EX-PARTE EKPENGA V. OZOGULA II

• Pages: 193-196

EX-PARTE EKPENGA V. OZOGULA II.

193

5

EX-PARTE EKPENGA V. OZOGULA II.

THE QUEEN: Ex-parte CHIEF LEWIS EKPENGA RESPONDENT

V

10

CHIEF IDELIAGUAHAN OZOGULA II

APPELLANT

SUIT NO. FSC 204/1961

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

ADEMOLA,

C.J.F.

UNSWORTH,

F.J.

15

TAYLOR,

F.J.

30th April, 1962.

Administrative Law - Customaly Law - Chieftaincy succession to sub- chieftaincy

- Native Law and Custom.

20

Evidence- Proof - Sufficiency

Uncorroborated evidence of a party to the

proceedings.

Mandamus - Succession to sub-chieftaincy - Proper party applicant - Alternative

25





adequate remedy at law - Ministerial inquiry - W.N. Chiefs Law, 1957 (W.N.

No.20 of 1955) Part III sections 20 & 21 - Effect

ISSUES:

1. Whether the native law and custom of an area can be strictly proved by the

uncorroborated evidence of one witness.

30





2. Whether Mandamus will lie to enforce a duty arising under Native Law and

Custom.

3.

Who is the proper applicant for an order of Mandamus in a chieftaincy

succession matter?

FACTS:

35

The respondent had obtained .an order of

Mandamus

to compel the appellant

to perform certain traditional rites precedent to the installation of his brother to his

deceased's father's chieftaincy stool. He had claimed that if the rites were not per-

formed, the Chieftaincy system of the town would break down completely. Some

chiefs gave evidence supporting the respondent's contention but the Head Chief

40

gave a different version. There was no corroboration of this version. The Trial

Judge granted the Order, as prayed.

The appellant brought this appeal stating

inter alia

that

Mandamus

could not be

granted in such a case and that the decision was against the weight of evidence.

He further argued that as the respondent had an alternative remedy whereby the

45





Minister of Chieftaincy Affairs would be asked to institute an enquiry into the affair,

the order ought not to have been granted. He referred to Sections 21 and 22 of

the W.N. Chief's Law, 1957.

Finally, he argued that the application ought not to have been made by the Re-

spondent but by his brother who was to succeed his father.

50

HELD:

1.

Native Law and Custom must be strictly proved and the uncorroborated

evidence of one person is unsatisfactory.

2.

The power conferred on the Minister in sections 21 and 22 of the Chief's Law

is not an alternative for the remedy at law.