UCHEGBU & ANOR v. MGBEAHUROIKE & ORS

CITATION: (2017) LPELR-41683(CA)

In the Court of AppealIn the Owerri Judicial Division

Holden at Owerri

ON TUESDAY, 7TH FEBRUARY, 2017Suit No: CA/OW/134/2014

Before Their Lordships:

MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA Justice, Court of AppealAYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE Justice, Court of AppealITA GEORGE MBABA Justice, Court of Appeal

Between1. ERIC UCHEGBU2. MR. ADOLPHUS NLEMCHI - Appellant(s)

And1. PASTOR PETER MGBEAHUROIKE(For himself and as representing Nwaegwi’sFamily, Ukwuorji, Umuahakwa Nneano AgbajaAutonomous Community)2. GOVERNOR IMO STATE3. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, IMO STATE4. HONOURABLE COMMISSIONER, LOCALGOVERNMENT AND CHIEFTAINCY AFFAIRS5. CHAIRMAN, EHIME MBANO LOCALGOVERNMENT

- Respondent(s)

RATIO DECIDENDI

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

1. EVIDENCE - AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE: Effect ofuncontroverted facts in an affidavit"It is now elementary in law that where facts which havebeen alluded to in an affidavit are not controverted by wayof counter-affidavit, the facts therein are deemed asadmitted. See the cases of Olofu V. Itodo (2010) 18 NWLR(Pt. 1225) 545; Okorie V. Ejiofor (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 343) 90and Dokubo-Asari V. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2007) 12NWLR (Pt. 1048) 320. Also, it is now well established thatwhere facts have been admitted they are deemed to havebeen proved in law. See cases of Ehinlanwo V. Oke (2008) 6 -7 S. C. (Pt. 11) 123; (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1113) 357; andNdayako V. Dantoro (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187. Thus, theappellants having failed to file a counter-affidavit tocontrovert the facts stated in the respondent's affidavits insupport of the preliminary objection, the facts stated in theaffidavits are deemed admitted and proved."Per OREDOLA,J.C.A. (Pp. 11-12, Paras. F-D) - read in context

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

2. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - ISSUE OF JURISDICTION:How the issue of jurisdiction can be raised; whether leave ofCourt is required to raise it on appeal"It is to be noted that a preliminary objection against anappeal as in the instant case is essentially challenging thejurisdiction of this Court to hear the appeal. An issue ofjurisdiction has been held in plethora of cases; can be raisedat any stage during the Court proceedings or on appeal atthe Supreme Court, with or without leave of the Court beingsought and obtained. Also, the Courts are empowered to suomotu raise an issue of jurisdiction, where the parties fails todo so. See Olutola V. Unilorin (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 416;Adesola V. Abidoye (1999) 14 NWLR (Pt. 637) 28; Oloba V.Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 84) 508; Owners, M/V GongolaHope V. S. C. (Nig.) Ltd. & Anor. (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1056)189, (2007) 6 S. C. (Part 11) 58; and Gaji V. Paye (2003) 8NWLR (Pt. 823) 583. Thus, the contention of the learnedcounsel for the appellants that the respondent failed to seekthe leave of this Court before raising this preliminaryobjection does not accord with the position of the law andaccordingly discountenanced." Per OREDOLA, J.C.A. (Pp.10-11, Paras. B-A) - read in context

3. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - PRELIMINARYOBJECTION: Purpose of filing an affidavit in support of apreliminary objection"Also, the contention of the learned appellants' counsel thatthe preliminary objection was not predicated on facts onrecord is highly misplaced, because the purpose of filing anaffidavit in support of the objection is to properly bring thefacts upon which the objection is predicated upon on record.This is more so, because the events necessitating thepreliminary objection occurred after the appeal in this casehas been entered."Per OREDOLA, J.C.A. (P. 11, Paras. A-C) -read in context

