Chief Adenigba Afolayan Vs Oba Joshua Ogunrinde (1990)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OBASEKI, J.S.C.

On the 27th day of November, 1989, after considering the submissions of counsel for the appellant and respondents made to the court in their briefs in writing and orally before us in this court, I dismissed the appeal with N500.00 costs to the respondents and reserved my reasons for the judgment till today. I now give them.

Proceedings in this matter were commenced in the Ilorin Judicial Division of Kwara State High Court by a writ of summons filed by the plaintiffs/respondents as plaintiffs against the defendant/appellant as defendant claiming therein:

“1. a declaration that the defendant being a ward head of Inishan within Oko village in Kwara State is not entitled under Oko native law and custom to wear any crown without the consent and approval of the Oloko of Oko and his chiefs;

2. an order of injunction on the defendant not to wear any crown without the consent and approval of Oloko of Oko and his chiefs.

Pleadings were filed and served and at the close of pleadings, the issues joined came up for hearing and determination before Oyeyipo, J. (as he was then). At the conclusion of the hearing of the evidence of witnesses and addresses of counsel, the learned trial Judge gave a well considered judgment in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents granting the declaration sought.

In his concluding paragraph, the learned trial Judge said:

“From the plethora of evidence adduced by the plaintiffs in this case and which evidence I accept, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs herein have amply proved their case against the defendants. It is trite law that before granting a declaration, a court must be satisfied that it will serve a useful purpose (Attorney-General v. Colchester Corporation (1955) 2 Q.B. 207) and that it will terminate the controversy which gave rise to the proceedings. (A. G. v. Dean and Chapter of Ripon Cathedral (1945) Ch. 239). I am satisfied that the granting of the declaration hereby sought by the plaintiffs will settle the issues in controversy among the parties herein as it will restore the status quo which in the light of the evidence I have accepted in this case has always existed between an Oloko of Oko and an Enishan of Inishan ward in Inishan Oko. It is this status quo which the defendant has sought to destroy in his defiance of the hallowed native law and custom of Oko as regards the issue of wearing a crown. In short, the plaintiffs have amply proved their case on the preponderance of evidence against the defendant and accordingly, I hereby grant the plaintiffs the declaration sought by them as per their writ of summons.”

The defendant was dissatisfied with the decision and by notice of appeal dated 1st day of April, 1981 appealed to the Court of Appeal on 8 grounds. Briefs of arguments were filed in the Court of Appeal and when the appeal came up for hearing, counsel adopted the submissions in their briefs expatiating on only a few issues. Mr. Ijaodola expatiating on the question of sustainable cause of action submitted that since the plaintiff failed to claim that they would lose anything materially, there was no sufficient cause of action.

Replying Olorunnisola for the respondents, submitted that, as the action was for a declaratory judgment, a cause of action need not be shown or disclosed beyond the claim. After the hearing, the Court of Appeal (Coram Wali, Akpata and Ogundere, JJ .C.A.) gave a considered judgment dismissing the appeal unanimously. Akpata, J.C.A., in his lead judgment with which the other learned Justices agreed, said he found no merit in all the grounds of appeal filed and argued (i.e. grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8) and dismissed the appeal.

Still dissatisfied, the defendant has appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal to this court on 4 original grounds of appeal and two additional grounds. The grounds of appeal without their particulars are as follows:

1. The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred and/or misdirected themselves in law and in fact in dismissing the appellant’s appeal when the respondents herein who were the plaintiffs at the Ilorin High Court did not plead, let alone establish that they would lose anything if the appellant herein who was the defendant at the trial Ilorin High Court should wear a crown.

Particulars

i. ………………………………..

ii. ………………………………..

iii. ………………………………..