By Bartholomew Madukwe

The Supreme Court had struck out two applications brought by Chief O.T.K.D. Amachree (Appellant/Applicant) filed against Chief Macdonald O. Abbi and Chief (Prof.) T.J.T. Princewill, asking the apex court to order a stay of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt, nullifying the installation of the Amanaganabo, Prof. T.J.T. Princewill.

The ruling of the apex court in the application brought by the appellant/applicant confirmed the axiom that where a higher court refuses to grant an application for stay of execution of an order given by a court below, the appellant/applicant should not thereafter assume that the refusal now means that his appeal should act as a stay for the order made against him.

The Supreme Court had struck out the applications after they had been withdrawn by counsel to the appellant.

This decision was taken by a full panel of five justices including Walter Samuel Nkanu Onuoghen, Muhammad Saifullah Munkaka Coomassie, Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta, Olukayode Ariwoola and Musa Dattijo Muhammad. The ruling was delivered by Onuoghen.

Chief Amachree had brought the applications to stay the judgment of the Court of Appeal which nullified the installation of the Amanaganabo, Prof. Princewill.

Delivering the ruling, the apex court was said to have advised the appellant’s counsel to withdraw the application for stay of execution because it would not grant it. The alleged reason for refusing to grant the applications, was that the appellant and other respondents, particularly the Amanyanabo, are in disobedience of the orders of the courts below.

The two applications were filed separately on October 19, 2012 and February 12, 2013. Both were struck out with an award of N50,000 each to the first respondent, Chief Abbi.

The Supreme Court in striking out the motions for stay ordered: “That the motions filed on the 19th day of October, 2012 and 12th February, 2013 having been withdrawn without objection be and is hereby struck out and that N50,000 costs is awarded to the first respondent. (N50,000 is repeated on both orders).

The motions for stay were brought by Amachree pursuant to his appeal lodged at the apex court in which he is seeking the court to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt division made against the Amanyanabo and other Chiefs in council.

Chief Abbi for himself and as representing the King Abbi Royal House, the king makers of the Kalabari Kingdom, Buguma, Rivers State, had approached the appellate court to set aside the decision of Justice J.M. Kobani of the Rivers State High Court, delivered on December 19, 2005 who refused to grant the order to return the parties to status-quo as at March 29, 2000 when the suit against the coronation of a new Amanyanabo commenced.

The target of the restorative injunction as sought by Abbi, was as a result of the purported installation and recognition of Professor Princewill as the Amanyanabo of Kalabari which took place on March 23, 2002 during the pendency of the suit, and also done in disobedience of the order of interlocutory injunction made on July 31, 2000.

The order made on July 31, 2000 restrained all parties in contest of the stool of the Amanyanabo from taking any step in furtherance of and or in selecting, electing, anointing or installing any person whatsoever as the Amanayanabo of Kalabari without the consent, knowledge and participation of all the parties in the suit and all the chiefs of Abbi Royal House, Council of Chiefs, the Karibo Group of Houses, the Buguma Council of Chiefs and the Kalabari National Assembly or any other affected body or bodies or houses or group of houses, pending the peaceful resolution of the dispute between the parties themselves or the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

This order of the Rivers State High Court, made by Justice A.A. Wodu was allegedly violated by the Professor Princewill’s group, as he was on March 23, 2002 installed as the new Amanayabo of Kalabari.

It was because Justice Kobani refused to restore the parties to the status quo as at March 29, 2000 having been seized of the fact that one of the parties has over-reached the order of July 31, 2000, but instead ordered that the parties should maintain status quo as at December 19, 2005, that is three years after the coronation of the Amanyanabo in the person of Prof. Princewill.

Consequently, the ruling of Kobani on December 19, 2005 invariably reversed the order made on July 31, 2000 even though, no party from all available records, asked for the review of that order.

In granting Chief Abbi’s request, the Court of Appeal held: “There is no dearth of authorities to guide the learned trial judge in the application for a restorative or mandatory injunction to restore the parties to status quo ante. He merely turned the other way to involve the doctrine of expediency as a veneer for his judicial impertinence.

“It was unreasonable and perverse on his part to sacrilegiously review and reverse the previous order made on 31st July, 2000 without any application for such review. Even if there was such application, the learned trial judge, on principle of his being functus officio, would have acted reluctantly.”

The court continued: “There is no way a judge, acting, arbitrarily, can ever enforce justice, order and good government. Only the rule of law and not lawlessness, anarchy and impunity governs this realm. The rule of law includes the orders of court of law. The principles of expediency that is antithetic to, and a violent rejection of the rule of law, is nothing but arbitrariness and an invitation to judicial anarchy.

Further the appellate court held: “The learned trial judge (Kobani) acted grossly in error when he condoned the indiscipline and lawlessness of the defendants/respondents who had flagrantly flouted the subsisting injunctive order made on 31st July, 2000.”

Concluding the court said: “The lone issue canvassed by the appellant, (Abbi), is hereby resolved in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. The appeal is hereby allowed. The ruling, including the orders therein, made on December 19, 2005 are hereby set aside.

The appellant made out a case for restorative or mandatory injunction sought. The order made on July 31, 2000 remains extant. The purported installation and recognition of the first defendant/respondent (Chief Prof. Princewill) are consequently set aside. By this decision “the parties including the first defendant/respondent (The Amanyanabo installed, Chief Princewill) shall be and are hereby reverted to the status quo ante imposed by the order of  July 31st, 2000.”

The appeal court thereafter ordered the Chief Judge of Rivers State “to use his good offices to ensure accelerated hearing of the suit pending at the high court by a judge other than Justice J.M. Kobani.”