FORM 48

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RIVERS STATE OF NIGERIA IN THE PORT HARCOURT TUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT surT No. PHCfl235/2007
BETWEEN: ELDER A. F. TELLA ATTONI (Chairman of Chief Attoni House of Finima , Bonny

CLAIMANTS/APPLICANTS

EMMANUEL MARKAMIE D. Attoni

(for themselves and as representing the descendants of late chief Doghubo and members of Chief Attoni Was Canoe house of Finima excluding the defendants)
_.'z

-l

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

AYI CROSS

BROWN

2ND SET OF

DEFENDANTS/CONTEMNOR

HIS ROYAL MAJESTY KING EDWARD ASIMINI WILLIAM DAPPA PEPPLE III PEREKULE XI, AMANYANABO OF BON cHrEF (DR.) A.A. FINE COUNTRY (Secretary, Bonny chief's Council CHIE RFP CAPTAIN ABBEY HART (Chairman, Bonny Chief's Council

RESPONDENTS/CONTEMNORS

7.

AMAOPUSENIBO SIR CLEVERLEY A. BROWN

(Palace Secretary

REsroNDENT/CoNTEMNoR

NOTICE OF CONSEOUENCES OF DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF COURT

TO:
1. 2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

Elder Donald Abesa Attom ABEL ADAFE ATTONI AYI CROSS BROW\I All of Finima Communify (new Finima Town) Boirny Island, Rivers State. HIS ROYAL MAJESTY, KING EDWARD ASIMINI WILLIAM DAPPA PEPPLE (III), PEREKULE XI, AMANYANABO OF BONNY CHIEF (DR.) A. A. FINE COUNTRY CHIEF RFP CAPTAII{ ABBEY HART 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 this ORDER, particularly the Order made by FIon. Justice T. S. Oji of the High court of Rivers State dated L0/2/2010 (hereto attached), you will be guilty of contempt of court and will be liable to be committed to prison. Dated this 29th day of Febrrrary,

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE THE CLAIMANTS Through Their Counsel, D. Tella Attoni & co., 1 Ilorin Street, Off Hospital Road Port Harcourt. THE DEFENDANTS Through Their Counsel, R. A. Anyawata, Esq., 18 Ogunablai Road, Polt Harcourt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RIVERS STATEOF NIGERIA IN THE PORT HARCOURT JUDI HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT

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

BETWEEN

ELDER A. F. TELLA ATTONI & ANOR AND ELDER DONALD ABESA ATfONI &

. CLAIMANT/APPLICANT

ORS

. DEFENDANTS/RESP

Y*
This is an application for interlocutory injunction dated and filed 20th August 2009 seeking to restrain the defenciants from parading or installing any persons as Chief/head or representative of Attoni House of Finima, Bonny. And other like reliefs as contained in the motion paper pending the determination of this suit. There is a supporting affidavit of 40 paragraphs and several exhibits annexed. There is also a further affidavit dated and filed 18th September 2009 all sworn to by the 1't claimant applicant. Respondents filed a counter affidavit on 7/10/0g of 64 paragraphs with exhibits attached also sworn to by the 2nd defendant respondent.

Applicants filed

a further and better affidavit headed reply affidavit to

respondents' counter affidavit on 12l10lQg.

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

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

crL{\\tIc,

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

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

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

There is no way the affidavits as placed before me will not need oral evidence to resolve the issues. Even resolving the issue of the 'Ien Million Naira would lead to determining who is entitled to keep, receive or hold same which is as good as determining who is Head, Chief or
Representative of Attoni House.

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

The law is clear on this issue and there are .', plethora of authorities from the Cburt of Appeal and Supreme Court to the effect that courts should refrain from dealing with the substantive issue whilst dealing with an
interlocutory 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 particutarty ratios 3, 4, 5,6 &7.
The court had this to say:

" The court while considering interlocutory rutings must desist from
making any finding which may prejudice the substantive suit. /f is therefore necessa4/ that a court of taw should tread softly in interlocutory applications in order not to be entangled in the web of the main issue before the court. ln the instant case the grant of the injunctive reliefs sought by the appellants in the trial court would in
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY,

fi55r. uri;E5 RFf ISTti.AR 1 oo'|l'*L! X#['?.Y#

---rxe :ilnics,[iii* , FrtsH c0uil; REGIsTRT I

(-\'\ \'r i' '

|.,l.re_Ef*{r-1

_.

PonTii/itlcouRT i i-''1rS.ni,[}F:FtCE I

effect dispose of the main issues in the substanfive suit at an

interlocutory stage thereby knocking the bottom out of the subsfantrve suit ... the courl will not normally make an interlocutory order if its effect would be to grant a relief rn fhe subsfantive suit. ln such a situation, the jusitice of the case demands that a court should refuse the application for interlocutory injunction and instead make an order for accelerated hearing of the substantive suit to hear and determine the mafter once and for all ... whenever lt is possib/e to accelerate the hearing instead of wadding through masslye affidavits and hearing lengthy arguments on interlocutory injunction. The court should accelerate the hearing and decide the rights of the parties
finally".

. '

This case of Ogunro V. Dule is also on headship of the family and at page 1299 para F of the law report, it held that "The question of headship of a family is a matter which must be established by evidence. In the instant case the question of who the correct or proper head of the Etim Effiong Duke family could only be decided at the hearing of the substantive suit.
Fortunately Order 38 Rule 2 Rules of the High Court 2006 agrees entirely with this position of the law it provides that if such an interlocutory application is one which can be most conveniently dealt with by an early trialwithout first going into the whole merits on affidavit it shall be laMul for the judge to make an order for such trial accordingly and in the mean time make such order as the justice of the case may require.
From lhe affidavits before me it is very clear that attempting to resolve the issues 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 view that 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 within 12 calendar months andior as the justice of the case demands.

OrEtt(o
iitcit-i co ufLT R EG|STKY ,
THU JUDICIARY
P{)}IT HAIIf.OURT

.i4sLr flFFTCF fi \ ''. \..t

Hearing shall be froiir day to day.

DefendanuRespondents are given only fourteen days processes this court shall not wait for them.

to file all their

'

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

The court shall not take kindly to any break down of law and order in the family, all parties are accordingly warned. The case is fixed for only one day for pretrial. This court hereby abridges the time for pretrial by reason of the order for accelerated hearing. The application is accordingly struck out.

/t6hteftftftp,
1,'Ia

This case is qdjourned to 24th February 20101or pre-triar by 12. noon.

--

frtn

y7'

4_ (@_.'.
l;rt;ir
r,^
1ot2t1o'

(lLC14LSe 'JGac-r r K+r

/.'F,q
r

n^

L--t*=t-He.
S--t

/^

tr,--r,/-\

Lt rlE

0..n

&""t-

ff/Cl r s slg/rr-"
c'py. ,
"

.ERTTFTED
f,f I N

narc-6{Q?fl_1- -.

A H. 'RUE ; r|1ty.f>M r-1. ASSr cliJEb aryl.st rt[n t'(_r/ ";n;u