"...Of course, the issues are more narrowed in respect of Chieftaincy matters, to the effect that the Plaintiff must have sufficient interest in the subject matter, either as a kingmaker (one entitled to produce or make the King/Ruler - as family/house, entitled to produce/make the King/Ruler), or as a contestant to the throne (one entitled to the stool as King/Ruler). See Adesanoye Vs Adewole (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt.1000) 242 at 276; Adekunle Vs Adelugba (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1272) 154 at 176; Bamisile Vs Osasuyi (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt.1042) 225 at 279; Bida Vs Abubakar (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt.1239) 130 at 178. In the case of Emezi Vs Osuagwu (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt.939) 340; (2005) LPELR - 1130 (SC), the Supreme Court held:
"The position of the law on the subject is that the right of a Plaintiff to sue in a Chieftaincy matter may arise in two ways:
(i) He may establish in his statement of claim and lead evidence to show that the right that is being asserted is that of his family by reason of any hereditary interest. In such situation the action should be by the family through their representatives and it must be clearly pleaded that it is the civil right of the family that is being claimed or pursued; and
(ii) The Plaintiff may assert his own right to the Chieftaincy stool, if he could show from his pleadings and evidence, if evidence has been led, the nature of his interest and his entitlement to the stool. It is not enough for him to merely say that he is a member of the family.
He has to say further that he had an interest in the Chieftaincy title and plead further in his Statement of Claim how his interest arose. See Momoh & Anor Vs Olotu (1970) 1 ALL NLR 11; Ebongo Vs Uwemedimo (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.411) 22. In the case of Bakare & Ors Vs A.G. Lagos State (2014) LPELR - 22013 SC, the Supreme Court referred to the case of Odeneye Vs Efunuga (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt.164) 618 as to the parameters for instituting action in Chieftaincy matters, that:
(a) A party may in his Statement of Claim and evidence show that the right that is being asserted is that of his family by reason of say their hereditary interest...
(b) A party may, by asserting his own right to the Chieftaincy stool. What is required in that case is that his statement of claim and evidence that has been called should show the nature of his interest and his entitlements to the stool... The above case (Bakare Vs A.G. Lagos Supra) also explains who an aggrieved party is "...one whose personal, pecuniary or property rights have been adversely affected by another person's actions or by a Court's decree or judgment.
He can also be referred to as a person aggrieved. Also, an interested party who has a recognizable stake and therefore standing in a matter." See Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition page 1232 per Ariwoola JSC. In the case of Ndayako Vs Dantoro (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt.889) 187, the Supreme Court said that: "Kingmakers have vested right in Chieftaincy stool as each of them has a constitutional right to take part in the selection or appointment of a successor to the stool in the event of a vacancy in the stool, and no amendment to the Chieftaincy declaration could be made to abrogate the right after it had accrued.
Appellants had referred us to paragraph 3 of their Amended Statement of Claim where they said they pleaded that 3rd, 4th and 5th Appellants as Kingmakers. The said paragraph 3 (page 7 of the Records) said: "3rd, 4th and 5th Claimants are Kingmakers and members of the Eze's Cabinet in the Community representing Umuebem/Amuzu, Umunnemoche and Ekpere/Oroka, respectively. 6th claimant is the Chairman of the Eze's cabinet of the Community. Ex-Officio, he is the regent of the Community. According to the native law and custom of Abazu autonomous community, it is the right of the 3rd, 4th and 5th Claimants acting in consultation with the 6th and 2nd Claimants to identify, select, appoint and install a Traditional Ruler/Eze for Abazu Autonomous Community. The Custom is hereby specifically pleaded."
The Respondents' reply to the above pleading is in paragraphs 4 and 44 of 1st Respondent's pleading (pages 16 - 17 of the Records) and paragraph 4 of the pleading of the 9th and 10th Respondents - page 48 of the Records. Paragraphs 4 & 4(a) of 1st Respondent's pleadings state: "(4) That paragraph 3 of the Claimants statement of claim is false. It is pertinent to note that the issue of regency ceases to exist after the selection of a new Eze. Meanwhile, there is no provision for Kingmaker in Constitution or tradition of Abazu Community.
The Claimants and some of the Defendant have not yet resolved their Issue of who is in control of leadership up till now... (4a) That in further answer to (the) paragraph, 3, 4th - 7th Defendants were officers of the Abazu Town Union during the tenor of the late Eze. Their tenure was yet to expire when the Claimants in an act of brigandage and coup like manner declared 2nd Claimant president of the Town Union without due process and recourse to the Town Union Constitution of Abazu Autonomous Community.
The 1st Defendant wishes to state as a result of the gap created and due to litigations, the setback, stagnation and acrimony bordering on personal and selfish interest of the Claimants, the people of the community from whom the authority flows viz the leaders, Council of elders, women, the youth, a cross section of the whole strata of the Community met, looked into the Ezeship constitution and in accordance with the provisions identified and selected the 1st Defendant as the next Eze of the Community." The paragraph 4 of the pleadings of 9th and 10th Respondents also denied the averment. It said: "Paragraph 3 is not true and is denied.
