus of proof lies on the party who asserts. By the provision of Section 131(1) of Evidence Act, 2011; whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. Referred to LAWSON VS. OKORONKWO (2019)3 NWLR (PT.1658)66 @ 70.

Even as recent as the issue of the palliative distributed, the 3rd Applicant who is an Nze and who should have collected the share of Umuoriehi Village was not present, it was one Mr Ugochukwu Eleaka who collected the share of Umuoriehi. The Applicants are only interested in frivolities.

In response to the Applicants’ further and Better Affidavit, the counsel to the 1^ST RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL filed a REPLY.

On the mode of commencement of action, the counsel referred to EZE VS. A.P.G.A (2020)3 NWLR (PT.1712)413 @ 418 R 1-.

This present suit bothers on factual situations in the parties’ Community with respect to succession to Ezeship stool, chieftaincy matter, sharing of things in the community, discriminatory practices, and what have you. Again, parties have been in various courts on same matter.

It is stated that Order 3 Rules 5 and 9 of the Imo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 did not contemplate commencement of this matter by Originating Summons essentially because hostile facts and hostile affidavit evidence are built into the matter. For instance, the Applicants on record are suing in a representative capacity as representing the people of Umuoriehi. The same people or some of them are Plaintiffs in an action which they originated by Writ of Summons in HAM/61/2012 still pending in this Court and in the same representative capacity. From their endorsement in Exhibit “EL”, the Applicants claimed as “Umuoriehi Village Kindred” but in the present action they claim as “Umuoriehi Village”. Not only that this is an abuse of the judicial process, there is an apparent inconsistency in their claims. This inconsistency bothers on the central theme or cause of action before the Court. It is good law that parties should be consistent in presenting their cases to the Court See: YUSUF VS. ADEGOKE (2008)40 W.R.N @ 46. Having sued in representative capacities in the two separate actions on same subject matter, the legal implication is that they have common interest, common grievance, and anticipated common benefits. I humbly refer Your Lordship to the case of ALIKOR VS. OGWO (2019)15 NWLR (PT.1695)331 @ 336.

Again, the Applicants planted 2^nd to 8^th Respondents against the 1^st Respondent as hostile witnesses against him. At paragraph 5 of the Counter-affidavit of 2^nd to 8^th Respondents they admitted the allegation levied against the 1^st Respondent contrary to the weight of evidence before the Court. The Applicants have been unable to prove that they are a full-fledged village in Suit No: HAM/61/2012, they now somersaulted by way of Originating Summons to obtain by abusing the processes of Court what they could not prove in their early suit. It is therefore submitted that the facts of this case being that hostile, ought not to have been brought by Originating Summons but should continue by way of Writ of Summons as contained in HAM/61/2012 (Exhibit “EL”).

The 1^st Respondent in his 20-paragraph Counter-affidavit, raised no new issues apart from responding to the allegations of facts raised by the Applicants as well as issues of Law based on abuse of the judicial process and mode of commencement of this action. But Applicants’ Counsel resumed the case again with copious facts in his written address which is supposed to be on Law, as well as 25-paragraphed further and better affidavit. Order 3 Rule 5 did not contemplate and did not provide for Further and better affidavit. By further abusing the Court process by replying on facts rather than on Law, the Applicants’ Counsel has simply agreed by conduct that this matter is contentious and ought not to have come by way of Originating Summons even though it purports to seek the interpretation of certain constructions.

Without being immodest, the 1^st Respondent had earlier stated that he was sworn in as the Traditional Ruler of Oparanadim Autonomous Community based on Exhibit “A”, and that he is unaware of Exhibits “B” and “C”. From the foregoing, parties seem to have been joining issues on Articles 2 and 3(c) of Exhibit “A”. Article 2 is the preamble section of Exhibit “A” which lists the seven(7) nominal villages making up Oparanadim Autonomous Community; while Article 3(c) deals with succession to the Ezeship stool. It becomes pertinent at this point to point out that the Ezeship stool is not in dispute. The incumbent Eze had been issued with staff of office and Certificate based on this same Exhibit “A” sought to be re-constructed. Does this suit not amount to mere academic exercise? Is the present action challenging the rightful person or village to hold the staff of office or the stool? It is my humble submission that this abusive application is a mere academic exercise. Even where this Honourable Court decides to go into the interpretation of the provisions of Exhibit “A”, the Court shall be guided by rules of statutory interpretation. The plain and literal interpretation of a statute would apply where the words of a statute are plain, clear and unambiguous. Referred to the case of: ABEGUNDE VS. ONDO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (2015) LPERL – 24588.

