IN THE HIGH COURT OF IMO STATE OF NIGERIA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, OWERRI
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA
THIS THURSDAY THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2024
SUIT NO: HOW/1479/2022
BETWEEN
- RTD DSP GREGORY OKWARA
- ARC EJIOFOR JUDE M.
- PRINCE GODDAY OKWARA
- CHIEF NICHOLAS OSUIGWE
- CHIEF ALEX OSUIGWE PLAINTIFFS/ RESPONDENTS
- ELDER JOHNSON OKWARA
- PRINCE FELIX OKWARA
(For themselves and on behalf of Umudiokaukwu
town Union, Umudioka-ukwu Autonomous
Community, Orlu LGA, Imo State excluding
the 3rd Defendant)
AND
- THE GOVERNOR OF IMO ST ATE
- THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF IMO
STATE … DEFENDANTS
- DR. BATHOLOMEW CHIDI SUNNY
IBEAWUCHI DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
RULING
This motion is said to be brought pursuant to Order 15 Rule 18 (A) and (D), Order 39 Rule 1(1) of the High Court Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 and Under Section 6(6)(B) Of The 1999 Constitution (As Amended). It prays the court for:
- An order of the Honourable Court dismissing this suit:
(a) in that the Plaintiffs/Respondents have no reasonable cause of action without which the suit cannot be sustained;
(b) the Plaintiffs/Respondents are estopped from challenging the rotatory Eze ship created by the Ezeship Constitution, Exhibit B hereto because the father of the first Eze of the Umudiokaukwu Autonomous Community, the said first Eze himself and representatives of the Plaintiffs/Respondents all signed the Ezeship Constitution, Exhibit B hereto which the Plaintiffs/Respondents claim to be hereditary; and
(c)for constituting an abuse of the process of court.
And for other order(s) or further order(s) as the Honourable Cou to grant in the circumstances.
The affidavit in support, is deposed to by Chief Desmond Ikeri, Acting President-General of the Umudiokaukwu Town Union. He stated that the 3rd Defendant, Dr. Ibeawuchi, was duly selected and installed as the Eze (traditional ruler) of the Umudiokaukwu Autonomous Community in accordance with the Ezeship Constitution (Exhibit A) dated April 3, 1995. The Ezeship system of Umudiokaukwu is rotatory, not hereditary. This system has been used since the first traditional ruler, Eze Felix Okwara, was installed, and has governed the selection of subsequent rulers, including the 3rd Defendant.
The constitution was signed by various representatives, including the father of the first Eze and other notable figures. Members of the Plaintiff group were signatories or close family members of the signatories, and they cannot now challenge the validity of the constitution they once supported.
The Government of Imo State recognized the constitution, and the first Eze, Felix Okwara, was formally issued a staff of office by the state government in December 2001. No amendments to the constitution have been made or approved by the government, meaning that the claim of the Plaintiffs that the Ezeship is hereditary has no legal basis. The Plaintiffs’ claim of hereditary Ezeship is legally unfounded since no amendment to the constitution has been proposed or approved to establish such a system. The absence of a legitimate cause of action leads the 3rd Defendant to argue that the suit is frivolous and amounts to an abuse of process.
The Plaintiffs do not represent the Umudiokaukwu Town Union or the broader community. They come from two families that together represent less than 1% of the community’s population. Their attempt to challenge the rotational Ezeship system is seen as an illegitimate bid to disrupt the traditional leadership structure, which enjoys the broad support of the community.
The suit is characterized as a “gold-digging venture” by individuals dissatisfied with the current Ezeship arrangement. The 4th Plaintiff/Respondent had previously contested for the Ezeship and lost, and now seeks to contest the current Eze’s legitimacy. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant emphasizes that, since the Ezeship Constitution remains the operative document governing the selection of the Eze, and no amendment has been approved, the Plaintiffs have no basis to contest the current Ezeship arrangement. The dismissal is sought primarily due to the absence of a reasonable cause of action, and to prevent further disruption of the community’s governance and peace.
The application seeks the court’s intervention to dismiss the suit, maintaining that the rotatory Ezeship structure is legally binding, was supported by the Plaintiffs’ forebears, and cannot be challenged under the current legal framework. Additionally, the application stresses the potential harm the suit could cause to the unity and peace of the Umudiokaukwu community.
