A-G. ANAMBRA STATE & ORS V. OKAFOR & ORS.

• Pages: 264-290

264



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[19921 1 N.S.C.C.

A-G. ANAMBRA STATE & ORS V. OKAFOR & ORS.

5

1.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL



)

AND COMMISSIONER FOR )

JUSTICE, ANAMBRA STATE )

2.

ANAMBRA STATE



)

COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL )

GOVERNMENT, RURAL



)

DEVELOPMENT AND



)

CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS



)

3.

SOLE ADMINISTRATOR, AWKA )

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA, )

R.N. OKENWA



)

4.

OZO DR. S.E. ONEJEME



)

5.

OZO A.C. NDIGWE



)

V

1.

ROBERT C. OKAFOR



)

2.

OKAFOR EZEKWEM



)

3.

OZO ODILI OBIORAH



)

4.

EZEANA NWOSU



)

5.

CHIEF C. CHINWUKO



)

6.

NNEBE AGUMADU



)

(Suing for themselves and on behalf

of the Ozo's, Ndichies and Ezeanas of

Agulu and Amikwo Communities Awka)

DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS

10

15

20

25

APPEAL No. SC. 172/1988.

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.

0 LATAW U RA ,



J.S.C.

OMO,



J.S.C.

BABALAKIN,



J.S.C.

21st February, 1992.

Administration of Justice -

Order and good government - Incidents of -

Supervisory powers

of the court - scope of

Chieftaincy -Sections 7 and 10 of the Traditional Rulers Law of Anambra State, 1981 -

Constructions of - Recognition of a traditional ruler - Exercise of - When an action can

lie against the exercise - Challenging recognition under section 10 - Procedure for -

illegal recognition accorded a chief - Effect of court order thereon - Sections 6(6)(b)

and 236 of the 1979 Constitution - Effect of

30

35

40

45

50

A-G. ANAMBRA STATE & ORS V. OKAFOR & ORS.



265

Judgments -Injunctions - Mandatory injunctions - Evolution of - Considerations applying

to the grant of - Principle in Ojukwu's case - Scope and applicability of - court granting

a relief not asked for - propriety of - Incompetent order - Order; though erroneous, within

5



the court's jurisdiction - Distinction between - Courts.

Practice and Procedure - Stay of execution - Import of - Whether operate to restore the

unsuccessful party to his full rights - Successfull party executing judgment when

application for stay is pending - propriety of

Remedies -Injunction - Mandatory injunctions - Evolution of - Considerations applying to

10



the grant of - Principle in Ojukwu's case - Scope and applicability of - Court granting

a relief not asked for - Propriety of - Incompetent order - Order, though erroneous, within

the court's jurisdiction - Distinction between - Courts supervisory powers - Scope of

Supervisory powers - Scope of - Interlocutory application - purport of - Whether would

15



enure for act already carried out - interlocutory order - when terminable.

ISSUES:

1.

Can the courts declare a recognition granted to any traditional ruler by the

Executive a nullity?

2.

When may an action challenging the recognition of a traditional ruler by the

20



Governor (under the Traditional Rulers Law) be instituted?

FACTS:

The defendants/appellants and the 4th and 5th respondents had been en-

gaged in a tussle as to who had the right to select, install and indeed present the

25



traditional ruler of Awka (variously called the "Ichie", "Eze Uzu" or the "Obi" of

Awka). Whilst the 3rd defendant/appellant was involved in overseeing that proc-

ess, the role of the 1st and 2nd appellants was mainly confined to the recognition

or de-recognition of the person duly nominated, selected and presented to them

for recognition, pursuant to the provisions of the Traditional Rulers Law, No.14 of

30 1981 of Anambra State.

It was admitted by all the parties concerned that the process of nomination to

presentation was governed until disagreements arose by the 1976 chieftaincy

Constitution for Awka Community. It was the contention of the plaintiffs/respon-

dents that sometime in 1985 the 4th and 5th defendants/appellants "and their

group" unilaterally amended that constitution, and proceeded to select, install and

35



purported to present an "unpopular candidate" for recognition as the traditional

ruler of Awka.

Incensed by this action the plaintiffs/respondents filed an action (suit

No.AA/70/86) in the High Court of Anambra State (Awka Division) claiming:-

"1. A declaration that any constitution purported to be an amendment to the

1976 Chieftaincy Constitution for Awka Community and lodged with the

Administrator for Awka or forwarded to the Anambra State Commissioner

for Local Government, Rural Development and Chieftaincy Matters Enugu

is null and void and of no effect;

2. A declaration that any action or decision based on the purported amend-

ment of the Chieftaincy Constitution for Awka of 1976 is null and void and

of no effect;

3.

A declaration that the 4th defendant has no power either by custom

tradition or any known law to act as the regent or Ichie of Awka and that

the purported appointment of the 4th defendant as the regent or Ichie of

40

45

50