Delta High Court Terminates Suit Challenging Asagba Azinge’s Installation, Cites Jurisdictional Defect
By NWAFOR AZINGE
THE Delta State High Court sitting in Asaba has terminated a lawsuit challenging the selection and installation of Prof. Epiphany Chigbogu Azinge as the 14th Asagba of Asaba, after upholding a preliminary objection that questioned the competence of the action and the court’s jurisdiction to entertain it.
The court, presided over by Justice P. N. Obanor, delivered the ruling on Tuesday 27 October 2026, in Suit No. DTHC/ASB/CV/213/2024, instituted by Obi Ikechukwu Nwajei, Ogbueshi Iweanya Nwajei and Ogbueshi Amechi Akpoku.
The claimants had challenged Azinge’s selection and installation as the traditional ruler of Asaba. However, the judge upheld the preliminary objection filed by the third defendant, Azinge, who argued that the suit was incompetent and that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear it.
According to the account of the proceedings, the court found that the claimants had failed to satisfy a mandatory condition precedent required under Delta State’s chieftaincy laws before commencing legal proceedings to challenge the selection and installation of a traditional ruler.
Consequently, the court terminated the action on grounds of incompetence and want of jurisdiction. The ruling followed arguments from both sides on whether the claimants had fulfilled the legal requirements necessary to bring the case before the court.
Azinge’s lead counsel, Chike George Onyemenam, SAN, presented arguments in support of the preliminary objection, while the claimants’ lead counsel, Chief Emeka Ofodile, SAN, opposed the application.
The court’s decision therefore turned on the procedural requirements governing the institution of a chieftaincy-related action, rather than any substantive findings expressly reported on the merits of the claimants’ challenge to Azinge’s selection and installation.
In a related development, the same court also struck out a separate suit filed by the claimants against Engr. Louis Edozien, identified in the account as the Ochendo who presided over the selection process for the 14th Asagba of Asaba.
The second action challenged the role associated with Edozien’s participation in the selection process. After considering arguments from both parties, the court struck out the suit for non-compliance with the condition precedent required before instituting the action.
Chief Emeka Ofodile, SAN, represented the claimants in the second suit, while Chief Arthur Obi-Okafor, SAN, appeared for Edozien.
Although the two cases involved different defendants, both ended on procedural grounds linked to the legal requirements for commencing the actions. The first suit was terminated after the court upheld Azinge’s preliminary objection on incompetence and jurisdiction, while the related action against Edozien was struck out for failure to comply with a condition precedent.
The outcomes mark a significant development in the legal dispute surrounding the selection and installation of the Asagba of Asaba. Nevertheless, the precise implications of the rulings must be understood within the limits of the grounds reported by the court.
In particular, the termination of the first suit and the striking out of the second do not, by themselves, establish that the court resolved every substantive issue that might arise concerning the selection process. Rather, the reported decisions establish that the actions before the court could not proceed because of the procedural deficiencies identified.
The written rulings would provide the clearest basis for determining the full reasoning behind the decisions, the exact statutory provisions applied and whether any further legal steps remain available to the parties.
