Plateau Monarch to Pay N10m over Unlawful Installation

Seriki Adinoyi in Jos

A Plateau State High Court has ordered the paramount ruler of the Izere nation in Jos East Local Government of the state, His Royal Highness, Isaac Azi Wakili to pay N10 million as damages for unlawfully installing one Dang Azi as the Ward Head of Ahwere in his locality.

The court sitting in Jos and presided over by Justice P. Gang gave the order while delivering judgement in an originating summon filed against the monarch and six others by the claimant and Ward Head of Laminga community, Chief Y A Izang.

The Plateau State High Court presided over by His Lordship, Hon. Justice Y.G Dakwak, had on May 11, 2007 ruled that the selection of one Dang Azi, in the first place, to aspire for rulership as a Ward Head of Laminga was null and void as it did not conform to the traditional evidence which only permits Azi’s Ahwere family lineage to aspire as Chief Priests and not as ward head in Laminga community.

The Court of Appeal, as well as the Supreme Court, had also dismissed the case in favour of the claimant.

However, in spite of several court rulings on the matter, the paramount ruler had gone ahead to install Dang Azi as a Ward Head. 

But in an originating summons filed at the state High Court by the ward head of Laminga, Chief Y A Izang, the claimant through his lawyer, T V Kindness had sued the paramount ruler and Dang Azi as the first and second defendants respectively.

The claimant, in the suit which has acting district head of Fobur, Adagwom Izang Abok (3rd defendant); Jos East Traditional Council (4th defendant); Jos East Local Government Council (5th defendant); Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Plateau state (6th defendant ); and the Attorney General of Plateau state (7th defendant)  asked the court to determine whether the first defendant can legally turban the second defendant as the Ward Head of Ahwere considering the judgement of the Plateau state High Court of Justice in suit No.PLD/J59/2000 delivered by Hon. Justice Y G Dakwak on the 11th May 2007.

He also asked the court the determine whether in view of the Appeal by the second defendant to the Court of Appeal in Appeal No.CA /J/361//2007 and further appeal to the Supreme court in No.SC470/2015 in which the two appellate courts dismissed the appeals, the 3rd defendant can present the 2nd defendant to be installed as the Ward Head of Ahwere in Laminga by the first and fourth defendants. 

He equally asked the court to determine whether from the circumstances of the case, the purported installation of the second defendant by the first defendant contrary to the judgment of 11th May, 2007 is valid as well as whether the defendants have any legal justification to subject the claimant to psychological trauma by their action.

The claimant, therefore, sought five reliefs which include an order of the court declaring that the purported installation of the second defendant by the first defendant is null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 

“An order of the court setting aside the purported installation of the second defendant by the first defendant as the Ward Head of Ahwere or of any part in Laminga Ward , Jos East Local Government Area, Plateau state.

“An order of the court directing that the first defendant and the 4th defendant should tender a public apology to the claimant using the mass media within Plateau state and same be published in two national daily newspapers.

“An order of the court directing the defendants jointly and or severally to pay the claimant the sum of ten million naira only as damages for the psychological and emotional trauma suffered by the claimant as a result of the defendant’s action”

Our Correspondent reports that although the first defendant was not in court, his lawyer, A Madaki had argued that his client was not a party to the case earlier decided by the courts.

The defense counsel also argued that his client was not liable because as traditional rulers, they were covered by public officers’ protection act which stipulates in Section 2a that any public officer who is in the execution of his duties cannot be liable for any wrong or omission in the course of his duties.

But counsel to the claimant had rejected the argument of the defense counsel and insisted that traditional rulers were not within the contemplation of the public officer’s protection act as they cannot be subjected to discipline and promotion by the Ministry in the civil service nor were they entitled to pension and gratuity like other public servants.

Delivering judgement on the matter on Friday, Justice P Gang agreed with the submissions of the claimant’s counsel and granted the reliefs sought by them.

“All the reliefs are hereby resolved in favour of the claimant”, the judge ruled.