FORM 48

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RIVERS STATE OF NIGERIAIN THE PORT HARCOURT TUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURTsurT No. PHCfl235/2007

BETWEEN:

ELDER A. F. TELLA ATTONI(Chairman of Chief AttoniHouse of Finima , Bonny

EMMANUEL MARKAMIE D. Attoni(for themselves and as representing

CLAIMANTS/APPLICANTS

the descendants of late chief Doghubo andmembers of Chief Attoni Was Canoehouse of Finima excluding the defendants) J

_.'z

ELDER DONALD ABESA ATTONTABEL ADAFE ATTONI 1ST SET OF DEFENDANTS/CONTEN{NORS(For themselves and as representingAll the descendants of Eselema lineage

AYI CROSS BROWN 2ND SET OF DEFENDANTS/CONTEMNOR

HIS ROYAL MAJESTY KING EDWARDASIMINI WILLIAM DAPPA PEPPLE IIIPEREKULE XI, AMANYANABO OF BON

-l

cHrEF (DR.) A.A. FINE COUNTRY(Secretary, Bonny chief's CouncilCHIE RFP CAPTAIN ABBEY HART(Chairman, Bonny Chief's Council

RESPONDENTS/CONTEMNORS

7. AMAOPUSENIBO SIR CLEVERLEY A. BROWN(Palace Secretary ) REsroNDENT/CoNTEMNoR

1.2.

3.

NOTICE OF CONSEOUENCES OF DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF COURT

TO:

Elder Donald Abesa AttomABEL ADAFE ATTONIAYI CROSS BROW\IAll of Finima Communify(new Finima Town) Boirny Island,Rivers State.

4. HIS ROYAL MAJESTY,KING EDWARD ASIMINI WILLIAMDAPPA PEPPLE (III), PEREKULE XI,AMANYANABO OF BONNY

5. CHIEF (DR.) A. A. FINE COUNTRY6. CHIEF RFP CAPTAII{ ABBEY HART7. AMAOPUSENIBO SIR CLEVERLEY A. BROIA4\I

All of office of the Amanyanabo of Bonny,Perekule Palace, Grand Bonny Rivers State

TAKE NOTICE that unless you obey the order and or directives contained in thisORDER, particularly the Order made by FIon. Justice T. S. Oji of the High court ofRivers State dated L0/2/2010 (hereto attached), you will be guilty of contempt ofcourt and will be liable to be committed to prison.

Dated this 29th day of Febrrrary,

ADDRESS FOR SERVICETHE CLAIMANTSThrough Their Counsel,D. Tella Attoni & co.,1 Ilorin Street,Off Hospital RoadPort Harcourt.

THE DEFENDANTSThrough Their Counsel,R. A. Anyawata, Esq.,18 Ogunablai Road,Polt Harcourt

o

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RIVERS STATEOF NIGERIAIN THE PORT HARCOURT JUDI

HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT

BETWEEN

ELDER A. F. TELLA ATTONI & ANOR

AND

. CLAIMANT/APPLICANT

ELDER DONALD ABESA ATfONI & ORS . DEFENDANTS/RESP

Y*This is an application for interlocutory injunction dated and filed 20th August2009 seeking to restrain the defenciants from parading or installing anypersons as Chief/head or representative of Attoni House of Finima, Bonny.And other like reliefs as contained in the motion paper pending thedetermination of this suit. There is a supporting affidavit of 40 paragraphsand several exhibits annexed. There is also a further affidavit dated andfiled 18th September 2009 all sworn to by the 1't claimant applicant.

Respondents filed a counter affidavit on 7/10/0g of 64 paragraphs withexhibits attached also sworn to by the 2nd defendant respondent.

Applicants filed a further and better affidavit headed reply affidavit torespondents' counter affidavit on 12l10lQg.

All the said affidavits are supported by written addresses which both partiesadopted on the 12h of October 2009.

I hbve taken time to review the processes before me inclusive of the casefile. The reliefs sought in this application are almost similar to the reliefs as

crL{\\tIc,

l*Hi?'ffi[#;r,, "+ii{ t{i'to f

BETORE HON. JUSTICE T. S. OJI. JUDGEON THE 1O'" DAY OF FEBRUARY.2OlO

contained in the Writ of Summons, save that the injunctive relief soughttherein is perpetual. The res of this case is; the Chief / Head /Representative of Attoni House of Finima Bonny; who is the rightful personto the said stool if at all. Claimant have filed all their processes'surprisingly despite service of the Writ and other processes on defendantssince 2007 they are yet to file their processes.