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

4. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - ACADEMIC ORHYPOTHETICAL QUESTION(S)/ISSUES/SUIT/EXERCISE:Meaning and nature of hypothetical/academic issues orquestions"The term "academic exercise" or academic question hasbeen defined by the Supreme Court in the case of AgbakobaV. I. N. E. C. (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 489, wherein HisLordship, Chukwuma Eneh, JSC enunciated as follows:"...The Black Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at page 11 hasdefined academic question as an issue which does notrequire answer or adjudication by Court, because it is notnecessary to case; hypothetical or moot question. An actionbecomes hypothetical or raise mere academic point whenthere is no live matter in it to be adjudicated upon or whenits determination holds no practical or tangible value formaking a pronouncement upon it, it is otherwise an exercisein futility. When an issue in an appeal has become defunct itdoes not require to be answered or controvert about andleads to making bare legal postulations which the Courtshould not indulge in; it is like the salt that lost its seasoning.And like the salt in that state it has no practical value toanybody and so also, a suit in that state has noneparticularly and practically to the plaintiff." Also, in the caseof Plateau State V. Attorney - General of the Federation(2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967) 346; LPELR - 2921, page 76 - 77,the Supreme Court, per Niki Tobi, J.S.C. (of blessed memory)defined an academic suit thus:"A suit is academic where it is merely theoretical, makesempty sound, and of no practical utilitarian value to theplaintiff even if judgment is given in his favour. A suit isacademic if it not related to practical situations of humannature and humanity." See also Odedo V. I. N. E. C. (2008)17 NWLR (Pt. 1117) 554; Efet V. I. N. E. C. (2009) LPELR -4074; Yusuf V. Toluhi (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1107) 237; (2008)6 - 7 S.C. (Pt. 1) 164; Bamaiyi V. Attorney-General of theFederation (2001) 12 NWLR (Pt. 727) 468."Per OREDOLA,J.C.A. (Pp. 14-15, Paras. A-D) - read in context

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

5. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - ACADEMIC ORHYPOTHETICAL QUESTION(S)/ISSUES/SUIT/EXERCISE:When a trial or an appeal can become an academic orhypothetical question"In the case of Labour Party vs. Bello & Ors (2016) LPELR -40848 (CA) this Court held that: "An appeal is said to beacademic, if it would bring no benefit to any party, exceptperhaps the mental satisfaction to that party or parties whobrought it... A case is said to amount academic venture,where there cannot be said to be live issue in the litigation, ifwhat is represented to the Court for a decision, whendecided, cannot affect the parties thereto in any way eitherbecause of the fundamental nature of the reliefs sought or ofchanged circumstances since after the litigation started, sothat in the end, an appeal has become academic at the timeit is due for hearing. See the case of Attorney General of theFederation vs. ANPP (2004) LRCN 2671 Odedo vs. INEC(2008) 17 NWLR (Pt.117) 554."Per MBABA, J.C.A. (P. 19, Paras. A-E) - read in context

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

M A S S O U D A B D U L R A H M A N O R E D O L A ,

J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): The instant

appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Imo

State, sitting at Owerri (hereinafter referred to as the

“lower Court”), which was delivered on the 17th day of

March, 2014 by Hon. Justice F. I. Duroha-Igwe, J.

The suit was commenced by the claimant/respondent

(hereinafter referred to as the ”respondent”) vide a writ of

summons and statement of claim dated the 27th day of

March, 2012 but was filed on the 28th day of March, 2012

seeking six (6) reliefs against the appellants/defendants 5th

– 7th (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”) as

follows:

“(a) A declaration that under the native law, custom

and tradition of Nne-ano Agbaja Autonomous

Community, Ehime Mbano Local Government Area,

Imo State the family unit to produce an Eze-Elect for

Umuchakwa is Nwaegwi’s family.

(b) A declaration that the claimant who is now the

head of Nnaegwi family unit, Umuchakwa is the duly

identified, selected, appointed and installed Eze of

Nne-ano Agbaja Autonomous Community.

(c) A declaration of the Honourable

1

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

Court that the 5th defendant, Eric Uchegbu, is not

entitled to be appointed or conferred with the title of

the Eze or Traditional Ruler of Nne-ano Agbaja

Autonomous Community.

(d) Injunction restraining the 7th Defendant, from

parading or holding out himself as the President-

General of Nne-ano Agbaja Autonomous Community.

(e) Injunction restraining the 5th to 7th defendants

by themselves agents or privies from parading or

holding out, presenting or submitting the 5th

defendant as the Eze or Traditional Ruler of Nne-ano

Agbaja Autonomour Community, Ehime Mbano Local

Government Area, Imo State to 1st to 4th Defendant

or from taking any further steps in respect of the

Ezeship stool contrary to the interest and inalienable

right of the Claimant.

