LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Consequential Orders – Reliefs Personal to Deceased Party – When Reliefs Survive Death of Party
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The contest revolved around the paramount stool of Iju/Jack House or Standfast Jack House. In the contest both the plaintiffs/appellants and the defendants/respondents will be affected by the court's decision. In this action the respondents have been sued in a representative capacity and as such any judgment obtained against them would survive the 6th respondent. I therefore agree that the court below was wrong to strike out reliefs (b) (d) and (e) in the plaintiffs/appellants' claim.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The contest revolved around the paramount stool of Iju/Jack House or Standfast Jack House. In the contest both the plaintiffs/appellants and the defendants/respondents will be affected by the court's decision. In this action the respondents have been sued in a representative capacity and as such any judgment obtained against them would survive the 6th respondent. I therefore agree that the court below was wrong to strike out reliefs (b) (d) and (e) in the plaintiffs/appellants' claim."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Reliefs in a representative action survive the death of a party. Where the contest revolves around a chieftaincy stool and parties are sued in a representative capacity (representing families or houses), the death of an individual party does not abate the action. The judgment affects the represented group, not just the named representative. The court should not strike out reliefs because of a party’s death. The action continues against the remaining representatives or the group they represent. The principle ensures that the death of a nominal party does not defeat the litigation. Representative capacity insulates the action from abatement. The court may substitute a new representative. The survival of reliefs depends on the nature of the right—chieftaincy rights are communal, not personal.
