Mustafa Oladokun V. The Military Governor Of Oyo State & Ors (1996)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGUNDARE, J.S.C. 

The main issue calling for determination in this appeal relates to the interpretation of the chieftaincy declaration of the Onjo of Okeho Chieftaincy, registered on 12th February 1958. Following a vacancy in the office of the Onjo, steps were taken to fill the vacancy.

The Secretary to the Kajola Local Government called on the Etielu Ruling House whose turn it was to present a candidate to do so. By the terms of the Chieftaincy Declaration, the meeting of the Ruling House had to be summoned by the Mogaji Ijo. There was at the time a dispute as to the validity of the appointment of Labode Akano as the Mogaji Ijo in consequence of which the Secretary of the Kajola Local Government summoned a meeting of the Etielu Ruling House to consider the nomination of candidates for presentation to the kingmakers.

The Ruling House held a meeting on the 22nd of August 1985 at which four candidates were proposed. A vote was taken. The Plaintiff who was one of the candidates scored 20 votes; Y.O. Sunmonu another candidate scored 18 votes. Alhaji Shittu Ishola a third candidate scored 7 votes and Chief Oyebanji Oladokun the fourth candidate scored 1 vote. The names of the four candidates were presented to the kingmakers by the Secretary to the Local Government.

Under the declaration, there are thirteen kingmakers including Mogaji Ijo and Bale Olele. At the meeting of the kingmakers held on 3/8/85, ten of them were present. Mogaji Ijo and Bale Olele were not invited to the meeting. The ten kingmakers voted on the four candidates presented before them. Mustafa Oladokun scored 3 votes and Y.O. Sunmonu scored 7 votes.

The other two candidates had no vote. The name of Sunmonu was forwarded to the Alafin of Oyo for his consent to the appointment of Sunmonu as the Onjo of Okeho. The Alafin refused to give his consent. The 1st defendant directed him to do so. But before the Alafin could comply, Mustafa Oladokun who was unhappy about the outcome of the exercise instituted proceedings leading to this appeal. Y.O. Sunmonu the successful candidate was joined as the 14th defendant in the action.

In his writ of summons Mustafa Oladokun claimed as hereunder:

“1. Declaration that the plaintiff who scored twenty (20) votes at the joint meeting of Etielu Ruling House held on 22nd August, 1985 is the candidate nominated by Etielu Ruling House pursuant to Clause (v) of Onjo of Okeho Chieftaincy Declaration registered on 12th February, 1958.

2. Declaration that the forwarding of 4 names by the Secretary to the kingmakers inspite of the selection of the plaintiff by the family was contrary to custom and the existing declaration, irregular, without foundation and ineffective.
3. Declaration that the plaintiffs name is the only one that should have been forwarded to the kingmakers in accordance with provisions of the existing declaration and the custom of Okeho relating to Onjo of Okeho.
4. Declaration that the reversal of the plaintiff’s nomination by the kingmakers and the substitution therefor of the name of the 14th Defendant by the kingmakers is contrary to custom and the existing declaration.

Alternative to reliefs 1 – 4 above

5. Declaration that the joint meeting of Etiele Ruling House held on 22nd of August 1985 was irregular null and void and of no effect in that, the meeting was not summoned by the Mogaji Ijo as stipulated in the existing declaration.
6. Declaration that the meeting of the kingmakers at which the 14th defendant was voted for was irregular, null and void and of no effect in that the kingmakers were not invited.
7. Declaration that the 14th defendant not being the son of previous Onjo is not qualified to be an Onjo of Okeho.
8. Declaration that the 1st defendant’s directive to the 13th defendant that the 13th defendant should exercise his discretionary power as a consenting authority in a particular manner i.e. to consent to the appointment of the 14th defendant within 7 days is unconstitutional, contrary to law, improper, null and void and of no effect.
9. Injunction restraining the 13th defendant by himself his agents, servants or privies from or otherwise howsoever from consenting to the nomination of the 14th defendant.
10. An order of injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or privies from or otherwise howsoever from consenting to the nomination of the 14th defendant.
11. An order of injunction restraining the 14th defendant from presenting or parading himself for installation as the Onjo of Okeho”