(f) Injunction restraining the 1st to 4th defendants

from according any recognition, issuing any

certificate of recognition and staff of office to the 5th

defendant as the Eze or Traditional Ruler of Nne-ano

Agbaja Autonomous Community.”

The 1st to 4th defendants/respondents (hereinafter

referred to as “the 2nd set of respondents”) neither entered

appearance nor filed any process in

2

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

reply to the respondent’s statement of claim. On the other

hand, the appellants filed a preliminary objection dated and

filed on the 7th day of May, 2012, seeking for the order of

the lower Court “to strike out or dismiss this Suit for being

incompetent”, on the following grounds:

“(a) The Suit does not raise any reasonable Case (sic)

of action .

(b) By the provisions of Section 28 of the Traditional

Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law No. 3 of

1999, no cause of action has arisen.

(c) The Suit is an abuse of Court Process.

(d) The Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to

determine the Suit.”

In response to the preliminary objection, the respondents

filed a counter-affidavit and written address in opposition

to the said preliminary objection on the 14th day of May,

2012. In accordance with the rules of the lower Court, the

appellants filed their reply on point of law in respect of the

preliminary objection on the 1st day of June, 2012. At the

conclusion of the hearing of the appellant’s application in

question, the lower Court delivered its ruling on the 17th

day of March, 2014 dismissing the application for lacking

merit.

3

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

Expectedly, the appellants were not satisfied with the lower

Court’s ruling and thus, appealed against the same vide

their notice of appeal dated and filed on the 21st day of

March, 2014. The said notice of appeal contained only a

single ground of appeal which is reproduced without its

particulars as follows:

“ERROR IN LAW:

The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when she held

that the Claimant’s Statement of Claim discloses a

cause of action and dismissed the preliminary

objection challenging the Court’s jurisdiction to

entertain the suit.”

In accordance with the rules of this Court, the parties have

filed and served their respective briefs of argument. The

appellants’ brief of argument is dated and filed on the 22nd

day of April, 2014. The said appellants’ brief of argument

was prepared by A. K. Madu, Esq.

On the other side of the divide, the respondent’s brief of

argument was filed on the 23rd day of June, 2014 by J. C.

Uwandu, Esq. In addition to this, the respondent raised a

notice of preliminary objection seeking for the order of this

Court dismissing

4

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

this appeal for lack of jurisdiction in that the appeal is an

academic exercise. The said preliminary objection was

equally fi led on the 23rd day of June, 2014. The

respondent’s brief was subsequently amended and filed on

the 19th day of November 2015 but was by the order of this

Court deemed as properly filed and served on the 21st day

of January, 2016. In reply to the respondent’s preliminary

objection, the appellants filed their reply brief on 25th day

of January, 2016.

It is to be noted that the 2nd set of the respondents neither

entered appearance nor filed any process in this suit. Thus,

no reference would be made to them and they would be

bound by the outcome of this appeal. Also, it is to be noted

that the 3rd appellant/7th defendant name was struck from

this appeal by the order of this Court made on the 20th day

of April, 2016.

In accordance with the established principle of this Court,

the respondent’s preliminary objection would be considered

and determined first. The argument in support of the

respondents’ preliminary objection was incorporated in the

respondent’s amended brief of argument. The grounds

upon

5

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

which the preliminary objection was brought as stated in

the amended respondent’s brief are as follow:

“The 1st Appellant/Respondent on 31/3/2014 which

was during the pendency of this Suit and after

lodging this Appeal on 21/3/2014, submitted himself

to the 3rd to 5th Respondents, whom during the

Ezeship recognition and presentation of staff of office

ceremony held on 31/3/2014 at Sam Mbakwe

Expanded Executive Council Chambers Government

House Owerri, Imo State, purportedly Recognized and

granted him, Certificate of Recognition and staff of

office as the Traditional Ruler of Nneano Agbaja

Autonomous Community, Ehime Mbano Local

Government Area, Imo State contrary to the

Appellants contention in their preliminary objection

and this Appeal that the 1st Appellant had not been

recognized and no cause of action had arisen.

(ii) The Appellants by the said recognition has

rendered this Appeal nugatory, hypothetical, advisory

and an Academic exercise.

(iii) The Courts including this Honourable Court does

not give advisory opinion on matters.

(iv) This Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to hear

this Appeal.”