In further answer to the paragraph 3, I wish to state that regency lasts only during the period of the absence of an Eze, as soon as an Eze is selected, regency ceases. There is no provision for the position of Kingmaker in the Constitution or tradition of Abazu Community." Paragraph 6 of the pleadings of 2nd to 8th Respondents made the same denial, as follows: "In further answer thereto, the Defendants aver that 3rd, 4th and 5th Claimants are not Kingmakers and the approved members of the Eze's cabinet in the Community. The 6th Claimant was a member of Cabinet of the late Eze of Abazu but he was not the chairman.
He is also not the regent of the Community." Page 87 of the Records. What is obvious, from all those pleadings, is the fact that issues had been joined, and that was what the trial Court was to resolve at the trial, after evidence had been led by the parties. But the Respondents appeared not ready or willing to wait for the hearing to be done, even when their pleadings accorded the claimants some position of relevance in the selection of the Eze of the Community (1st Respondent in particular acknowledged the Claimants appointed a chairman of the Town Union and as the regent. He acknowledged the role of the Regent by the Claimants and of the President of the Town Union in the leadership of the community!) Sadly, the trial Judge allowed the Respondents to truncate the trial, and yielded to what appears to be a procedural absurdity - stopping an ongoing hearing of a case to entertain a motion on the same issues the Court was meant to resolve at the hearing, and dismissing the claim of the Claimants, without hearing them, on the merits! Of course, if 3rd to 5th Appellants were Kingmakers, and members of the late Eze's Cabinet, and the 2nd Claimant was the chairman of the Cabinet, and the 6th Regent (holding for leadership pending the selection of the Eze (as admitted by the Respondents as to the place of a Regent)), then the Claimants were properly located to sue, to challenge the alleged appointment of the 1st Respondent; if the Claimants were the recognized authority, traditionally or constitutionally, to identify, select, appoint and install a Traditional Ruler/Eze for the Community, and they did not identify, select, appoint and install the 1st Respondent (as admitted by the Respondent), then Appellants had the requisite right/power to question how 1st Respondent emerged, to claim the Ezeship of the Community and to sue to question his claims.
They had vested interest, to locate them to bring the action, and needed to be heard, to determine whether their claims could be established. The case of Ndayako & Ors Vs Dantoro (Supra) further states the place of Kingmakers in the selection of a traditional ruler, that they are the people properly located to take a decision as to who becomes the traditional ruler: "The first issue for determination deals with the validity of the selection of the 1st Respondent as the Emir of Borgu with respect to the compliance or noncompliance of the directives of the 3rd and 4th Appellants, as per the letter of 7/2/2000 (Exhibit NB/2) in which the chairman of Borgu Local Government was instructed to set in motion within 48 hours from the receipt of the letter the machinery for the selection of a successor to the late Emir...
A meeting of the three Kingmakers was convened on 9/2/2000 for the exercise. According to the minutes of the proceedings of that exercise Exhibit NB/5, it was recorded that when the Chairman of Borgu Local Government asked the Kingmakers whether or not they would like to conduct the selection through open or secret balloting, the Kingmakers requested that they be left alone to consult with one another for ten minutes. In consequence, the meeting hall was vacated by all except the Kingmakers, who after due consultation called in the officials present at the meeting and made a resolution to the effect that all the three Kingmakers had unanimously selected the 1st Respondent as the next Emir...
The Kingmakers, quite rightly, in my view, chose a method of selection by consultation among themselves, a procedure typical of our custom and tradition..." Of course, every local community has its own unique way of selecting their traditional rulers, and may be guided by governmental directives in doing so, but the role of the Kingmakers cannot be wished away, even by the Governor of the State, who must, ultimately, place the statutory approval to the appointment. See the recent case of CHIEF CHIJIOKE COLLINS EGWU - AGWU Vs ENGR. MIKE IGBOMEZIE & ORS: CA/OW/90/2015 delivered on 16/2/18, where it was held: "This Court, while interpreting Section 7 of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law of Abia State, 1981 (which is the same as Section 7 of the Imo State Law No. 6 of 2006), said:
"There is nothing in the section which prevents an aggrieved person like the Respondent... from bringing an action in the High Court to declare the nomination and the selection of the 6th Defendant/Appellant to be irregular, null and void, and restrain the Governor from giving recognition to him." As stated earlier in this judgment, I think Appellant jumped the gun when he called up Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Imo State Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law No. 6 of 2006 for the trial Court to determine, when the hearing of the case was yet to commence and evidence called in respect of the reliefs (1) to (5), which, actually, sought the Court to determine Section 5(1) of the said Law No.6 of 2006, vis a vis, the identification, screening and selection of either 1st Claimant or 3rd Defendant (Appellant) as the Eze of Umunwama Autonomous Community.
The said Section 5(1) of the Law (No.6) 2006, says: "Each Autonomous Community shall identify, select and appoint its "Eze" and present him to the Local Government Council which has power or jurisdiction over the said Community." That, in the main, was what the case of the 1st to 4th Respondents sought the trial Court to determine as between 1st Respondent and the Appellant, before the issue of who should be recognized by the Governor (5th Respondent) as the Eze of the Community." Even if the Claimants did not have the locus standi to bring the Suit, and the trial Court had rightly decided as such (which is not conceded), I fail to see how such decision of lack of locus standi would result in dismissal of a Suit that was never heard on the merits."
Per MBABA, J.C.A. IN NNAMELE & ORS v. NJOKU & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-43987(CA)
