Court Reinstates Ilomuanya as Imo Monarch’s Chairman

 The Court of Appeal in Owerri, Imo State has reinstated Eze Cletus Ilomuanya as the Chairman, Imo State Council of Traditional Rulers until the lawful expiration of his tenure in 2015.

The Court also restrained the Imo State Governor, Chief Rochas Okorocha, his Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice as well as “their servants, agents or howsoever from truncating or interfering with the activities of the Imo State Council of Traditional Rulers under Eze Ilomuanya until the expiration of his tenure in 2015”.

In a unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Philomena Ekpe, the court set aside the earlier judgment of the lower court by the State’s Chief Judge, Justice Benjamin Njemanze delivered on February 24, 2012, pointing out that the dissolution of the Imo State Council of Traditional Rulers under the Chairmanship of Ilomuanya by Governor Okorocha in his maiden Broadcast to the people of Imo State on June 6, 2011 was null and void and of no affect.

According to the three member panel of Justices, section 17(A) of the Imo State of Nigeria Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Law 2006 (as amended) which provides “Resignation or Death” as the only two conditions through which any member of the Council could abdicate office was clear. It said Ilomuanya neither resigned nor died, and therefore, wondered where the governor got his powers to dissolve the Council and remove the appellant from office.

The Court expressed its displeasure that the Imo State Chief Judge, Justice Njemanze in his earlier Judgment, “descended into the arena” by raising issues suo motu (on his own) and resolved them in favour of the governor without input from the parties in the suit. This it said, was a grievous error in law as the Chief Judge had turned himself into a defendant and no longer an impartial judge.

Besides, the court held that virtually all the issues raised by Eze Ilomuanya through his Counsel, Obiora Obianwu, SAN, were not challenged by the defendants, rather, “the respondents made sweeping statements that were neither specific nor challenged the averments of the appellant in his originating summons”.

The court further frowned at the attempt of the Imo State Chief Judge to justify his earlier judgment by relying on the Interpretation Act, which the Court of Appeal Justices noted, had no business with the case on hand.

The court while insisting that the averments and evidences of Eze Ilomuanya were overwhelming, posited that in cases brought by originating summons, averments in the affidavit not challenged specifically or frontally were deemed by the court as true and the court could proceed to act upon them. Court Reinstates source: THISDAY LIVE