CHIEF MICHAEL IFAMA OKUNTA & ORS V. SENIBO PASCHAL ODEYH & ORS (2014)

Background

This appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Rivers State in Suit No. BHC/6/2006, delivered on 22 March 2013. The respondents described themselves as members of the King Kpokpo (Pokoye) section of Nkoro Clan. Their complaint concerned the customary authority to install or coronate chiefs in Nkoro. They asserted that, under the native law and custom of the community, the Amanyanabo of Nkoro possessed the authority to install a new chief or delegate that authority to a person from the King Kpokpo section.

The Amanyanabo became ill and incapacitated in 2004. The respondents alleged that the appellants took advantage of his condition to introduce a document entitled Approved Standing Order on Chieftaincy Matters, dated 3 July 2004, and sought to use it to alter the established chieftaincy procedure. They argued that the document had not been authorized or approved by the Amanyanabo and that the appellants had no authority to install or recognize a chief without the Amanyanabo’s authorization or the participation of the King Kpokpo section.

The respondents sought declarations that the standing order was invalid, null and void, and that only the Amanyanabo and/or the King Kpokpo section had authority to install a chief in the relevant sections of Nkoro Clan. They also sought an injunction restraining the appellants from installing or recognizing the fourth appellant, or any other person, as chief contrary to the custom. The trial court granted the reliefs. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the respondents proved their case, particularly the alleged native law and custom governing the installation of chiefs and the lack of approval for the 2004 standing order.
2. Whether the action was competent as a representative action, including whether the parties represented had to possess juristic personality, whether the respondents required the consent of the ruling house, and whether the withdrawal of one representative invalidated the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. It held that a claimant seeking declaratory relief must generally succeed on the strength of his own case, rather than on the weakness of the defence. However, evidence supplied by the defence which supports the claimant’s case may properly be relied upon to strengthen that case. In this matter, the appellants’ pleadings and evidence substantially supported the respondents’ position that the traditional procedure was connected with the Amanyanabo and the King Kpokpo section.

The court further held that customary law may be proved by evidence or judicially noticed where it has been sufficiently and repeatedly recognized by the courts. Under sections 16(1), 18(2) and 200 of the Evidence Act 2011, no fixed number of witnesses is required to prove a fact, except in the special situations identified by the Act. Therefore, the evidence of one witness may be sufficient where it is cogent, credible and convincing. Corroboration is not automatically required for evidence of custom.

The court also stated that where evidence is relevant, credible and unchallenged, the trial court has a duty to rely on it. Documentary evidence supporting oral testimony enhances the credibility of that testimony. In addition, it is the person invoking the court’s jurisdiction who must be a juristic person; the community or group being represented need not itself possess separate juristic personality.

Court Findings

The respondents called one principal witness, the second respondent, who testified about the pre-existing custom of Nkoro. The Court of Appeal found that his evidence was not effectively challenged. The appellants’ own witnesses confirmed important aspects of the respondents’ case, including that Nkoro had an established traditional method for installing chiefs before the 2004 standing order. One defence witness also gave contradictory evidence about who had signed the standing order on behalf of the Amanyanabo. Although the witness initially claimed that the document had been signed with the Amanyanabo’s authority, he later admitted that he did not know who actually signed it.

The court accepted the trial judge’s conclusion that the document was tainted and had not been shown to have received the Amanyanabo’s approval. Other exhibits, including correspondence, minutes and records of community proceedings, supported the respondents’ oral testimony. The appellants’ own pleading acknowledged that, where the Amanyanabo was unable to act, the King Kpokpo family, in conjunction with the Nkoro Council of Chiefs, could appoint a chief from the Pokoye section. This admission was consistent with the respondents’ case.

On competence, the Court held that community members may sue individually and represent other members when their collective legal interests are threatened. Consent of the ruling house was not a mandatory precondition to the action. The words placed in brackets after the parties’ names merely qualified the capacity in which they sued; they did not introduce the represented community as a separate party. The withdrawal of one representative, who later joined the appellants, did not prevent the remaining representatives from continuing the action.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held that the respondents proved the relevant customary practice and established the invalidity of the 2004 standing order. The action was properly constituted and competent. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, and the High Court judgment was affirmed. Costs of N30,000 were awarded against the appellants.

Significance

The decision is important in Nigerian customary law and chieftaincy litigation. It confirms that the quality and credibility of evidence, rather than the number of witnesses, determine whether a custom has been proved. It also protects the ability of individual community members to bring proceedings to preserve communal legal rights without first obtaining consent from a ruling house. Finally, the case demonstrates that inconsistent defence evidence and documentary records may reinforce a claimant’s case, especially where the claimant’s evidence remains unchallenged.