According to the counsel, the preamble section of Article 2 of Exhibit “A” and Article 3(c) (i & ii) are general provisions, while 3 (c) (iii) is a special provision. Article 3 (c) (iii) provides: For commencement of this Constitution, it was unanimously agreed that Umuoriehi and Umuabazu shall be a constituency, and the Community’s right to accept any nomination shall not be abridged.

The Law is trite that where there is a special provision in a statute, a later general provision in the same statute capable of covering the same subject matter would be interpreted as derogating from what has been specifically provided for, unless an intention to do so is unambiguously declared. See E.F.C.C VS. REINT (2020)9 NWLR (PT.1730) 489 @ 500. In the instant case, and based on the special provision of Article 3(c)(iii), the 1^st Respondent had been elected and crowned as the Eze of the Community.

It is submitted that Article 3(c)(iii) of Exhibit “A” is a special provision guiding the succession between Umuoriehi and Umuabazu village with respect to Ezeship stool. The Applicants should channel their energy towards the amendment of Exhibit “A” so as to expunge Section 3 (c) (iii) rather than engage in academic exercise. The court is urged to dismiss this suit with punitive cost for being incompetent, frivolous, vexatious, and a clear abuse of the judicial process.

2^nd – 8^th Respondents case

Counter-affidavit of the 2^nd to 8^th Respondents was deposed to by Hon. Kenneth Chika Agada the 2^nd Respondent in the above Suit. he deposed: I have the oral consent and authority of the 3^rd to 8^th Respondents to depose this Affidavit. Paragraph 1 of the Applicants’ Affidavit is true and I am not in a position to ascertain whether paragraph 2 is true or false. Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the Applicants’ Affidavit are true at the time this Suit was instituted. Paragraph 5 of the Applicants’ Affidavit is true to the extent that the 1^st Respondent is the Traditional Ruler of Oparanadim Autonomous Community and has been discriminating against the leadership seniority or 1^st son-ship status of Umuoriehi villages as Di-Opara of Eziama in Oparanadim Autonomous Community and not alongside with 2^nd to 8^th Respondents. Paragraph 6 of the Applicants’ Affidavit is true only to the extent that the 2^nd Respondent is the outgoing current President-General of our Town Union and have worked in liaison with the 1^st Respondent on whatever is constitutional, just and fair and the 2^nd Respondent is not discriminating against the leadership seniority status of Umuoriehi village. Eziama is made up of seven villages from time immemorial with Umuoriehi as the first village. Paragraphs 7 & 8 of the Applicants’ Affidavit are true. Paragraphs 9 & 10 of the Applicants’ Affidavit are true except that the 2^nd to 8^th Respondents have never alongside joined the 1^st Respondent to exclude, subordinate, sub-judicate, deny Umuoriehi village its rights and privileges as a village. Anything done by the 1^st Respondent in this regard was done unilaterally and coercively to the exclusion of 2^nd to 8^th Respondents and in spite of our protests against repeated exclusion of Umuoriehi village in participating in traditional and cultural events. Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, & 14 of the Applicants’ Affidavit are true except that in specific response to paragraph 12, the 2^nd to 8^th Respondents admit holding meetings with the 1^st Respondent but deny being party to denial of invitation to such meetings to Umuoriehi village and its exclusion and have severally protested such exclusion by the 1^st Respondent and its agents.

The 2^nd to 8^th Respondents admit paragraphs 15, 16 & 17 of the Applicants’ Affidavit. The 2^nd to 8^th Respondents admit paragraph 18 of the Applicants’ Affidavit to the extent of 1^st Respondent has been vigorously harassing, intimidating, humiliating and oppressing the Applicants’ village and relegating it to a kindred status but cannot say for certain the reason the 1^st Respondent chooses to do so. The 2^nd to 8^th Respondents admit paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Applicants’ Affidavit to the extent of 1^st Respondent in the month of May, 2020 denied the Applicants’ village its share of palliatives/relief materials sent by our sons and daughters in Canada and United States of America to entire Eziama Community. I am informed by one of the chairmen Godfrey Iwuanyanwu on 17^th June 2021 at Ololoche at 2pm that the moment they were served with this Court process, the 1^st Respondent invited all the chairmen and solicited their Co-operation by asking them not to file any Defence but the chairmen refused and in a quick reaction the 1^st Respondent sacked the chairmen by dissolving the Association of village chairmen. Annexed is a copy of the 1^st Respondents letter marked Exhibit “K”.

