Oba R. A. A. Oyediran Vs. Oba Alebiosu II & Ors (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

I. L. KUTIGI, J.S.C.

The appellant who was the plaintiff at the High Court, Ilorin, sought for the following declarations in paragraph 16 of his amended Statement of Claim-

“(a) That the approval of the Ministry of Local Government Kwara State communicated in letter dated 17/6/82 Ref. MLG/S/L/240/S.1/Vol.1/116 to the Secretary Irepodun Local Government that Eleju of Ejuland should come from Sanmora only is not in accordance with the law and custom of Ejuland and is therefore null and void .

(b) That the Irepodun/Ifelodun/Ifedapo/Ekiti traditional council’s decision that the Eleju of Ejuland should come from Sanmora only is not in accordance with Native Law and Custom of Ejuland.

(c) That the Irepodun Local Government (and or Irewolede) should not carry out the Orders contained in the letter Ref. No. MLG/S/L/240/S.1/Vol.1/116 dated 17/6/82.

(d) That the Eleju of Ejuland is a Chieftaincy title which derives from and belongs to Igbonla.

(e) That the plaintiff is the Eleju of Ejuland.”

After the filing and exchange of pleadings the case went to trial. Each side led evidence to support its case. In his judgment the learned trial Judge after reviewing the evidence led by the parties dismissed appellant’s claims. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal Kaduna where his appeal was also dismissed. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal the appellant has now appealed to this Court.

From the pleadings filed in the case it appears that the appellant’s case was simply that he, as the Oba of Igbonla, was duly appointed as the Eleju of Ejuland. He said it is not the 3rd respondent as the Oba of Sanmora that is entitled to be the Eleju of Ejuland as contended by him and supported by the other respondents.

In the Court of Appeal the following issues were submitted for determination

“(i) Whether from the totality of the evidence before the trial court, the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to the declarations and or reliefs sought.

(ii) Whether the Traditional Council gave opportunity to the plaintiff’s people to state their case before making their decision.

(iii) Whether the trial court was right in relying on the deliberations of the Traditional Council as contained in Exhibits D1 & D2.

(iv) Whether the trial court was right to have rejected a document which ex facie is irrelevant to the case before him.