Court Nullifies Installation, Recognition Of Chief

The Obio/Akpor Customary Court in Rivers State has nullified the purported installation and recognition of the Chief of Rumuamadi-Ojukwu family of  Rumuijima community in Rukpokwu.
At the resumed hearing of the court sitting in Rumuogba on August 31, 2017, the court chaired by H.A. Nnokam and his members, A.K. Chioloji and  I.N.Akarolo said the installation and recognition of the chief was in total disobedience of the court order on the issue of the status quo.
Chief J.K.Mbong, counsel for the claimants, at the court, had complained and submitted that the first set of defendants, Eze Collins C. Ogwu violated the order of the court on status quo and “ went ahead to install someone (part of those represented by the 3rd set of defendants in this matter) as the chief of the purported Rumuamadi-Ojukwu community which we are challenging its existence here in court”.
Counsels to both Eze Ogwu (the paramount ruler) and Rumuamadi-Ojukwu told the court, however, that they are not aware of such installation of the chief.
Though, the identity of the person installed as chief was not given, Rumuamadi-Ojukwu (the 3rd set of defendants) confirmed before the court that the Rukpokwu Paramount Ruler (being the first set of defendants) “installed and recognised the chief of Rumuamadi-Ojukwu community”.
After a careful examination of the complaint and submissions, the court, relying on its earlier order that the status quo be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit before the court, said it had no difficulty in holding that the order had been violated, describing “the purported chieftaincy installation by the first set of defendants herein as void ab initio”.
According to the court, since the action of the first set of defendants (the paramount ruler) and the 3rd set of defendants (Rumuamadi-Ojukwu) was in flagrant disobedience of the order of the court, it can not stand.
In clear terms, the court concluded that “the action is accordingly nullified and of no effect whatsoever”.
It would be recalled that the court on 18th January, 2016 had ruled that “the status quo as at the date of the delivery of this ruling as disclosed in the materials placed before the court should remain, pending the determination of the substantive action”.