The 2^nd – 8^th Respondents Counter Affidavit is accompanied by a written address wherein the counsel stated that in response and reaction to the Affidavit in Support of Originating Summons filed by the Applicants, the 2^nd– 8^th Respondents have filed a fourteen-paragraph Counter Affidavit deposed to by Hon. Chika Kenneth Agada and they relied on all the paragraphs of the Counter Affidavit, particularly paragraphs 5 to 12 of the Counter affidavit.

It is submitted that the 1^st Respondent has been sitting in Council and doing so many things culturally and traditionally using six villages instead of seven villages recognized by their Constitution, i.e. EXHIBIT ‘A’. Referred to paragraphs 6, 7, 9 and 11 of the Counter Affidavit. It is contended that there is need to save the community from constitutional crisis by the Hon. Court interpreting certain provisions in our constitution. It is further submitted that it will be in the interest of justice for the Hon. Court to intervene. Referred to paragraph 13 of their Counter Affidavit and submitted that the 1^st Respondent dissolved the Association of village chairmen of the Community upon service of the Originating process in this Suit. See also EXHIBIT “K”, authored by 1^st Respondent dated 61/01/2021.

RESOLUTION OF MATTTER:

I have considered the affidavit evidence for and against the Originating Summons as well as that for and against the preliminary objection. I have equally considered the submissions from the counsel. In my view the issues that call for determination are:

Whether the action is competent
Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought.

The two major objections of the 1^st Respondent to this action are its mode of commencement and its being an abuse of court process. These are issues that touch on the competence of action and the jurisdiction of the court.

According to the counsel to the 1^st Respondent, Order 3 Rules 5 and 9 of the Imo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 did not contemplate commencement of this matter by Originating Summons essentially because hostile facts and hostile affidavit evidence are built into the matter. In MR. CAMILUS TSEMWAN & ORS V. GOVERNOR OF PLATEAU STATE & ANOR (2012) LPELR-7922(CA) it is stated that:

“It is settled law that proceedings for which the originating summons procedure resorted to are proceedings which involve only questions of law as opposed to disputed issues of fact. “PER EKPE, J.C.A(P.19, Paras. A-B) –

In THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND COMMISIONER FOR JUSTICE, AKWA IBOM STATE & ORS v. MR. UWEMEDIMO ESSIEN (2020) LPELR-49576(CA) it is stated:

“…From the above, the main issue relates to construction of document as well as the interpretation of statutory provisions. And where the issue is that of construction of documents or interpretation of statutory provisions, it is safe and prudent to approach the Court by originating summons. In the circumstance, I cannot but agree entirely with the learned trial judge that the suit was properly commenced by originating summons.” Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, JCA (P. 14, paras. A-C)

The complaint of the 1^st Respondent on the mode of commencement of the suit, will not defeat the suit. It is noted that adoption of a wrong mode of commencement of an Action is a mere irregularity and will not render proceedings a nullity. See NATIONAL ELECTRIC LIABILITY MANAGEMENT LIMITED V. EMMANUEL SUNDAY OMOTUSI & 400 OTHERS. (2016) 17 N. W. L. R. (PT. 1541) 314

Having considered the affidavit in support, the issues and reliefs sought I am of the view that the commencement of the action by Originating Summons is appropriate.

The 1^st Respondent had in his counter affidavit deposed: Suit No: HAM/72/2020 is an abuse of the judicial process in view of the fact that the Applicants filed a similar suit in HAM/61/2012 on the same subject matter, still pending before this Court; a C.T.C of the Writ of Summons of the earlier suit is annexed hereto and marked Exhibit “EL”

And the counsel in his address raised as one of the issues for determination: In view of the fact that the Applicants had earlier sued in Suit No: HAM/61/2012 still pending before this Court on the same subject matter and between same parties, whether this present suit does not constitute an abuse of the judicial process.

The counsel to the 1^st Respondent argued that this suit is an abuse of court process. He submitted that all the evidences before this Court from both parties point to the fact that the Applicants are involved, in multiplicity of suits on same subject matter, on same and similar issues and between same parties, either as privies or in representative capacity. Most essentially, the suits of the applicants are wanting in bona-fide, they are vexatious, oppressive and frivolous.

In response to the issue of abuse of court process, the Applicants filed further affidavit and state that the present Suit No. HAM/72/2020 does not constitute Abuse of Court Process. This Suit No. HAM/72/2020 is Dissimilar to Suit No. HAM/61/2012 as parties are not the same, and subject matter is not the same. In Suit No. HAM/61/2012 both the Governor of Imo State, Attorney-General and Chairman, Ahiazu Mbaise. Local Government Council were made parties. None of the 22 Defendants in that Suit and the 1^st Respondent in suit No HAM/72/2020 is a Defendant. That the issue of exclusion, segregation, subjugation and discrimination are FRESH DEVELOPMENTS arising after the 1^st Respondent had become a Traditional Ruler and outside of the subject matter of Suit No. HAM/61/2012. The Applicants are seeking the Interpretation and Construction of Documents/Instruments and have come by way of Originating Summons as allowed by Imo State High Court Civil Procedure Rules in dealing with non contentious issues such as this; this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this Suit.