6

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

In determination of this preliminary objection, the

respondents formulated a sole issue. The issue is as follow:

“WHETHER THIS HONOURABLE COURT HAS THE

JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THIS APPEAL.”

It is instructive to observe herein that the notice of

preliminary objection is supported by six (6) paragraphs

affidavit and four(4) paragraphs further affidavits together

with five(5) exhibits.

The learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that

this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal same

having been rendered an academic exercise. He further

contended that a cursory look at Paragraphs “3(a) to (i) and

4(i) to (iv) of the Affidavit in Support of this motion shows

serious fundamental defects in the appeal of the

Appellants.” He further contended that the appeal clearly

show or only raises an hypothetical question or an

academic exercise in that it is predicated on an event that

had already taken place. Thus, he submitted that the appeal

is clearly an academic exercise. The learned respondents’

counsel argued that these defects are fatal and has robbed

this Court of the jurisdiction to entertain this appeal as

presently

7

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

constituted. He referred this Court to Paragraphs 3(K) and

(L), and 4(i) and 4(ii) of the affidavit in support of this

objection and all the exhibits attached in support thereof.

The learned counsel further argued that all these above

factors has indicated features which has consequently

denied this Court the jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.

He relied on the cases of Okoro V. Egbuoh (2006) NWLR

(Pt. 1001) OFF 1; D. E. N. R. Ltd. V. Trans

International Bank Ltd. (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119)

388; Odofin V. Agu (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 229) 350; and

Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341.

The learned counsel for the 1st respondent therefore

submitted that this “Appeal having been brought and

predicated on an academic exercise makes the Appeal to

amount and constitute an abuse of process of Court in that

it is an interference with the due administration of justice”.

He relied on the cases of Saraki V. Kotoye (1992) 9

NWLR (Pt.264) 156; Uzoho V. N. C. P. (2007) 10

NWLR (Pt. 1042) 320; and Dr. Andy Uba V. Etiaba

(2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1202) 343.

In reply, the learned counsel for the appellants contended

that this preliminary objection is

8

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

incompetent because it was not predicated upon any fact

on record. He further contended that the grounds upon

which the objection was brought is novel, thus, requiring

the leave of this Court before it can be validly raised. He

referred this Court to the case of Yakubu V. Chief of

Naval Staff (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt. 853) 94 @ 113.

Furthermore, the learned counsel for the appellants stated

that if this Court is inclined to entertain this objection, he

submitted that the respondents have failed to establish with

credible evidence (through the tendering of Imo State

Government Gazzette) that the 1st appellant has been

recognized and issued staff of office as the traditional ruler

of Nneano Agbaja Autonomous Community Ehime, Mbano

Local Government Area, Imo State.

In addition, the learned counsel for the appellants argued

that the facts alluded to in the affidavits in support of the

preliminary objection has no impact whatsoever in this

appeal. He continued that the jurisdiction of this Court is

regulated by Section 241 of the Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and that the

respondents have not shown that the provision of this

9

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

section has been breached.

Finally, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that

the only situation in which this appeal would be rendered

an academic is if the respondents withdraw their suit. He

therefore urged this Court to dismiss this preliminary

objection and allow this appeal on merit.

It is to be noted that a preliminary objection against an

appeal as in the instant case is essentially challenging the

jurisdiction of this Court to hear the appeal. An issue of

jurisdiction has been held in plethora of cases; can be

raised at any stage during the Court proceedings or on

appeal at the Supreme Court, with or without leave of the

Court being sought and obtained. Also, the Courts are

empowered to suo motu raise an issue of jurisdiction,

where the parties fails to do so. See Olutola V. Unilorin

(2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 416; Adesola V. Abidoye

(1999) 14 NWLR (Pt. 637) 28; Oloba V. Akereja (1988)

3 NWLR (Pt. 84) 508; Owners, M/V Gongola Hope V.

S. C. (Nig.) Ltd. & Anor. (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1056)

189, (2007) 6 S. C. (Part 11) 58; and Gaji V. Paye

(2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 823) 583. Thus, the contention of

the learned counsel for the appellants that

10

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

the respondent failed to seek the leave of this Court before

raising this preliminary objection does not accord with the

position of the law and accordingly discountenanced.

