Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Adekeye V. Adeshina (2010) CLR 12(b) (SC)

Judgement delivered on December 3rd 2010

Brief

  • Registered Chieftaincy Declaration
  • Amendment of Registered Chieftaincy Declaration
  • Evidence of facts not pleaded
  • Finding of fact
  • Pleadings

Facts

The Oloyan of Oyan Chieftaincy is a Ruling House Chieftaincy with a registered Chieftaincy Declaration. On the 23rd day of August, 1996, Oba Omotoso Oyegbile an occupant of that chieftaincy passed on, thereby creating a vacancy.

It is agreed that there are four ruling houses in the registered declaration of the chieftaincy, Exhibit G2, entitled to present candidates for the throne in rotation. These are:-

  • a
    Elemo
  • b
    Laojo
  • c
    Olomooba, and
  • d
    Daodu or Dawodu

Also not disputed is the fact that following the demise of the said Oba, it was the turn of the Elemo Ruling House to present the candidate to fill the vacancy. To actualize this and as required by law, the secretary of Odo-Otin Local Government, the 5th Respondent herein, wrote to the Kingmakers to call on the next Ruling House, that is, Elemo, to present candidate(s) for appointment as Oloyan of Oyan.

In Exhibit G2, Chieftaincy Declaration of Oloyan of Oyan, there are six Kingmakers recognized by law to act but at the material time only four of them were alive to function. The said 5th Respondent duly informed the Elemo Ruling House to present candidates to fill the vacancy, as a result of which members of Elemo Ruling House held a meeting on the 22nd day of November, 1996, to select candidates for the stool. The secretary of the 5th Respondent in the person of Mr. S. O Fadara attended the said meeting in accordance with statutory requirements in the capacity of an observer. At the meeting both the 1st Appellant and 1st Respondent were duly nominated as candidates for the stool in question. PW3 acted as secretary of Elemo Ruling House at the meeting in question and took down minutes while one Pa. Oke was the chairman. The minutes of the meeting of 22nd November, 1996, recording the nominations was sent to the Kingmakers as a result of which the Kingmakers met on the 26th day of November, 1996 to elect/select a candidate out of the two for appointment as the Oloyan of Oyan.

At that meeting, three of the four existing and functional Kingmakers supported the candidature of the 1st Appellant, while one supported the 1st Respondent as a result of which the secretary to the 5th Respondent forwarded the name of the 1st Appellant to the 3rd Respondent, the appointing authority, for appointment as the Oloyan of Oyan. The 1st Appellant was consequently appointed and installed the Oloyan of Oyan sometime in 1997. The only Kingmaker who supported the candidature of the 1st Respondent is the 2nd Respondent, who also gave evidence as PW5 at the trial.

It is the case of the 1st and 2nd Respondents that there are two distinct lineages in Elemo Ruling Housing, namely: Olarinoye and Aresinkeye and that Elemo Ruling House had in the past produced three Oloyans out of which only one came from Olarinoye while the other two came from Aresinkeye lineage; that the meeting of 22nd November, 1996 evidenced in Exhibit C, was stalemated; that during the meeting of the Kingmakers on the 26th day of November, 1996, the 2nd Respondent protested inspite of which protest three out of the four Kingmakers supported the 1st Appellant while only the 2nd Respondent supported the 1st Respondent resulting in the Respondent sending the name of the 1st Appellant to the 3rd Respondent for appointment inspite of the circumstances.

However, it is the case of the Appellants that the Elemo Ruling House has five lineages namely:

  • i
    Olarinoye
  • ii
    Ige
  • iii
    Onuola
  • iv
    Mejowuye/Aresinkeye and
  • v
    Oluyeye

    • and that whenever it was the turn of Elemo Ruling House to present a candidate for the throne, it was an open contest among the eligible members of the ruling house without regard to whichever lineage; that the 1st Appellant and 1st Respondent were regularly nominated in a regular meeting of the ruling house held on 22nd November, 1996 out of which the Kingmakers selected the 1st Appellant for the throne in their meeting of 26th November, 1996; that the 1st Respondent haven taken part through his Olarinoye lineage in the nomination exercise of 22nd November, 1996 was estopped from impugning the exercise; that the 2nd Respondent haven chaired the Kingmakers meeting of 26th November, 1996 was estopped from attacking the appointment of the 1st Appellant resulting from that meeting; that the nomination, selection and appointment of the 1st Appellant was regular and in accordance with the native law and custom of Oyan relevant to the appointment of Oloyan of Oyan.

    The trial Court held that there are two lineages of Elemo Ruling House which occupy the throne by rotation and that it was the turn of Olarinoye lineage to produce the next Oloyan of Oyan; that the Chieftaincy Declaration, Exhibit "G2 ", which governs the Oloyan Chieftaincy, was in- exhaustive and that there was a lacuna in it which the Court is competent to fill; that the 1st Respondent was estopped from impugning the nomination exercise of 22nd November, 1996; that it was not unusual for the names of more than one candidate to be submitted to the Kingmakers for them to choose one for the vacant throne/stool; that the 1st and 2nd Respondents proved their reliefs in paragraph 66(a) and (c) of the Amended Statement of claim and accordingly awarded same to them. The trial Court also held that reliefs 1, 3 and 4 of paragraph 50 of the Appellants counter claim were successful and ordered accordingly.

    Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Appellants also cross-appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the 1st and 2nd Respondents and dismissed the cross-appeal of the 1st and 2nd Appellants.

    Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the Court below was right to have upheld the decision of the...
    • Read More