In WANZAMI & ANOR V. SALISU & ORS (2014) LPELR-22337(CA), it is stated:

“What these cases require a Court to do when faced with an issue of multiple actions constituting an abuse of process is to look at the processes filed in the two actions and see whether they are between the same parties on the same subject matter and on same or very similar issues…” These principles were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Igbeke v. Okadigbo (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1368) 225. Applying these principles and looking at the processes filed in two suits, Suit No. KDH/KAD/80/97 and KDH/KAD/520/2003 part of the contents of which have been earlier reproduced in this judgment, it is obvious that the parties in the two suits are not the same. The two Appellants, who are the two plaintiffs in Suit No. KDH/KAD/520/2003 and the third Respondent, who is the third defendant in the same suit, were not parties to Suit No. KDH/KAD/80/97 and there was nothing in all the processes filed showing or implying that they were privies, servants and/or agents of the parties in that suit. All the parties were agreed that the first Appellant was not the same person sued as Alhaji Tanko Wanzamiin Suit No. KDH/KAD/80/97 and that the Person so sued is dead; the points were emphatically made by the second Respondent in the affidavit in support of his motion to strike out the suit as an abuse of process.

I will now critically look at the process filed starting with the parties in the two different suits.

PARTIES IN SUIT NO: HOW/61/2012

BETWEEN:

NZE CHID1 CHUKWUOCHA
JOHN JAMES ANYANWU.
ELDER GODWIN EBIRILEM CLAIMANTS
ALEXANDER ALEKA

(For themselves and as representing members

of Umuoriehi Village Eziama in Oparanadim

Autonomous Community except any person dissenting)

AND

CHIEF DAN EGERE

(President-General, Eziama Development Union

And Chairman, Ezeship Election Committee)

MR NATHAN NWAGWU

(Chairman, Aladimma Eziama)

MR STEVE ANYANWU

(Secretary, Ezeship Selection Committee)

CHIEF SOLOMON OLECHURU

(Adjunct Secretary)

CHIE,F ESIKE ARIRIESIKE
MR JAMES AZUBUIKE

(and Chairman, Umuezevum)

MR GABRIEL ANYANWU (ENPEC)
BARTHRAM OKORO .
ENGINEER SAM EGERE
Gabriel Anyanwu (ENPEC)

11.PETER ANY ANWU

(Palace Secretary)

12.CHINYERE ANYANWU

13.OKECHUKWU EKECHUKWU

MR LEONARD IKE
CHIEF DENNIS AKUBUEZE

(Chairman, Aladimma Umuabazu

JONATHAN EZEJI

(Chairman, Ololoche na Ozu)

17.ELDER ISRAEL NWACHUKWU

(Chairman, Umuduruachuru)

SAMUEL ABRAHAM

(Chairman, Aladimma Umuekele)

ALEXANDER OKORO (Chairman, Aladimma Umulomo)

(By themselves and as representing the Eziama Community)

CHAIRMAN, AHIAZU-MBAISE LOCAL GOVT COUNCIL
GOVERNOR, IMO STATE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL, IMO STATE

PARTIES IN THIS SUIT NO: HAM/72/2020

BETWEEN:

MR. GODSPOWER EMENOGU
ELDER SUNDAY CHUKWUOCHA APPLICANTS
NZE CHIDI CHUKWUOCHA
MR. OBED ANYANWU

(Suing for themselves and as representing the people of Umuoriehi (Oriehi) Village in Eziama in Oporanadim Autonomous Community, Ahiazu Mbaise except any person or group of persons dissenting).

AND:

H.R.H EZE LOUIS M. NWOKEKE
KENNETH CHIKA AGADA
ALOYSIUS OGOKE
ONESMUS OGOKE
GODFREY IWUANYANWU RESPONDENTS
SIMEON IBEKWE ANYANWU
JAMES NWAGWU
ZEPHANIAH ALOZIE

And in the affidavit in support, the Applicant stated the position of the Respondent as follows: The 2^nd Respondent is the outgoing current President-General of our Town Union. The 3^rd Respondent is the current Chairman of Umuabazu Village Aladinma, which is the village of HRH Eze Louis M. Nwokeke the 1^st Respondent. The 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 7^th and 8^th Respondents are the current Chairmen of Umuduruahuru, Umuololochie/Uzu, Umuezevum, Umuekele and Umulomo villages’ Aladinma respectively.

