BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Ehikhamwen v. Iluobe
  • 117
  • 2002-08-26
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Ehikhamwen v. Iluobe

1.      CHIEF J. O. EHIKHAMWEN

( Village Head of Ewoki )

2.      CHIEF ANTHONT AREWAN

( Village Head of Olinlin )

3.      CHIEF J. I. OJEABULU

( Village Head of Ebulen )

V

1.      PRINCE ILUOBE (THE ONOJIE OF UZEA)

2.      S. O. OKHUELEIGBE, ESQ

3.      THE MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR EDO STATE

4.      COMMISSIONER FOR SPECIAL DUTIES

DIRECTORATE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

AND CHIEFTAINCY AFFIARS, EDO STATE

5.   ATTORNEY-GENERAL, EDO STATE

COURT OF APPEAL

( BENIN DIVISION )

RAPHEAL OLUFEMI ROWLAND, JCA ( Presided )

SAKA ADEYEMI IBIYEYE, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )

KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, JCA

CA/B/72/98

MONDAY, 7TH MAY, 2001

APPEAL - Grounds of appeal - Need to be based on findings in the records -  Effect of failure to

APPEAL - Grounds of appeal - When deemed abandoned

APPEAL - Issues - Formulation of by respondent - How done where there is no cross appeal

APPEAL - Issues for determination -  Need for issues to be predicated on grounds of appeal

APPEAL - Issues for determination - Defective issues - Need to discountenance same

APPEAL - Issues for determination - Principle guiding formulation of

APPEAL - Respondent without cross-appeal - How may formulate issues

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - Ouster clauses - How construed

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - Statutory interpretation - Court Provision which seeks to oust jurisdiction of - How interpreted

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - Statutory interpretation - Jurisdiction -  Provision ousting court’s jurisdiction - How interpreted

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES -Statutory interpretation - Where a provision seeks to oust the jurisdiction of court - How interpreted

Issues:

Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that he lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit

Facts:

This is an interlocutory appeal from the ruling of the Edo State High Court, Uromi Judicial Division. The appellants, as plaintiffs, filed a writ of summons seeking declaratory reliefs and injunctive orders in a chieftaincy dispute against the respondents, as defendants. The respondents raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit. The preliminary objection was heard and the learned trial Judge held that he “has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim”, and that “the claim does not merit any consideration.” Accordingly, he struck out the claim. Dissatisfied, the appellants filed this appeal which was considered and determined on only the issue of jurisdiction.