The 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s written address seeks to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ case on the grounds that it lacks a reasonable cause of action and constitutes an abuse of court process. The Plaintiffs, in their suit, are challenging the 3rd Defendant’s selection as the Eze-Elect of the Umudiokaukwu Autonomous Community, seeking declaratory reliefs favouring the 7th Plaintiff’s right to the throne. However, the 3rd Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs’ claims do not align with the Constitution of the Umudiokaukwu Autonomous Community or the Imo State Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law No. 15 of 2016. The 3rd Defendant’s key points include:
The Plaintiffs failed to reference or frontload the community’s Constitution, which governs the selection of the Eze. The community’s Constitution, submitted to the government during the community’s quest for autonomy, has not been amended. Therefore, the current selection process for the Eze should follow the established rotation among the five villages.
According to the 3rd Defendant, the next Eze should come from Umuerinoke village, not Umuduru, where the 7th Plaintiff hails from. This selection process is based on the Constitution, which states that the Eze must be elected and not determined by lineage alone. The 3rd Defendant further contends that the Plaintiffs’ claim lacks essential facts and does not satisfy the legal requirements for a declaratory action. They argue that the Plaintiffs failed to establish a valid cause of action, as their case is not based on the relevant governing instruments. The 3rd Defendant also highlights contradictions and misrepresentations in the Plaintiffs’ suit, particularly concerning the representative nature of their claims. The 3rd Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs are from only two families and do not represent the broader community.
Based on these arguments, the 3rd Defendant concludes that the Plaintiffs’ suit should be struck out due to its lack of legal merit and the absence of a reasonable cause of action.
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs’ blood ties to the original signatories of the Ezeship Constitution (Exhibit B) prevent them from contesting the 3rd Defendant’s installation as the community’s traditional ruler. These signatories, including the 7th Plaintiff’s father and grandfather, were involved in drafting the Ezeship Constitution, making the Plaintiffs privies to the agreement. The address cites legal principles of estoppel, stating that the Plaintiffs cannot now assert rights that contradict the provisions of the constitution they or their elders endorsed.
The 3rd Defendant asserts that a careful analysis of the Ezeship Constitution shows it does not support the Plaintiffs’ claim of hereditary rulership. The Plaintiffs, by their relationship to the signatories, are barred from contesting the 3rd Defendant’s rule under the estoppel principle.
Multiple cases are referenced to support the estoppel argument, including Alhaji Olalekan v Wema Bank and Joe Iga v Ezekiel Amakiri. The address emphasizes that estoppel is a conclusive legal doctrine preventing a party from denying facts they have previously admitted or represented through words or conduct.
The Defendant accuses the Plaintiffs of inconsistency—approbating and reprobating—by now challenging the constitution their relatives signed. This is deemed legally impermissible. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs’ suit constitutes an abuse of the court process. The suit is labeled as vexatious, frivolous, and aimed at delaying the rightful installation of the 3rd Defendant. The address references various case laws on abuse of process, suggesting that the Plaintiffs’ objective is to cause unnecessary legal expenses and delay the community’s progress.
The 3rd Defendant urges the court to dismiss the suit based on fatal errors by the Plaintiffs, citing the absence of a reasonable cause of action. The Plaintiffs’ case is characterized as an attempt to exploit the judicial process for punitive purposes against the community. Thus, the Defendant requests dismissal of the case with punitive costs.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents’ counter-affidavit, is sworn to by Arc Ejiofor Jude M., The Plaintiffs deny the existence of a valid Town Union Government headed by a President-General and Vice-President as claimed by the Defendants. Instead, an Interim Management Committee led by Engr. Emma Oluoma governs the community, without a Vice-President.
The Plaintiffs contest the legitimacy of the 3rd Defendant’s position as the Eze-Elect of Umudioka-Ukwu Autonomous Community, asserting that his selection was not in accordance with the community’s Ezeship Constitution, which dates back to April 3, 1995. They allege that his candidacy is being promoted by a faction that does not represent the true interests of the community.
The deponent claims that Chief Desmond Ikeri, who represents the 3rd Defendant, does not have the authority or consent of the entire community to act on their behalf, but only represents a faction. The Plaintiffs argue that the implementation of the Ezeship Constitution has been flawed, leading to the improper selection of the community’s first two traditional rulers, and they express concern that the same mistakes are being repeated with the 3rd Defendant. They point to efforts to amend the Constitution, which were allegedly obstructed by self-interested parties.
The deponent criticizes Chief Ikeri’s knowledge of the community’s genealogy and traditional structures, asserting that he lacks an understanding of the true nature of the community’s history and customs. They argue that the issues surrounding the selection of traditional rulers involve collective decisions by the community, rather than individual family interests.