THE CLAIM IN SUIT NO HOW/61/2012:

WHEREOF, the Claimants claim against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows:

A DECLARATION that Umuoriehi Village Kindred otherwise known as ORIEHI of the Claimants are the direct biological son of Eziama and the head of Eziama Villages in “Oparanadim Autonomous Community, (and any other name derivable from it where required to produce an Eze).
A DECLARATION that under the native law, custom and traditional ranking, Umuoriehi kindred of the Claimants as the “DIOKPARA” Head of Eziama Group of Villages are therefore entitled to be placed first in the Ezeship Constitution of Oparanadim or the proposed Eziama Oparanadin before any other kindred or components that make up Eziama.
A DECLARATION that it is wrong and contrary to traditional ranking and customs of Eziama people to place the Claimants Village to share the same Constituency for the purposes of selecting, presenting and installing anybody as Eze in Oparanadim Autonomous Community or the proposed Eziama Oparanadim Autonomous Community with any other village.
AN ORDER of the Honourable. Court declaring null and void and setting aside the Eziama Oparanadim Autonomous Community Ezeship Constitution as it relates to and affect Umuabazu component of Eziama Villages for being inconsistent with and a violation of native law and customs on seniority.
AN ORDER of the Honourable Court on the 1^st to 10^th Defendants and all other authorities in that behalf in Eziama to amend the Constitution of Oparanadim and other based instruments and place the Claimants first as the senior in order of traditional ranking in the composition of the Villages in Eziama Villages in the Constitution.
AN ORDER of the Honourable Court on the Defendants and all other authorities in that behalf in Eziama to amend the Ezeship Constitution of Oparanadim to reflect the traditional seniority ranking of the Umuoriehi village before setting in motion the processes of identification, selection I appointment, election, installation, presentation and recognition of a would be Eze of Oparanadim Autonomous Community hence the stool is rotatory based on seniority beginning with the Claimants’ Village component of Eziama.
AN ORDER of the Honourable Court restraining the 1^st to 10^th Defendants either by themselves, agents, servants or officers from identifying, selecting, appointing, electing, installing and presenting any person from Umuabazu or indeed any other Village in Eziama as Eze-Elect for- (he purpose of recognition as the Eze/Traditional ruler of Oparanadim Autonomous Community or any other name deriving therefrom where he people of Eziama Villages are involved.
AN ORDER of the Honourable Court restraining the 20^th – 22^nd Defendants either by themselves, agents or servants from accepting and according recognition to any person from Oparanadim except such person is from Umuoriehi as the Eze/Traditional Ruler of Oparanadim autonomous Community, (or any other name deriving from).
AN ORDER of the Honorable Court restraining the 20^th – 22^nd Defendants from Accepting or according recognition to any person or Eze-Elect purporting to represent or be the Ezeship Candidate of any other Autonomous Community deriving its name from Oparanadim (except Umumbiri Oparanadim and Isiala Oparanadim) without the Imo State house of Assembly first of all making another law changing the name.
A perpetual injunction restraining the 1^st to 9^th Defendants from selecting, electing, presenting or doing anything whatever in relation to the choice of a new Eze or Dim IV of Oparanadim from any other Village or the Defendants’ Village unless from Claimants’ Village.

THE CLAIM IN THIS SUIT NO: HAM/72/2020

A declaration that Umuoriehi Village is the most senior village in Eziama Oparanadim Autonomous Community.
A declaration that Eziama in Oparanadim Autonomous Community as constituted has (7) seven distinct ancestral villages namely Umuoriehi, (Oriehi) Umuabazu, Umuduruahuru, Umuololochie/Uzu, Umuezevum, Umuekele and Umulomo.
A declaration that Umuoriehi Village and (6) six other villages namely Umuabazu, Umuduruahuru, Umuololochie/Uzu, Umuezevum, Umuekele and Umulorno are direct descendants or progenitors of Eziama.
A declaration that Umuoriehi Village is and had been independent from time immemorial and in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution.
An order of this Honourable Court directing the 1st Respondent and indeed all the Respondent to accord proper recognition to Umuoriehi Village as the 1st son (Di Opara) and most senior village in Eziama.
An order directing the 1^st Respondent to restore all rights, privileges and status of Umuoriehi Village that enure to her as the first son of Eziama including items denied the village as palliative at the Heat of Covid-19 Pandemic.
An order of Perpetual Injunction Restraining the Respondent, their servants, agents, assigns, workmen and anybody claiming to represent them from further harassing and discriminating against the people of Umuoriehi Village and of treating it as non- existing Village or a Sub existing village in Eziama in Oparanadim Autonomous Community
Any other order that this Honourable Court may deem necessary in the circumstance.

