"If the customary arbitration as contained in Exhibit K was held to be binding on the parties that this would have created an issue of estoppel against the Respondent. See AGU V IKEWIBE (Supra) The law is settled on when customary arbitration can apply as estoppel per rem judicatam. In EGESIMBA V ONUZURUIKE (2002) 15 NWLR (PART 791) p. 466, Ayoola J.S.C. had this to say on this point. "

The four ingredients usually accepted as instituting the essential characteristics of a binding customary arbitration are: (i) voluntary submission of the dispute to the arbitration of the individual or body (ii) agreement by the parties either expressly or by implication that the decision of the arbitrators will be accepted and binding. (iii) That the arbitration was in accordance with the custom of the parties and (iv) That the arbitrators reached a decision and published their award." In OKEREKE & ANOR V NWANKWO & ANOR (2003) 9 NWLR (PART 826) p. 592, the apex Court added the fifth ingredient that should constitute on essential characteristic of a binding customary arbitration thus:

"From the principles enunciated--------the ingredients or preconditions for a valid customary arbitration may be stated to be as follows: (1) That there has been a voluntary submission of the matter in dispute to an arbitration of one or more persons. (2) That it was agreed by the parties either expressly or by implication that the decision of the arbitrators will be accepted as final and binding. (3) That the arbitration was in accordance with the custom of the parties or of their trade or business. (4) That the arbitrators reached a decision and published their award and (5) That the decision or award was accepted at the time it was made."

In view of the conditions laid down by the open court on when a customary arbitration can be binding, I find it difficult to hold that Exhibit K in the circumstances of this case was binding on the parties for the following reasons. (1) This action (now on appeal) was instituted at the lower Court on 23/11/2011 Exhibit K was made on 16/7/2011 barely 4 months after the arbitration. (2) Exhibit K was in respect of pieces of land at (1) Uzoumuna (2) Uzo iyi abo Iheagu (3) Ejihagwu (4) Land behind Mrs. Elizabeth Ejimmadu's house leading to village square. This action however is in respect of pieces of land. (1) Uzo Umuma land (2) Abo Onu Obodo land (3) Uzo Ogwe Ama Okpoehi land (4) Iyi Abo land all situate at Amangwu Iheagu Ndundu Uturu in Isuikwuato Local Government. (3) Earlier before the arbitration, the claimants had caused their solicitors on 23/12/2010 to write to HRH EZE Morius Okoroji who presided over the arbitration accusing him to have conspired with the elders of Amangwu Iheagwu to levy criminal allegation against their matter. (4) None of the claimants and their witnesses accepted that there was any arbitration. (5) Exhibit K itself does not show that it was published and no evidence was given to show that the decision was accepted by the claimants.

It is not for a party relying on customary arbitration to just dump the evidence of the arbitration on the Court. He must show that the parties willingly submitted to the arbitration and accepted the verdict of the arbitrator after its publication. He must also relate the arbitration to the subject - matter of the claim before the Court. This has not been done in this case. The fact that barely four months after the arbitration the claimant instituted this action shows that they did not accept the verdict as binding."

Per AWOTOYE, J.C.A. EJIMADU v. NWOKO & ANOR CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45022(CA)