The Plaintiffs emphasize the need for a full trial, with witnesses being cross-examined, to resolve the issues raised. They argue that the matters at hand are too complex to be settled through interlocutory applications, as this would violate their right to a fair hearing.
The counter-affidavit accuses Chief Ikeri of pursuing a divisive agenda that threatens the unity and peace of the community. The Plaintiffs argue that his actions are driven by personal interests and could further destabilize the community.
In the written address of the Plaintiffs/Respondents, the counsel contests an application by the 3rd Defendant/Applicant seeking to dismiss the suit on the grounds of estoppel and abuse of court process. The Plaintiffs/Respondents refute these claims, relying on a 29-paragraph affidavit and raised the following issues:
- Whether the Plaintiffs/Respondents are estopped from instituting the suit or if the suit constitutes an abuse of court process.
- Whether estoppel can be determined at this stage without full trial, including pleadings, evidence, and witness examination.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents argue that estoppel is a doctrine of equity used defensively, not offensively, and should not be used to destroy a case prematurely.
They challenge the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s failure to demonstrate that the suit constitutes an abuse of process. The legal principle “he who asserts must prove” applies, citing case law.
They deny that estoppel applies, as the legal conditions for its application—such as a prior final judgment, same parties, and same subject matter in both suits—are not met.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents argue that they are not privy to the constitution upon which the 3rd Defendant/Applicant bases his claim to a traditional rulership, as the signatories did not act under their mandate.
They deny being legally estopped from challenging the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s position.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents contend that issues of estoppel should not be resolved solely through affidavit evidence. They emphasize the need for a full hearing, including cross-examination and re-examination, to ensure substantial justice, citing constitutional provisions and case law.
They argue that the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s application is made in bad faith to prevent them from having their case heard.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents urge the court to dismiss the application and proceed to a full trial, where the legality of the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s position can be properly addressed. They request accelerated hearing and determination of the case on its merits.
RESOLUTION
From the facts and evidence presented by the parties, the following issues for determination can be distilled:
Whether the Plaintiffs/Respondents are estopped in law from instituting the current suit:
This issue focuses on whether the legal doctrine of estoppel applies to prevent the Plaintiffs/Respondents from bringing the current case, considering the conditions for the application of estoppel, such as the existence of a prior judgment, identity of parties, and identity of subject matter between the current and prior suits.
The 3rd Defendant/Applicant claims the Plaintiffs/Respondents are estopped from instituting the suit, likely relying on the principle of res judicata, which prevents the re-litigation of issues already decided by a court.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents argue that the conditions for estoppel, such as a final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction and identity of parties and subject matter, have not been met.
Under Nigerian law, for the doctrine of estoppel to apply, three conditions must be satisfied (Iwuagolu v. Azuka [2007] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1028) 621):
- A final judgment must have been delivered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
- The parties in the previous and current suits must be the same or privies.
- The subject matter in both suits must be the same.
In the present case, there is no evidence that all these conditions have been met. The Plaintiffs/Respondents assert they are not privies to the constitution relied on by the 3rd Defendant/Applicant, thereby disputing the identity of the subject matter and parties. Since res judicata and estoppel must be established conjunctively, and no conclusive evidence has been presented that all the conditions exist, the plea of estoppel fails. The case of Nwakonob v. Udeorah [2012] 50 (Pt. 2) NSCQOR 314 supports this argument, emphasizing that the requirements for estoppel must be strictly adhered to.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents are not estopped from instituting the suit, as the essential conditions for estoppel have not been proven.
Whether the current suit constitutes an abuse of court process:
This issue examines whether the Plaintiffs/Respondents’ suit amounts to an improper or unjust use of legal procedure, as alleged by the 3rd Defendant/Applicant, and whether any specific instances of abuse have been proven.
The 3rd Defendant/Applicant alleges that the suit amounts to an abuse of court process, suggesting the Plaintiffs/Respondents are improperly using the court system to harass or annoy.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents challenge this, arguing no judicial abuse has been established, and the suit does not provoke or annoy the 3rd Defendant/Applicant.
Abuse of court process in Nigerian law occurs when a party improperly or maliciously employs legal processes in a way that is oppressive or vexatious (Saraki v. Kotoye [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156). The burden of proving an abuse of process lies with the party asserting it (Babale v. Eze [2011] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1257) 48). In this case, the 3rd Defendant/Applicant has not presented evidence of multiple suits, frivolous claims, or any misuse of the legal process by the Plaintiffs/Respondents. Mere dissatisfaction with the filing of a suit does not constitute abuse.