The term abuse of court process is defined in OGOEJOFO V OGOEJOFO (2002) 12 NWLR (PT. 780) 171 AT 175 thus:

“The term abuse of Court or judicial process” implies a wrong application of any of the Court’s processes by one party to the disadvantage of the other party. Such an improper application of the process apart from the irritation it causes the other party, negates in a very manifest manner the proper administration of justice. The term is generally applied to a proceeding which is lacking in bone fides.

Stating further the Court held:

‘The concept of abuse of Court or judicial process denotes a perversion of the system by the use of a lawful procedure for the attainment of unlawful results. Abuse of the judicial process manifests itself largely in the multiplicity of actions on the same subject-matter between the same parties. It is not the existence of the right to institute this action that is protested against. Rather, it is the manner of exercise of this right and the purpose of doing same that is abhorred.

The question of abuse of court process was discussed at length in the case of SPAT STEEL (NIG) LTD V. SAM GRACE & CO. LTD & ORS (2017) LPELR-41874(CA) where the court stated:

“The abuse of a Court’s Process, it is now commonly known, may arise and involve a variety of ways, manner or situations, depending on the peculiar facts and circumstances of a particular case. No hard and fast rule can therefore be laid down and said to be the determinant of what amount to an abuse of a Court process in all cases.

However, certain situations have been identified and recognized over the years by the Courts in which such an abuse may arise. They include:-

a) Where a party brings an action before a Court that clearly has no jurisdiction – See Noah vs. High Commissioner (1980) 8- 11 SC 100.

b) Institution of a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issue/s. See Okafor vs. Attorney General Anambra State (1991) 6 NWLR (200) 659; Olawore vs. Olanrewaju (1998) 1 NWLR (534) 436.

c) Where a plaintiff filed a notice of discountenance so that he may have his way in a new suit. See Okafor vs. Attorney General Anambra State (Supra); Jonpal vs. Afribank (2003) 8 NWLR (822) 290.

d) Where a plaintiff litigates again over identical question/issue already decided against him – see Onyeabuchi vs. INEC (2002) 8 NWLR (769) 417 @ 443.

e) Where a party improperly uses the judicial processes of a Court to irritate and annoy an opponent – Saraki vs. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (264) 156; Agwasim vs. Ojichie (2004) 4 SC (Pt.II) 160; Adeniji vs. FRN (2012) 1 NWLR (1281) 284.

Speaking generally, abuse of a Court’s process is a term applied to initiating and use of a proceeding of a Court which is wanting in bonafide and is frivolous, vexatious or/and oppressive to an opponent. It always involves some malice, deliberateness, bias and desire to misuse or perverts the system of administration of justice by Courts of law and can manifest itself in so many ways. For instance, in Ojo v. A. G., Oyo State (2008) LPELR, – 2379 (SC) Mahmud Mohammed, JSC (later CJN) had stated some of the situations when an abuse of Court process may arise thus:- “The employment or use of judicial process is only regarded and generally as an abuse of Court process when a party improperly uses the issuance of judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent, and the efficient and effective administration of justice.”

It is also an abuse of process where there is no iota of law supporting a Court process or where it is premised on frivolity or recklessness. In other words, it is the inconvenience and inequities involved in the aims and purpose of the action that constitute abuse of process.” See also Olutinrin vs. Agaka (1998) 6 NWLR (554) 366; The Vessel “SAINT ROLAND” vs. Osinloye (1997) NWLR; 387; NV SHEEP vs. MV “SARZ” (2001) FWLR (1934) 543: Ogoejofo vs. Ogoejofo (2006) ALL FWLR (301) 1722; Dingyadi vs. INEC (No.1) (2010) 18 NWLR (1224) 1; British American Tobacco Nigeria Limited vs. International Tobacco Company Plc (2013) 2 NWLR (1339) 493.” Per GARBA, J.C.A. (Pp. 24-27, Paras. F-A)

See also BARR. ENYINNA ONUEGBU & ORS V. GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE & ORS (2015) LPELR-25968(CA), EKPUK V OKON (2002) 5 NWLR (PT. 760) 445

The contention here since to be on the two grounds of institution of a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issue/s and where a party improperly uses the judicial processes of a Court to irritate and annoy an opponent. See OKAFOR VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL ANAMBRA STATE (1991) 6 NWLR (200) 659; OLAWORE VS. OLANREWAJU (1998) 1 NWLR (534) 436