Also, the contention of the learned appellants’ counsel that

the preliminary objection was not predicated on facts on

record is highly misplaced, because the purpose of filing an

affidavit in support of the objection is to properly bring the

facts upon which the objection is predicated upon on

record. This is more so, because the events necessitating

the preliminary objection occurred after the appeal in this

case has been entered.

Again, on the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellants that the preliminary objection has no impact on

this appeal. I find this submission highly unprofessional and

a serious attempt to mislead this Court. This is because, the

outcome of the preliminary objection has the tendency of

terminating this appeal, when upheld. Thus, the outcome of

this preliminary objection has a serious impact on this

appeal.

It is now elementary in law that where facts which have

been alluded to in an affidavit are not controverted by way

of

11

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

counter-affidavit, the facts therein are deemed as admitted.

See the cases of Olofu V. Itodo (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.

1225) 545; Okorie V. Ejiofor (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 343)

90 and Dokubo-Asari V. Federal Republic of Nigeria

(2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 320. Also, it is now well

established that where facts have been admitted they are

deemed to have been proved in law. See cases of

Ehinlanwo V. Oke (2008) 6 - 7 S. C. (Pt. 11) 123;

(2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1113) 357; and Ndayako V.

Dantoro (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187. Thus, the

appellants having failed to file a counter-affidavit to

controvert the facts stated in the respondent’s affidavits in

support of the preliminary objection, the facts stated in the

affidavits are deemed admitted and proved. That is, the

respondent is deemed to have established in evidence that

during the pendency of this appeal, the 1st appellant has

been recognized and confirmed as the traditional ruler

(Eze) of Nneano Agbaja Autonomous Community of Ehime,

Mbano Local Government Area, Imo State by the Governor

of Imo State.

The question that needs to be asked and answered is: what

is the effect of recognizing the 1st appellant as the

12

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

traditional ruler of the said Nne-ano Autonomous

Community? It is however, imperative to point out that, this

appeal emanated from the preliminary objection filed by

the appellants. The crux of the appellants’ preliminary

objection was that this suit is premature in the sense that

the 2nd respondent to this appeal (Governor of Imo State)

has not recognized the 1st appellant or anyone else as the

traditional ruler of Nne-ano Autonomous Community. The

appellants placed heavy reliance of Section 28 of the

Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law No. 3

of 1999. Thus, it is not in doubt that the basis of this appeal

and central point to be determined is whether the

respondent’s suit can be maintained when the 1st appellant

has not been recognized as the traditional ruler of Nne-ano

Autonomous Community by the 2nd respondent.

With the recent development which has been established

by the respondent that the 1st appellant has now been

recognized and given staff of office as the traditional ruler

of Nne-ano Autonomous Community, I completely agree

with the counsel for the respondent that the subject matter

of this appeal has been spent.

13

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

Consequently, this appeal has been rendered as an

academic exercise.

The term “academic exercise” or academic question has

been defined by the Supreme Court in the case of

Agbakoba V. I. N. E. C. (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119)

489, wherein His Lordship, Chukwuma Eneh, JSC

enunciated as follows:

“…The Black Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at page 11

has defined academic question as an issue which does

not require answer or adjudication by Court, because

it is not necessary to case; hypothetical or moot

question.

An action becomes hypothetical or raise mere

academic point when there is no live matter in it to be

adjudicate upon or when its determination holds no

pract ica l or tangib le va lue for making a

pronouncement upon it, it is otherwise an exercise in

futility. When an issue in an appeal has become

defunct it does not require to be answered or

controvert about and leads to making bare legal

postulations which the Court should not indulge in; it

is like the salt that lost its seasoning. And like the

salt in that state it has no practical value to anybody

and so also, a suit in that state has none particularly

and practically to the plaintiff."

14

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

Also, in the case of Plateau State V. Attorney – General

of the Federation (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967) 346;

LPELR – 2921, page 76 – 77, the Supreme Court, per

Niki Tobi, J.S.C. (of blessed memory) defined an academic

suit thus:

“A suit is academic where it is merely theoretical,

makes empty sound, and of no practical utilitarian

value to the plaintiff even if judgment is given in his

favour. A suit is academic if it not related to practical

situations of human nature and humanity.”

See also Odedo V. I. N. E. C. (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt.

