Joseph Adebayo Osagunna V. The Military Governor Of Ekiti State & Ors (2001)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGUNDARE, J.S.C.

Following the death on 21st October, 2000 of Joseph Adebayo Osagunna, the plaintiff/appellant, the applicants herein brought this application praying this Court for an order that the applicants be substituted for the named appellant now dead, to prosecute this appeal for themselves and on behalf of the other members of the Amilede Descendants/branch of the Onidasa Ruling House of Ipoti Ekiti. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn to by one Adefemi Olowolaiyemo, the penultimate paragraphs of which read as follows:

“1. That I am a member of the Amilede Descendants/branch of the Onidasa Ruling House of Ipoti Ekiti and have the authority of the family to swear to this affidavit.

3. That I know that the appellant however died in Abeokuta Ogun State on the 21st of October, 2000 and was buried on the 8th of December, 2000 in Ipoti Ekiti. A copy of the appellant’s Death

Certificate is now produced and shown to me marked Exhibit ‘AO1’.

4. Although, the action under appeal involved a dispute as between the plaintiff (now deceased) and the 4th defendant as to who was rightly entitled to be made the Olupoti of Ipoti-Ekiti, a number of other vital issues were raised and contested in relation to rights of a number of families in relation to the Olupoti Chieftaincy title.
5. The plaintiff claimed that only three families which formed the Amilede Descendants/families were entitled to present candidates for the Olupoti Chieftaincy whilst the 4th – 7th defendants contended that there was only one Ruling House, the Onidasa Ruling House which consisted of five families, all of which were entitled to present candidates for the Olupoti Chieftaincy.
6. The plaintiff’s case was that only the Asao, Emila and Ejemu families which together formed the Amilede Descendants/branches could present candidates for the Chieftaincy, the plaintiff being a member of the Asao family.
7. Although the plaintiff/appellant is now dead, there remains unresolved the substantial issues which were contested between the five constituent families of the Onidasa Ruling House of Ipoti Ekiti, of which three are on the plaintiff’s side whilst the remaining two are the families of the defendant/respondent.
8. That this appeal challenges the determination of the Court of Appeal that, although the Kingmakers had failed to comply with the requirements of Ipoti-Ekiti native law and custom in selecting the 4th defendant/respondent, that failure was not important.
9. As members of the larger number of families interested in succession to the Olupoti Chieftaincy, all the members of the Amilede families, and on whose behalf the deceased plaintiff fought the action were vitally interested in the ultimate outcome of the action especially as it relates to the question whether or not the 4th defendant has been selected in accordance with the Ipoti-Ekiti native law and custom.
10. It is therefore, in the interest not only of the other members of the Amilede and Onidasa ruling houses but also that of the whole of Ipoti-Ekiti that the issue of compliance of native law and custom be resolved on the merits.
11. The claims on the writ of summons and the pleadings of both parties show abundantly that the plaintiff’s action was in reality as well as appearance, fought by him not only for himself but also for and on behalf of the Amilede Descendants/Families of Ipoti Ekiti.
12. The deceased plaintiff had initially been unanimously chosen by the members of the Asao, Emila, Ejemu families/branches – the Amilede Descendants – as their candidate for the Olupoti Chieftaincy and thereafter authorized by the Amilede Descendants to institute the action Suit No. AK/62/88 to vindicate the rights of the family as well as his own.
13. It is only by substituting the chosen representatives of the Amilede descendants i.e. the Asao, Emila and Ejemu families that the appeal can be properly re-constituted so that the real issue in controversy between the real parties to the action can be decided by the Courts.
14. At a meeting of the Amilede Descendants comprising the Asao, Emila and Ejemu branches of the Onidasa Ruling House held at Asao’s compound Ipoti-Ekiti on the 12th of December, 2000, the members of the families appointed the applicants as representatives of the Amilede Descendants aforesaid, to replace and be substituted for the plaintiff (now deceased) to prosecute the pending appeal in the Supreme Court in Suit No. SC/19/1997. A copy of the minutes of the said meeting is now produced and shown to me marked ‘A02’.
15. The justice of the case demands that the representatives now chosen by the Amilede Descendants/branches of the Onidasa Ruling House be now permitted to prosecute the appeal for themselves and on behalf of the Amilede Descendants/branches of the Onidasa Ruling House being the Asao, Emila and Ejemu families of Ipoti Ekiti

The plaintiff/appellant had in his personal capacity, sued the defendants/respondents herein claiming as per paragraph 36 of his further and further amended statement of claim-

“DECLARATION THAT

1. (i) The Declaration purportedly made under S.5(1) of the Chief’s Edict 1984 as the customary law regulating the selection of the Olupoti of Ipoti Chieftaincy approved on 24/12/87 registered on 24/12/87 is defective, faulty and objectionable and it is not a true reflection/codification of the Customary law regulating the selection of a person to be the holder of the Olupoti Chieftaincy and should, therefore be null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(ii) All actions purported to have been taken by:

(a) The so called Head of the Onidasa Ruling House namely, Chief Adaramola Adesuyi, the Ejisun.

(b) The so called kingmakers of the Olupoti of Ipoti Chieftaincy, namely Chiefs Inurin Abisoye,

Arowolo Bisinkin and Zasuzu Ejesu respectively: and

(c) The Secretary of Ijero Local Government in the purported nomination and selection of one Dr.

Elijah OIadele Ayeni under the provision/authority of the said declaration is unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(iii) The purported selection of Mr. Elijah Oladele Ayeni as Olupoti-elect by the said so called kingmakers is unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(iv) The Asao, Emila and Ejemu families/branches, otherwise known as Amilede houses of the Oladele Ruling House are the only and truly sons (princes) of the Onidasa Ruling House of Ipoti Ekiti and the only and truly the families/branches of the said Ruling House that can lawfully nominate a candidate(s) for selection into the vacant stool of the Olupoti of Ipoti by the true kingmakers, the Iwarafa mefa (the Inner Council) excluding the Olupoti of Ipoti namely Chief Odofin of Ipoti, Onijiyan of Ejiyan, Odofin Ejiyan, Ajana Owa and Odofin Owa in accordance with the customary law of the Ipoti-Ekiti Community.