Background
The Obong of Calabar throne became vacant in early 2008 under the codified customs of the Efik people of Cross River State. Selection involves two separate bodies: the Western Calabar Traditional Rulers Council ("Western Council") which screens and nominates an Etubom from recognized ruling houses, and the Etuboms Traditional Rulers Council of the Obong’s Palace ("Etuboms Council"), which has the &8216;final say&8217; in proclamation. The appellants belong to the Ikoneto section, the last yet to occupy the throne, and nominated Dr. Anthony Ani. Before presentation to Etuboms Council, the Western Council purportedly selected and screened the 4th respondent, its chairman, as sole candidate. Appellants sued in the High Court of Cross River State for declaratory and injunctive reliefs challenging 4th respondent’s qualification, breach of fair hearing, breach of turn-taking and breach of natural justice. The trial court declared waiver of screening requirements and set aside the contested nomination. Two respondent groups separately appealed to the Court of Appeal, which partly allowed 1st respondents’ appeal by setting aside waiver findings and 4th respondent’s disqualification but affirmed the finding of breach of fair hearing and ordered a fresh process. Appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction was properly invoked when the notice of appeal was signed by multiple counsel without ticking one name.
- Whether issues distilled from single grounds of appeal were incompetent to support the Court of Appeal’s decision.
- Whether respondents waived the capping and induction requirements.
- Whether 4th respondent, of agnate descent, was disqualified by appellants’ plea on the strength of their own evidence.
- Whether breach of fair hearing (nemo judex in causa sua) vitiated the selection.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that:
- An agent is one authorized to act in place of another; Western Council’s role was distinct from Etuboms Council’s final decision—no agency.
- Waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right; screening alone cannot waive capping and induction requirements entrenched in the Efik Constitution.
- Declaratory reliefs must rest on the strength of the plaintiff’s own case, not on admissions or weaknesses of the defence.
- Nemo judex in causa sua demands impartiality; the chairman of Western Council who screened himself breached natural justice.
- Failure to tick a name beside a proof-signing counsel’s name did not invalidate a notice of appeal when the signature was legible and attributable.
Court Findings
On competence, the Supreme Court affirmed that Mrs. Nella Rabana SAN’s signature was legible and sufficient under the Legal Practitioners Act and Court of Appeal Rules. The Court of Appeal rightly overruled mere duplication of grounds in issues. On waiver, the Western Council lacked power to waive entrenched constitutional criteria at the screening stage; hence no waiver occurred. The Court rejected appellants’ attempt to rely on respondents’ weak evidence for declaratory relief and affirmed respondents’ onus to prove 4th respondent’s disqualification—appellants failed this. On fair hearing, the Court upheld that self-nomination and self-screening by the chairman of the Western Council breached nemo judex in causa sua and vitiated the entire process.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirmed the Court of Appeal’s orders setting aside 4th respondent’s proclamation, and directed Western Calabar Traditional Rulers Council to conduct a fresh selection of an Etubom in strict compliance with the Etubik Constitution and principles of natural justice. Parties to bear their costs.
Significance
This decision underscores: (1) the separation of functions between screening bodies and final appointing bodies in customary processes; (2) strict limits on waiver of constitutionally entrenched customary requirements; (3) rigorous application of natural justice to traditional institutions; and (4) procedural precision in appellate filings under the Legal Practitioners Act and court rules.