It is observed that the Suit No HAM/72/2020 was by Originating Summons and Suit No. HAM/61/2012 was by Writ of Summons. I had earlier on stated that the action is competent regarding the mode of its commencement which is Originating Summons. Let me quickly add that the mode of commencement of a suit where there is issue of abuse of court process does not cure the abuse. Thus in YAKUBU V AJAOKUTA STEEL CO. (2002) 10 NWLR (PT. 774) 115 the Court stated:

“The rule of Court provide for distinct modes of commencing actions in Court as is the case in order 1 Rule 1 of the High Court of Kogi State (Civil Procedure) Rules. To initiate two actions on the same subject matter by two distinct methods out of those listed in the rules of Court amounts to an abuse of the process of Court. In the instant case the appellant cannot be allowed to institute two distinct actions on the same subject matter, one by writ of summons and another by originating summons, more so that the action commenced by writ of summons had already been determined before commencing the one by originating summons.

It is clear that both actions were commenced in a representative capacity. This will lead to the question of who are the parties in a representative action. In OBI NWANZE OKONJI & ORS. V. GEORGE NJOKANMA & ORS (1989) LPELR-2478(SC),(1989) NWLR (PT.114)161 it is stated:

“A distinction ought to be drawn between “any other person” and “any other party.” In a representative action both the named plaintiffs or appellants and those they represent (the unnamed plaintiffs/appellants) are all parties. If the named appellants die, the appeal does not die and any of the unnamed appellants would then be let in as persons represented to prosecute the appeal. These unnamed appellants will not need to apply for extension of time or leave to appeal for their appeal was already pending.” PER ESO, J.S.C. (P.7, Paras.E-G)

Also in EXPLO-TEC NIG. LTD. & ANOR V. OBANLA & ORS (2017) LPELR-42693(CA) it is stated:

“In a representative action, both the named Plaintiff or Defendant and those they represent are parties to the action although the named representative – Plaintiff/Defendant is “dominus litis” until the suit is determined. Thus, for the purpose of initiating any process in a representative action, such process must be by and in the name of the named Plaintiff or Defendant so long as his mandate from those he represents remain acceptable and uncountermanded. OGUNYOMBO V OOKOYA (2002) 16 NWLR (PT.793) PG 224.” Per NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (P. 22, Paras. B-E)

It follows therefore that irrespective of the persons or parties named in both suits regarded as “dominus litis”, everyone who claims to belong or descend from Umuoriehi (Oriehi) is or was a plaintiff in both suits. Again the defendants in both cases can be said to be representatives of the Ezima/Oparanadum in general. In HAM/61/2012, the President General, Eziama Development Union and Chairman, Ezeship Election Committee and others were sued as representing the Eziama Community. In HAM/72/2020, the 1^st defendant is described as the Traditional Ruler of Oparanadim Autonomous Community and the 2^nd Defendant is described as outgoing current President- General of our Town Union. The 3^rd, 4^th , 5^th, 6^th, 7^th and 8^th Defendants are described as chairmen of other villages. And the Plaintiff in their further affidavit stated: “That the persons sued alongside the 1^st Respondent are proper as well as Desirable parties elected by their villages as their representatives to work with the 1^st Respondent in his Council/Cabinet and in further denial of paragraph 2, all the Respondents are members of the Town Union.” In AMIDA & ORS V OSHOBOJA (1984) NSCC 531 at the Supreme Court categorically stated:

“That for the purpose of estoppel per rem judicatam, “party” means not only a party named, but also ‘a sleeping party’, that is, one who stands by knowing what was giving on. Judgment may also be entered against a community though the suit was not in a representative capacity, if there is evidence that the Defendant acted in a representative capacity. Failure to obtain the approval of the Court to act in such a capacity will no vitiate such judgment…”

In my view the parties are just the same..

I think the subject matter of this suit is the status of the Umuoriehi in Oparanadim Autonomous Community. And the purpose is to restore the Umuoriehi to their appropriate status and position among the villages that make up Oparanadim Autonomous community. There is no doubt that same subject matter may give rise to different issues or rights that sometimes filing multiple suits on the same subject matter may not take the toga of abuse. Hence in CHRISTIAN OUTREACH MINISTRIES INC. & ORS V. MRS. EKANEM OKU COBHAM & ANOR (2005) LPELR-11406(CA) it is stated:

