CaseLaw
The first plaintiff is the Head of Ogunmakinde Ande Ruling House of Iwo, the second and third plaintiffs Alade Lamuye and Tiamiyu Ajani are principal members of the family. There was a vacant stool of Oluwo of Iwo, one of the principal towns of the Yoruba. The last Oluwo died sometime in 1982. It was before the death of the last Oluwo that for the first time a statutory declaration of Oluwo of Iwo Chieftaincy was made following Justice Apara's Commission in 1979. The Declaration, Exhibit P1 in this suit, was registered in the Gazette on 19th July, 1979 and recognised Ogunmakinde Ande Ruling Houses as the only Oluwo of Iwo Ruling House. This no doubt met with some opposition and another panel was set up, termed Agiri Commission of Enquiry, which turned in its report culminating in another Declaration in 1981, Exhibit P2 in this suit. Exhibit P2 dropped Ogunmakinde Ande Ruling House of the plaintiffs and recognised three other houses, to wit, Adagunodo, Gbase and Alawusa as the only Ruling Houses of Oluwo of Iwo Chieftaincy. As a result of this new Declaration (i.e. Exhibit P2 the Ogunmakinde Ande Ruling House led by the present first plaintiff, Prince Yahaya Adigun joined by Prince Alade Lamuye and Prince N. O. Abanikanda (all also plaintiffs in the present suit) and others challenged the 1981 Declaration in a suit at the former Oyo High Court sitting at Oshogbo in 1981 claiming as follows:
The High Court dismissed the three claims on 16th June, 1982. On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and a further appeal was lodged at Supreme Court. In a unanimous judgment on 20th March, 1987, (the appeal, SC. 98/1986), it was held that Agiri Commission of Enquiry violated the principle of fair hearing and natural justice by denying the plaintiffs the hearing granted Adagunodo, Gbase and Alawusa Families. The Court therefore allowed the appeal in respect of claims (ii) and (iii), and dismissed the appeal in respect of claim (i).
Thus the Supreme Court held as follows: -
However, despite the clear wording of the Court's judgment the plaintiffs returned to Supreme Court by way of motion under "inherent jurisdiction" of the Court praying as follows:
Whether under the facts and circumstances of this case and the reliefs sought...