1117) 554; Efet V. I. N. E. C. (2009) LPELR – 4074;

Yusuf V. Toluhi (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1107) 237;

(2008) 6 – 7 S.C. (Pt. 1) 164; Bamaiyi V. Attorney-

General of the Federation (2001) 12 NWLR (Pt. 727)

468.

Having established that the ground upon which the

appellants’ preliminary objection was predicated has been

overtaken by event, I find no difficulty in agreeing with the

learned counsel for the respondent that this appeal has

become an academic exercise. That is, the subject matter of

this appeal has been spent. Thus, this Court not being an

15

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

academic institution will not undertake to carry out an

academic duty in determining this appeal on merit.

In passing, I will like to comment that this appeal has

similar facts with the cases of Governor of Imo State V.

Amuzie & Ors. (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 34 and

Attorney-General of Abia State V. Agharanya (1999) 6

NWLR (Pt. 607) 362, wherein this Court held that a

plaintiff could successfully bring a suit challenging the

nomination of an Eze-elect before the said Eze-elect

(traditional ruler) is confirmed by the Governor. Thus, I am

of the firm opinion that this appeal would have still failed, if

heard on the merit. Hence, in the light of the above

findings and the resultant negative answer to the issue

formulated for determination in this appeal against the

appellant. I have no hesitation whatsoever in coming to the

inevitable conclusion that the present appeal cannot fly and

the same is accordingly hereby struck out by me.

Consequently, the ruling of the lower Court delivered on

the 17th day of March, 2014 is hereby affirmed by me.

Costs assessed at N50,000.00 is awarded against the

appellants and in favour of the 1st respondent.

16

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.: I have

had the privilege of reading in draft the leading judgment

prepared by my learned brother OREDOLA, JCA. I am not

only in complete agreement with the manner in which the

preliminary objection to the appeal was but with conclusion

of his lordship that the appeal in any event would have

failed if considered on the merit.

Accordingly, I hold that the appeal has to be struck out and

is hereby struck out given the success of the preliminary

objection raised therein. I abide by the order in relation to

costs as contained in the lead judgment.

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of

reading, in draft, the lead judgment, just delivered by my

learned brother, M. A. R. Oredola JCA and I agree,

completely, with his reasoning and conclusion that the

preliminary objection is sustainable, to terminate the

appeal.

Appellants’ act of inducing or getting the 2nd Respondent

to recognize and install the 1st Appellant as the Eze on

31/3/2014, while this appeal, filed by them on 21/3/2014,

was pending, which appeal had questioned the ruling of the

trial Court on the very subject

17

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

matter, appears to have defeated the whole essence of his

appeal in this Court. Thus, Appellants, in my opinion, were

sabotaging the said appeal and, contemptuously, acted to

render the appeal nugatory, by pursuing and submitting to

the said recognition and installation, while also pursuing

this appeal.

They (Appellants) were arguing in their preliminary

objection (which resulted in this appeal) that the

Respondents’ suit was premature, in the sense that the 2nd

Respondent (Governor of Imo State) had not recognized the

Appellants’ or anyone else as the traditional Ruler Nne-ano

Autonomous Community, therefore, the suit should be

struck out, as the trial Court had no jurisdiction to

entertain it, for want of valid cause of action. With the 1st

Appellant’s recognition on 31/3/14, while the appeal was

pending, it would appear there is therefore no want of

cause of action again, (even if the trial Court had erred)!

Appellant and the 2nd Respondent had therefore, removed

the basis of the appeal, having contemptuously determined

the appeal by themselves, leaving nothing for this Court to

consider any further. Thus, this appeal has become

an academic exercise.

18

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)

In the case of Labour Party vs. Bello & Ors (2016)

LPELR – 40848 (CA) this Court held that:

"An appeal is said to be academic, if it would bring no

benefit to any party, except perhaps the mental

satisfaction to that party or parties who brought it… A

case is said to amount academic venture, where there

cannot be said to be live issue in the litigation, if what

is represented to the Court for a decision, when

decided, cannot affect the parties thereto in any way

either because of the fundamental nature of the

reliefs sought or of changed circumstances since

after the litigation started, so that in the end, an

appeal has become academic at the time it is due for

hearing. See the case of Attorney General of the

Federation vs. ANPP (2004) LRCN 2671 Odedo vs.

INEC (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt.117) 554”

I too strike out the appeal and abide by the consequential

orders in the leading judgment.

19

(201

7) LP

ELR-41

683(

CA)