“It is not the law that once a party files another suit before another court on the subject matter, there is an abuse of court process. An act can give rise to different suits. A subject matter may very well give rise to different rights. See Unifarm Ind. Ltd. vs. Oceanic Bank Int’l (Nig.) Ltd. (supra) at page 100. In Fasakin Foods (Nig.) Co. Ltd. vs. Shosanya (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 849) 237, this Court held that: “It is not an abuse of court process for a defendant who conceives that he has reliefs which are different from those claimed against him by the plaintiff to initiate separate proceedings in court seeking those reliefs even though his claims and those of the plaintiff arise from the same facts and the same subject matter. In the instant case, the respondents’ suit is not an abuse of the process of court because the reliefs sought therein are distinct from that sought in the appellants’ suit”. What transpired in the above case is similar to the facts of the instant case on appeal. The appellants’ suit is best described as a cross-action in a different court. It is not a case of two actions which one party has sued the same defendant.” Per OMOKRI, J.C.A. (Pp. 24-25, paras. D-B)

See R-BENKAY NIGERIA LIMITED v. CADBURY NIGERIA PLC. (2012) 3 S.C. (Pt. III) 169; (2012) 9 NWLR (1306) 600; A. I. C. LIMITED & ANOR v. FEDERAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY (2015) LPELR-24537(CA)

This is not the case here.

I have also taken a look at the reliefs sought particularly as it relates to the document annexed as exhibit A. This is one of the documents and indeed the major document that the Plaintiffs want interpreted in this suit. However in suit HAM/61/2012, the relief 4: “AN ORDER of the Honourable. Court declaring null and void and setting aside the Eziama Oparanadim Autonomous Community Ezeship Constitution as it relates to and affect Umuabazu component of Eziama Villages for being inconsistent with and a violation of native law and customs on seniority” is one of the reliefs. This document is at the center of both suits.

I am of the view that of any of the suits succeeds; it would have assuaged the agitation of the plaintiffs. The reliefs are geared to achieving one purpose. So pursuing the two pari passu will most likely give rise to a conflicting judgment. In the case of DINGYADI V INEC (NO. 2) (2010) 18 NWLR (PT. 1224) 154, 221, Rhodes – Vivour, JSC, explained the raison d’etre for the rule against multiplicity of actions thus:

“The basis of the rule is the real possibility of two conflicting decision in respect of one and the same subject matter”

Juggling and re-shuffling of the Defendants or Plaintiffs by removal and addition, does not take an action caught by abuse of process from the grip of abuse of court process. In FALAYE V OTAPO (1995) 3 NWLR (PT 381) 1 the Supreme Court held:

“It is well established that the styling, restyling or mis-styling of parties in actions will not prevent a Court from examining the proceedings in issue and determining whether the parties in the present suit are the same or privies to the parties in an earlier suit and caught by the doctrine of issue estoppel or res judicata”.

Again in ODJEVWEDGE V ECHANOKPE (1987) 1 NWLR (PT 52) 633 the Supreme Court held:

“Parties are not permitted to begin fresh litigation because of new views they may entertain of the law of the case or new version which they present as to what should be a proper apprehension by the Court for the construction of the document or the weight of certain circumstances”.

I am satisfied that the present am satisfied that this prent action is an abuse of court process in relation to the pending Suit No: HAM/61/2012. In OWONIKOKO V AROWOSAIYE (1997) 10 NWLR (PT. 523) 61 the court held:

“Once a court is satisfied that the proceedings before it is an abuse of its process that court has the right, and in fact a duty, to invoke its coercive powers under section 6 (6) (a), of the 1979 constitution to dismiss the action”.

Further in OYEDEJI V. AKINYELE (2002)3NWLR (PT 755)586 the Court held:

A court of law has an inherent power to prevent an abuse of its process. The judicial power conferred on the court is intended to be used in deciding genuine issues or cases or controversies and is not meant or intended to be used for the purpose of annoying or intimidating an adversary or the judge or for causing multiplicity of proceedings in a piecemeal and uncompleted manner. In such cases, the court has an inherent power to dismiss an act or application which is frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of its process.”

It is my view that this action is an abuse of court process. Same is accordingly dismissed.

I so hold

I.M.Njaka

Judge

3-2-2023

Appearances: I E Dikebuaso Esq., for Plaintiff

Joe Njoku Esq., for the 1^st Respondent

AC Allinor Esq., for the 2^nd – 8^th Respondents

SUIT NO: HOW/434/2013 & SUIT NO: HOW/540/2013- CHARLES IWUDIBIA V UCHE PARURE & CHIDI PARURE -Revocation of certificate of Occupancy- Use of Force-Duress, Undue Influence, or Misrepresentation, Mistake, Illegality, Unconscionability- The responsibility to apply for joinder