Pleadings having been filed and exchanged, the action proceeded to trial at the conclusion of which the learned trial Judge found –

1. that “there is nothing in Section 15(1) (c) of the Chiefs Law that empowers the Secretary of a Local Government to summon a meeting of members of a Ruling House. All the Section requires is for the Secretary to announce the name of the Ruling House entitled according to the customary law to provide a candidate or candidates, as the case may be, to fill the vacancy.”
2. that “it is the Mogaji Ijo who should under normal circumstances summon a meeting of the family whenever there is a vacancy.”
3. that there is no evidence that Mogaji Ijo “is a recognized chieftaincy” under the Chiefs Law.
4. that the decision of the Grade C Customary Court as contained in Exhibit A in respect of Labode Akano’s appointment as Mogaji Ijo is still subsisting and valid as it has not been set aside;
5. that at the time the Secretary of the Kajola Local Government invited the Etielu Ruling House to hold a family meeting to nominate a candidate or candidates to fill the vacant stool of the Onjo of Okeho in 1985, there was no incumbent Mogaji Ijo;
6. that if there was any irregularity at all in the summoning of the meeting of the Etielu family, it was waived by the parties and as there was no Mogaji Ijo, the family meeting was properly held;
7. that the Chieftaincy Declaration “envisages that more than one candidate may be proposed by the family for the consideration of the kingmakers. Reading the whole of the Declaration together the only conclusion one can reach is that the name of more than one candidate may be sent to the kingmakers for their consideration;
8. that there were no incumbents of the chieftaincies of Mogaji Ijo and Baale of Olele. No one could have been validly invited to represent the holder at the kingmakers meeting of August 1985, consequently the meeting of August 1985 at which the kingmakers selected the 14th defendant was properly constituted;
9. that the qualifications enumerated in paragraph (iii) of the Chieftaincy Declaration are disjunctive and not conjunctive and that, therefore, anyone that has one of the qualifications enumerated in that paragraph will be entitled for selection to the vacant stool.

In the net result the learned trial Judge found that the plaintiff failed in all his claims and dismissed the action.

Being dissatisfied with this judgment the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal which latter Court in the lead judgment of Ogwuegbu, J .C.A (as he then was) (with which Kolawole, J.C.A. agreed) found:

1. that the trial in the Grade ‘C’ Customary Court is a nullity and, therefore, the appointment of Labode Akano as Mogaji Ijo remained valid;
2. that the Mogaji Ijo was wrongfully excluded from summoning the family meeting and participating at the meeting of the kingmakers to select the Onjo of Okeho;
3. but that as Mogaji Ijo is not a party to the present proceedings nor the other kingmaker (Baale of Olele) who was not invited to the meeting of the kingmakers did not complain about their exclusion in the present proceedings either as a party or as a witness the issue of their exclusion in the circumstances appears to me academic and the plaintiff having agreed with all the steps taken by the family at the meeting, he has waived his right to complain;
4. that the Ruling House is perfectly entitled to provide one candidate or more than one candidate;
5. that Clause (iii) of the Chieftaincy Declaration must be read conjunctively to avoid absurdity and capricious result;
6. that the phrase “son of a previous holder” appearing in Clause (iii) (c) of the Chieftaincy Declaration means direct sons of a previous holder of the title; it does not include grandson, great -grandson and great-great-grandson; that consequently Y.O. Sunmonu (the 14th defendant) not being a direct son of a previous holder of the title is not qualified under the declaration to be nominated or selected for the vacant stool of Onjo of Okeho and the Alaafin of Oyo was right in not confirming his appointment.

Upon these findings the Court below allowed the appeal of Oladokun (who shall hereinafter be referred to as the Plaintiff) and set aside the judgment of the trial Judge and granted the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th alternative reliefs of the plaintiff.

Akpabio,J .C.A. in minority judgment agreed with the conclusion reached by his learned brethren but fora different reason. In his judgment he held the view that the family meeting at which candidates were nominated for consideration by the kingmakers was invalid as it was not summoned by the Mogaji Ijo. He set aside the whole nomination exercise and ordered that the exercise be commenced de novo and that a fresh meeting be summoned by the Mogaji Ijo.