Jeje Oladele & Ors Vs Oba Adekunle Aromolaran Ii & Ors (1996)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGUNDARE, JSC.

The main question calling for determination in this appeal is as to whether a registered declaration made under the provisions of the Chiefs Law Cap. 21 Laws of Oyo State, 1978 (still applicable in Osun State) when a particular chieftaincy came under Part 2 of the said Law still has force of law notwithstanding that the said chieftaincy has been reduced in status and now comes under Part 3 of the said Law.

The Odole Chieftaincy is a traditional and hereditary title in Ilesa in Osun State. The Chieftaincy, at one time, was under Part 2 of the Chiefs Law and was then a recognized chieftaincy. In 1975 a declaration was made and registered pursuant to section 4 of the law stating the customary law pertaining to the selection and appointment of holders of the chieftaincy. By legal notice OY. SLN 18 of 1978 entitled. The Recognized Chieftaincies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order issued in 1978 by the Governor of Oyo State – Ilesa was then in Oyo State – the Odole Chieftaincy was removed from the list of recognized chieftaincies to which Part 2 of the Law applies and was thereby reduced in status to a minor chieftaincy to which the provisions of Part 3 of the Law apply.

Consequent upon the death of Chief Ayo Babatope (the previous holder of the title) on or about the 13th day of April, 1985 there was a vacancy in the chieftaincy. There were a number of contestants all claiming to descend from Logun-Edu. The 1st defendant, the Owa Obokun. Adimula of Ijesha is the prescribed authority in respect of the chieftaincy. Sometime, in June 1986 he appointed Chief Ayotunde Esan (the 4th defendant) to succeed to the vacancy. Members of Logun-Edu family protested and when the 1st defendant would not rescind his decision the plaintiffs, for themselves and on behalf of Odole Chieftaincy Family, sued the 4 defendants claiming, as per paragraph 35 of their amended statement of claim, as follows:-

“i. Declaration that Odole Chieftaincy title is hereditary.

1. Declaration that 4th defendant is not in anyway related to Logun-Edu the first Chief of Odole of Ilesa.

iii. Declaration that selection installation of the 4th defendant as Chief Odole by the 1st defendant or/and 1st-3rd defendants on 14th day of June, 1986 is null and void and of no consequence in that the 4th defendant claims to belong to Arobiomo ruling house which the plaintiffs are not conceeding and when it has not come to the turn of that Arobiomo ruling house.

1. Perpetual injunction restraining the 4th defendant from parading himself as Chief Odole of Ilesa and also restraining 1st and/or 1st-3rd defendants from performing other traditional ceremonies and/ or rites pertaining to the installation of Odole chieftaincy title.”

Pleadings having been filed and exchanged and amended the action proceeded to trial, at the end of which and after addresses by learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge, in a reserved judgment adjudged as follows:

“(i) The declaration sought that Odole Chieftaincy title is hereditary is hereby granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

(ii) The declaration sought that the 4th defendant is not in anyway related to Logun-Edu, the first Odole of Ilesa, is hereby refused.

(iii) The declaration sought that the selection and installation of the 4th defendant by the 1st defendant is null and void and of no consequence is hereby granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

The declaration sought against the 2nd and 3rd defendants however fail and are hereby refused and dismissed.

(iv) The 4th defendant is hereby restrained by a perpetual injunction from parading himself as Chief Odole of Ilesa and the 1st defendant is also hereby restrained from performing other traditional ceremonies and/or rites pertaining to the installation of any Odole until a new selection is made in the appropriate customary manner or accord with Section 22 of the Chiefs Law, Cap. 21, Laws of Oyo State of Nigeria.”

The 1st and 4th defendants were displeased with the said judgment and both appealed separately to the Court of Appeal (Ibadan Division) which Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the trial High Court and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims (3) and (4). It is against that judgment that the plaintiffs have now appealed to this Court.

In accordance with the Rules of this Court the parties filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument. The plaintiffs also filed a reply brief. In the plaintiffs/appellants brief the following question is formulated as calling for determination in this appeal