Chief Joshua Alao V. Alfa Issa Akano (2005)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

DAHIRU MUSDAPHER, JSC

Chief Joshua Alao, the appellant herein, instituted this action in the High Court of Kwara State and in the Ilorin Judicial Division against the three respondents herein as the defendants seeking the following reliefs jointly and/or severally:-

“1. A declaration that the plaintiff is the Oluo of Oke-Oyi having been so appointed by the Oke-Oyi King makers and approved by the Kwara State Governor under section 3(1) of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law.

A declaration that the second defendant has no power to appoint an Oluo for the Oke-Oyi in view of section 78(1) (J) of the Local Government Edict (Law) No. 8 of 1976 and section 13 of Chiefs (Appointment And Deposition) [Amendment] Edict No.8 of 1985.

A perpetual injunction prohibiting the first defendant from parading himself as the Oluo of Oke-Oyi and prohibiting the second defendant from so treating him.

A declaration that Edict No. 3 of 1988 is unconstitutional null and void and inapplicable to this suit and

An Order to compel the Kwara State Government to refund the N10,000.00 paid by the plaintiff before filing this suit.”

Pleadings were delivered and exchanged. At the hearing before the trial Court, plaintiff testified and called no other witness. The first respondent gave evidence and called one witness, while for the 3rd defendant, a witness testified. With the consent of the parties, Learned Counsel tendered about twenty documents from the bar as exhibits. In addition to the written addresses filed by the parties after the conclusion of evidence, learned counsel also proffered oral addresses. In his judgment delivered on the 24/11/1995, Gbadeyan J, partially found for the plaintiff and granted him prayers 1, 2 and 3 refused reliefs 4 and 5. The first defendant felt aggrieved with the decision and appealed to the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff also felt unhappy with part of the judgment refusing his prayers and also cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the first defendant, it set aside the decision of the High Court and held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his case and ordered the dismissal of the claims. The Court of Appeal also dismissed the cross-appeal. This is an appeal by the plaintiff. The amended Notice of Appeal filed with the leave of this court contains 15 grounds of appeal. In compliance with the Rules of this court briefs of argument were filed and exchanged and at the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel relied on the arguments canvassed in their respective written briefs, except for the learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents who was absent from court but filed a brief and by the provisions of the Rules of this court, he was deemed to have argued the appeal. Before I discuss the issues submitted for the determination of the appeal it is convenient at this stage to set out the facts of the case.

This is a prolonged and protracted chieftaincy dispute concerning the Baleship or the village head of Oke-Oyi or as the plaintiff christianed it, the Oluo of Oke-Oyi. The controversy has gone through all the courts on three occasions, this is its fourth orbit in the Supreme Court. It started in 1972 when the erstwhile Bale Yusuf died while performing pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia. Mallam Gbadamosi Akano the father of the present first defendant and the plaintiff contested for the position of the village head to succeed the deceased Bale Yusuf. Mallam Gbadamosi Akano was eventually appointed and turbaned as the village head by the Emir of Ilorin. The appellant herein disagreed with the appointment and went to the courts. The dispute culminated in suit No SC 143/1/1986 in which this court affirmed the appointment and the turbanning of the said Gbadamosi Akano as the Bale or village head of Oke-Oyi. Mallam Gbadamosi Akano died in 1988 and his son the first defendant herein manifested his desire to succeed his father as the village head of Oke Oyi. The appellant also resolved unrelentingly once again to claim the stool for himself. Attempts were made by both the Ilorin East/West local Government Councils and the Ilorin Emirate council to resolve the dispute all to no avail. The Ilorin Emirate council in 1989, set up a committee under the chairmanship of Balogun Alanamu to investigate the chieftaincy dispute and to recommend to the Emirate council the person to be appointed as Bale of Oke-Oyi between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The committee completed its task and the Emirate council in a letter, informed the first defendant of his appointment as the Bale of Oke-Oyi. The first defendant was eventually and at a ceremony witnessed by many people including the plaintiff was presented and turbaned before the people of Oke-Oyi by the Emir of Ilorin on the 20/11/1990.

PAGE 2

Suddenly on the 27/9/1993, a letter emanating from the Office of the Deputy Governor of Kwara State, addressed to the chairman Ilorin East Local Government Council and the secretary Ilorin Emirate Council Directed that the plaintiff “Mr. Joshua Alao and not Issa Akano “ was approved to be appointed “as the Oluo (Bale) of Oke-Oyi with effect from 1st September, 1993.” A day later, to be precise on the 28/9/1993, the secretary to the State Government of Kwara State wrote a letter to Ilorin Emirate Council that the contents of the letter from the office of the Deputy Governor should be disregarded as directed by “His Excellency, the Executive Governor of Kwara State .” The Ilorin Emirate Council in a Press Release issued to the media reacted to the letter by the Deputy Governor in this way:

“The Ilorin Emirate Council had a long time ago deliberated on the appointment and has already appointed Mallam Alfa Issa Akano as the Village head Oke-Oyi.

The appointment of Mallam Isa Akano still stands as the authentic accredited and recognised Village head of Oke-Oyi.”

It was when the directives by the Deputy Governor of Kwara State was ignored, that the plaintiff instituted this fresh action claiming to be the rightful village head of Oke-Oyi by virtue of the recommendation as contained in the letter from the Deputy Governor, and also, as claimed by him, because, “he was nominated by the majority of the Kingmakers.”