The suit does not constitute an abuse of court process, as the 3rd Defendant/Applicant has failed to substantiate the claim with sufficient evidence.
Whether the court can determine the issue of estoppel at the interlocutory stage without a full trial:
The court must decide if it is appropriate to resolve the question of estoppel based solely on affidavit evidence, without the benefit of pleadings, evidence-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination of witnesses, as argued by the Plaintiffs/Respondents.
The 3rd Defendant/Applicant seeks a dismissal of the case at the interlocutory stage on the grounds of estoppel.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents argue that estoppel is an issue that requires full hearing, including pleadings, evidence-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination.
Nigerian courts have consistently held that complex issues like estoppel, which involve detailed factual determinations, cannot be conclusively resolved at the interlocutory stage based solely on affidavit evidence. In Tobin v. Mobil Production (Nig.) Unlimited [2015] All FWLR (Pt. 778) 808, the court emphasized that matters requiring a full trial should not be determined via affidavit evidence. Affidavit evidence is limited in scope and does not allow for cross-examination, a crucial part of fact-finding.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents have raised questions about their non-involvement in the constitution relied upon by the 3rd Defendant/Applicant. This is a factual dispute that requires examination of oral and documentary evidence. Hence, the issue of estoppel cannot be adequately determined without a full trial.
The court cannot not resolve the issue of estoppel at this interlocutory stage, as a full hearing is necessary to determine the merits of the case.
Whether the Plaintiffs/Respondents’ denial of involvement in the constitution upon which the 3rd Defendant/Applicant claims traditional rulership raises sufficient grounds for the court to proceed to a full hearing:
This issue addresses whether the Plaintiffs/Respondents’ contention that they are not privies to the constitution forming the basis of the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s claim to the traditional rulership warrants further examination at trial.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents deny any connection to the constitution upon which the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s claim to the traditional rulership is based.
The 3rd Defendant/Applicant asserts that some of the signatories to the constitution are privies to the Plaintiffs/Respondents.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents’ denial of involvement in the constitution creates a factual dispute that cannot be resolved through affidavit evidence alone. The Nigerian Constitution, under Section 36, guarantees the right to a fair hearing, which includes the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. As the case involves factual discrepancies concerning the Plaintiffs/Respondents’ involvement in the constitution, the court should proceed to a full trial to examine the evidence in detail.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents’ denial of involvement raises sufficient grounds for the court to proceed to a full hearing.
Whether the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s application to dismiss the suit is made in bad faith to prevent the Plaintiffs/Respondents from obtaining a fair hearing:
This issue focuses on the Plaintiffs/Respondents’ claim that the application is a tactical attempt to deny them the right to a fair hearing and seeks to determine if the application is designed to frustrate the judicial process.
Each of these issues will require careful consideration of the legal arguments, facts, and evidence to reach a just determination.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents argue that the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s application is a deliberate attempt to prevent them from having their day in court.
The 3rd Defendant/Applicant seeks to dismiss the suit at an interlocutory stage.
An application made to frustrate or delay the judicial process can be considered an abuse of the right to litigate. In Honda Place Ltd. v. Globe Motors Ltd. [2005] 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 273, the court held that an application made with the intent to deny a party the right to be heard could be construed as bad faith.
Given the Plaintiffs/Respondents’ assertion of significant factual disputes that require resolution, the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s attempt to dismiss the case without a full trial could be seen as an effort to avoid substantive justice. Courts are enjoined to ensure fair hearing and substantial justice, especially in cases involving complex factual issues.
The 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s application to dismiss the suit is in bad faith and aimed at preventing the Plaintiffs/Respondents from obtaining a fair hearing. Therefore, the application should be dismissed, and the case should proceed to trial. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s application to dismiss the suit is without merit. The Plaintiffs/Respondents are not estopped from bringing the suit, and there is no abuse of court process. The issue of estoppel cannot be resolved at this interlocutory stage, and the factual disputes require a full trial. Therefore, the application is dismissed, and the case is to proceed to trial for determination on its merits.
I so hold
I.M.Njaka
Judge
3-10-2024
Ngozi Olehi SAN with Nnaemeka Obikara and Chukwuemeka Aneke for the 3rd Defendant/Applicant
MI Ogbu Mrs PSC for the 1st and 2nd Defendants
OAU Eleke for the Plaintiff