Major Nickson Stanley Dong & Ors V. Attorney General Of Adamawa State & Ors (2014)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.S.C.

A key characteristic of a chieftaincy tussle in this country is its protracted trial and determination at the Courts below, before it gets to the Apex Court. That is why it is said to have chequered history. Often times the facts are bizarre and the claims of the parties are spurious.

This is one of such cases which started 20 years ago. The Appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Jos Division (“the lower court”) delivered on 13th October, 2007 dismissing the Appellants appeal. The Appellants herein, were the 2nd to 10th Appellants before the court below. The 1st Appellant died before the appeal was brought to this court. The appeal is thus being prosecuted by the present Appellants who were also the plaintiffs before the trial High Court Yola in Adamawa State.

The Appellants in that Court, after having been granted leave to sue for themselves and on behalf of the DONG COMMUNITY, against the Respondents as Defendants, took out a Writ of Summons on 25/3/93 claiming the following reliefs:-

“(i). A declaration that the traditional method and/or procedure for the selection, appointment and/or election of a District Head for Dong District was not followed in the appointment of the 3rd defendant as the District Head of Dong District.

(ii). In the alternative to (i) above, a declaration that there is no traditional method/procedure applicable in Dong District for the appointment, selection and/or election of the District Head of Dong District and therefore the Electoral College of the Village Heads of Dong District should have been set up to select the Head of Dong District.

(iii). A declaration that the appointment of the 3rd defendant as the District Head of Dong District by the 2nd defendant through its officers, servants and/or agents is altogether unconstitutional, irregular, invalid, null and void and of no effect whatsoever for offending the provisions of the Adamawa State Creation of Districts Law, 1992 (as amended).

(iv). An injunction to restrain the 3rd defendant by himself or his agents/servants or howsoever from parading himself or continuing to parade himself as the District Head of Dong District

(v). An order directing the 2nd defendant to supervise the conduct of fresh selection, appointment and/or election to fill the position of the District Head of Dong District.”

Pleadings were ordered and exchanged. Issues having been joined the case proceeded to trial. The Appellants called 5 witnesses and tendered 5 Exhibits. The Respondents called 7 witnesses and tendered 2 Exhibits.

In his considered judgment delivered on 24/08/95 the learned Chief Judge decided in favour of the Respondents and the Appellants appealed to the Court below on 24/11/95.

That court delivered its judgment on 13/10/2006. The Appellants sought leave of this court to appeal on points of fact and mixed law and fact and this was granted to them on 6/7/2007, on SEVEN grounds of Appeal. I do not deem it necessary to reproduce the Grounds of appeal. However, the issues distilled from the grounds of appeal are as follows:

(i). whether having regard to the fact that Dong District was a new creation and the requirement to prove a custom as a question of fact, the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the Chief of Batta the representative of the 2nd Respondent by the mere fact of his being chief, was in a position to determine the traditional or customary method in existence in Dong District for the selection of the District Head and did so in this respect when he made wide consultations with the members of the Ruling Families and the Kingmakers.

(This issue covers Grounds 1, 3, 4 of the Grounds of Appeal).