Prince Duro Aderemi Ladejobi V. Otunba Ainofi Afolorunsho Oguntayo

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

UWAIFO, JSC

The appellants are principal members of the Afurukeregboye Ruling House of Ijebu-Ife. It has become necessary to fill the vacant stool of the Ajalorun Chieftaincy title of Ijebu-Ife. The appellants are aggrieved that in the process of presenting candidates from whom to fill the vacant stool, at a meeting of the Ruling House held on 20 March, 1995, the 1st respondent was nominated along with the 1st appellant and three others. They say that the 1st respondent who is the Oraderemo and a Kingmaker, is not, for various reasons given, qualified to become the Ajalorun: (1) he is not a bona fide member of the Ruling House; (2) he is not a descendant of any previous occupier of the Ajalorun Stool; (3) he is not a Prince (Omo-Oba); (4) being a kingmaker he is disqualified from becoming an Ajalorun.

The appellants (as plaintiffs) brought this suit in a representative capacity in the High Court, Ijebu-Ode, for themselves and on behalf of the Afurukeregboye Ruling House, seeking the following reliefs against the respondents (as defendants), of whom the 1st – 7th are now the real respondents:

“a) A DECLARATION that the 1st defendant is not a bonafide member of the AFURUKEREBOYE RULING HOUSE of Ijebu-Ife.

b) A DECLARATION that the 1st defendant is not qualified or competent to be nominated to or occupy the Stool of the Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife by virtue of the Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife Chieftaincy Declaration.

c) AN ORDER setting aside the purported nomination and selection of the 1st defendant to occupy the Stool of the Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife.

d) AN ORDER of perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants jointly and severally from recognising, presenting, installing or in any manner whatsoever or howsoever treating the 1st defendant as the Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife.

e) AN ORDER of perpetual Injunction restraining the 1st defendant from holding himself out as or performing the functions of the office of the Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife.

The 1st defendant filed a motion in the High Court raising as a preliminary issue the locus standi of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th plaintiffs to institute the suit. It was sought to strike out their names from the suit. The learned trial judge (Osidipe J) in a considered ruling given on 14 July, 1995, allowed the motion, holding that the “2nd – 4th plaintiffs have not shown enough locus standi to institute and prosecute this case. They are therefore struck off this case leaving only the 1st plaintiff to continue the action.” The appeal against that ruling was dismissed on December 1, 1999 by the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division.

The appellants have asked that this appeal against the judgment of the court below be resolved upon the sole issue whether or not they have the locus standi to institute this suit. The 1st respondent who is the only respondent now challenging this appeal virtually agrees with the sole issue. It seems to me the learned trial judge relied essentially on Momoh V. Olotu (1970) ANLR 121 (Second Edition) when he said that the Supreme Court in that case held:

“[T]hat membership of a family is not enough to confer status on anyone to bring an action in a Chieftaincy matter since not every member of the family would be interested in the Chieftaincy matter. A plaintiff must show that he has an interest in the chieftaincy title and furthermore state in the Statement of Claim how this interest arose. After perusing the Statement of Claim properly I cannot see where 2nd – 4th plaintiffs pleaded their interest in the Chieftaincy title and the pleading did not state how such an interest arose. Only the 1st plaintiff pleaded sufficient interest in the chieftaincy title and how his interest arose.”

The 1st respondent pressed the authority of Momoh V. Olotu (supra) and similar decisions on the court below as he has done in this court. The court below in the leading judgment of Onalaja JCA observed thus:

“To discover the real issue in controversy between the appellants and 1st respondent in particular and to discover whether there is dispute between them and appellants LOCUS STANDI is to look in the instant case critically and analytically at the statement of claim using as guide beacon lights the principles of law set out in the cases of DR. IRENE THOMAS V. RT. REV. ARCHBISHOP T.O. OLUFOSOYE supra, AMUSA MOMOH V. JIMOH OLOTU supra, ODUNEYE V. EFUNUGA (1990) 7 NWLR Pt. 164 page 638 SC, ADEFULU V. OYESILE (1989) 5 NWLR pt. 122 page 377 SC, OREDOYIN V. AROWOLO (1989) 4 NWLR pt. 144 page 172 SC, SEIDU V. A.G. LAGSO STATE supra whether in the statement of claim appellants apart from pleading membership of Afurukeregboye Ruling House showed that their personal interests had been adversely affected in this action or the civil injury suffered by them or disclosed any reasonable cause of action against 1st respondent, or showed their interests in the chieftaincy tussle, to enable appellants have LOCUS STANDI to wit that in the averments of the statement of claim there is dispute between appellants and 1st respondent as held above in M.A. ELESO V. GOVERNMENT OF OGUN STATE supra.”

The only view one can garner from the above passage is that it tends to be in the direction of what Momoh V. Olotu (supra) decided. Even though the observation cities some decisions where Momoh V. Olotu was explained, that is not reflected in it, nor indeed anywhere else in the judgment of the court below. It would appear to me that the court below significantly failed to realize that locus standi can be available to a family or Ruling House in Chieftaincy matters in a corporate sense. The appellants and the 1st respondent have recognized this in their submissions.