After reviewing the copious affidavits and exhibits filed in support of theapplication. lt is clear to me. that any attempt to consider the application inother to resolve the issues therein is to invite me to deal with thesubstantive suit.

There is no way the affidavits as placed before me will not need oralevidence to resolve the issues. Even resolving the issue of the 'Ien MillionNaira would lead to determining who is entitled to keep, receive or holdsame which is as good as determining who is Head, Chief orRepresentative of Attoni House.

I therefore refuse the tempting invitation by both parties to delve into theinterlocutory application so as not to render the substantive suit nugatory.

The law is clear on this issue and there are .', plethora of authorities fromthe Cburt of Appeal and Supreme Court to the effect that courts shouldrefrain from dealing with the substantive issue whilst dealing with aninterlocutory application.

One of such cases which,.is almost on all fours with this suit is Ogunro V.Dule 2006 ALL FWLR Pt. 308 page 1287 at 1297 to 1298 particutartyratios 3, 4, 5,6 &7.

The court had this to say:

" The court while considering interlocutory rutings must desist frommaking any finding which may prejudice the substantive suit. /f istherefore necessa4/ that a court of taw should tread softly ininterlocutory applications in order not to be entangled in the web ofthe main issue before the court. ln the instant case the grant of theinjunctive reliefs sought by the appellants in the trial court would in

CERTIFIED TRUE COPY,

oo'|l'*L! X#['?.Y#

---rxe :ilnics,[iii* ,FrtsH c0uil; REGIsTRT IPonTii/itlcouRT ii-''1rS.ni,[}F:FtCE I

(-\'\ \'r i' '

fi55r. uri;E5 RFf ISTti.AR 1

|.,l.re_Ef*{r-1 _ _.

effect dispose of the main issues in the substanfive suit at aninterlocutory stage thereby knocking the bottom out of the subsfantrvesuit ... the courl will not normally make an interlocutory order if itseffect would be to grant a relief rn fhe subsfantive suit. ln such a

. situation, the jusitice of the case demands that a court should refusethe application for interlocutory injunction and instead make an orderfor accelerated hearing of the substantive suit to hear and determine

' the mafter once and for all ... whenever lt is possib/e to acceleratethe hearing instead of wadding through masslye affidavits andhearing lengthy arguments on interlocutory injunction. The courtshould accelerate the hearing and decide the rights of the partiesfinally".

This case of Ogunro V. Dule is also on headship of the family and at page1299 para F of the law report, it held that "The question of headship of afamily is a matter which must be established by evidence. In the instantcase the question of who the correct or proper head of the Etim EffiongDuke family could only be decided at the hearing of the substantive suit.

Fortunately Order 38 Rule 2 Rules of the High Court 2006 agrees entirelywith this position of the law it provides that if such an interlocutoryapplication is one which can be most conveniently dealt with by an earlytrialwithout first going into the whole merits on affidavit it shall be laMul forthe judge to make an order for such trial accordingly and in the mean timemake such order as the justice of the case may require.

From lhe affidavits before me it is very clear that attempting to resolve theissues is lnviting me one way or the other to deal with the substantive case.The case of Ogunro V. Dule like this case is on headship of the family.There is no way oral evidence will not be called. Therefore it is my viewthat an early trial or accelerated hearing is in order.

I therefore make the following orders.

That there shall be accelerated hearing of this suit to be completed within12 calendar months andior as the justice of the case demands.

OrEtt(oTHU JUDICIARY

iitcit-i co ufLT R EG|STKY, P{)}IT HAIIf.OURT

.i4sLr flFFTCFfi \ ''. \..t

Hearing shall be froiir day to day.

DefendanuRespondents are given only fourteen days to file all theirprocesses this court shall not wait for them.

' Both parties should maintain the status euo and accordingly maintain thepeace until the issues are finally determined.

The court shall not take kindly to any break down of law and order in thefamily, all parties are accordingly warned.

The case is fixed for only one day for pretrial. This court hereby abridgesthe time for pretrial by reason of the order for accelerated hearing. Theapplication is accordingly struck out.

This case is qdjourned to 24th February 20101or pre-triar by 12. noon./t6hteftftftp,1,'Ia -- frtn y7' 4_u (@_.'.

l;rt;ir/^ tr,--r,/-\ 0..n r,^L--t*=t-He. Lt rlE

1ot2t1o'

n^(lLC14LSe 'JGac-r

r K+r

/.'F,q r S--t &""t- ff/Cl r sslg/rr-"

.ERTTFTED 'RUE

c'py. , tf,f I N A H. r-1.

";n;u ; r|1ty.f>M

ASSr cliJEb aryl.st rt[n t'(_r/narc-6{Q?fl_1- -. "