Joseph Kobba, one of the petitioners in a local chieftaincy elections, says he is resident of Bumpe Ngao Chiefdom and he is a farmer.

Further evidence by lawyer BJ Reffle reveals that he is also an elder and a tribal authority of the said Chiefdom, adding he had made a witness statement to his lawyer.

The witness statement dated 21st January 2025 was shown to him which he identified and was applied to form part of the case pursuant to order 30  sub rule 1A.

The witness’ evidence indicates further that knows the petitioner Moses S  as grandson to their late paramount chief, adding that he came to know the 3 defendant who is Sovula on the day for their declaration.

According to him he had knowledge of the petition and that on the day of the declaration, the 3rd defendant told them that he is also from a ruling house. On this he was objected in court. And one Madam Irene  Labor also confirmed same that he is not from a ruling family.

The objection he said was made to the SDO, Senior Clerk, local government and others.

Lawyer Cummings representing ECSL who are the 1st and 2nd defendants objected to this bit of evidence stating that some of the things he was saying is not part of his statement, adding that he should seek leave of court as per the rules.

The plaintiff applicant lawyer Reffle in reply submitted that the word “several” would cover the name Irine, and in the circumstance applied as per the rules were that several other issues not specifically mentioned in the witness statement including other names  that the court grants a leave that is calling names that are not stated in the witness statement which includes names from the respondents.

His application was granted by the learned Judge.

Mr Kobba, in continuation of the evidence, said he also objected on the basis that the name Babdona was never from a ruling house in Bumpe Ngao, and after the objection the SDO told them to go for 15 minutes break which he said they agreed to and waited.

The purpose of the stand down was based on their objections giving that Alfred Sovula is not from a ruling house.

According to the witness, he was born in 1957, and Francis Kposowa was the paramount chief, adding that the first Paramount chief of Bumpe Ngao Chiefdom was Madam Monona, Madam Boi Nessie, Paramount chief Ngegba, Kobba Jengo, Francis Kposowa, Bornor Kpaka and JC Kosova, etc.

He addded that Bandomas were never paramount chiefs, adding that after the 15 minutes standown, the decision was not put into a vote.

During cross examination of the witness by lawyer Cummings counsel for the first defendant (ECSL), when the witness was asked whether his name was on the gazette, and the witness answered his name was there.

When the witness was asked whether Irine Labor was a tribal head, the witness in reply responded she was a tax payer but could not tell whether her name was on the Gazette.

Lawyer Saccoh  counsel for the 3rd defendant Alfred Sovula Bandoma, during cross examination of the witness, the witness said he was present during the declaration of a meeting which took place at a court Barry.

The witness giving further evidence said it was Irine Labor that first objected to the declaration of  Alfred  Sovula and that there was a repeat of the Gazette list.

The witness also revealed that the gazette was reviewed after every three years and that during the declaration, 3 assessor chiefs were present.

Lawyer Saccoh further confronted the witness that he told the court that he had never seen a Kpandoma chief, andthe witness replied in the affirmative.

When asked whether he knew one Anthony Kpandoma, the witness answered yes.

In further cross examination of the witness by lawyer on behalf of the second respondents, he asked the witness how does they determine a paramount chief, and the witness in reply told him  to have come from a ruling house.

When he was asked as to how many elections have been conducted in Bumpe Ngao Chiefdom since he was born in 1957, the witness said 3 have been conducted, adding that in 1973, the Kposowa, Kpaka, Kobba and others contested.

The witness further confirmed that after the  declaration of right the box will be given to the candidate.

In re-examination, the witness also confirmed that the Kpandoma’s were never from a ruling house.

Lawyer Reffle counsel for the plaintiff  informed the court that on the next adjourned date he has a video that he wants to tender.

The matter was adjourned to Monday 3rd February 2025 for further hearing.