Otunba Adesesan Oguntayo (Oraderemo Of Ijebu-ife) V. Prince Fatai Adelaja & Ors (2009)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

J.O. OGEBE, J.S.C

The 1st Respondent in this appeal who was the plaintiff in the High Court of Ogun State sued the appellant and the other respondents claiming in his writ of summons as follows:

“1. A declaration that being a Kingmaker by virtue of the registered declaration for Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife Chieftaincy, the 1st Defendant is not eligible to be nominated, selected or appointed, approved and installed as the Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife in the Ijebu East Local Government Area of Ogun State.

2. A declaration that being the Oraderemo of Ijebu-Ife the 1st Defendant is not eligible to be nominated selected or appointed, approved and installed Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife.
3. A declaration that the purported nomination of the 1st Defendant as a candidate by the Afurukeregboye House for the filling of the vacant stool of Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife is irregular, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.
4. A declaration that the purported selection or appointment of the 1st Defendant by the 2nd, 3rd, 5th 6th and 7th Defendants as the Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife is irregular, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.
5. An order setting aside the purported nomination, selection or appointment of the 1st Defendant as. Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife.
6. Perpetual injunction restraining the 8th and 9th Defendants from giving approval to the purported selection or appointment of the 1st Defendant as Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife”.

Pleadings were exchanged between the parties and the matter went into full trial. The question turned on the illegibility of the appellant to be nominated and appointed the Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife on the ground that as the head of the Kingmakers he was not qualified to take the title, and also as a descendant from the male-line he was not qualified. The 1st respondent did not raise the question of the appellant’s descent from the male line in his statement of claim. He only raised it in his reply to the appellant’s Statement of Defence.

Witnesses were called on both sides but the appellant did not testify on his own behalf. During the course of the trial the 1st respondent’s counsel sought to tender proceedings in suit No. SCJ/6/85 to show that the appellant had given evidence in the proceedings that he was of male descent. There was objection to the admissibility of that document. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent failed to reply to the objection. Instead he applied to withdraw the document and the Higher Registrar of the High Court through whom he had tendered the document. The trial court marked the document rejected.

At the conclusion of the case the trial court evaluated the evidence and dismissed the 1st respondent’s claim. He was aggrieved by that decision and appealed to the Court of Appeal Ibadan Division which allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial of the case before another Judge mainly on the view of the Court of appeal that the 1st respondent was not given a fair hearing by the trial court before the proceedings in HCJ/6/85 was rejected.

Dissatisfied with the decision the appellant appealed to this court and the 1st respondent also cross-appealed to this Court. Both of them exchanged briefs in respect of their respective appeal. It should be noted that all the other defendants/respondents have not shown interest in this appeal. The appeal is simply between the appellant and the 1st respondent.

The learned counsel for the appellant in his brief of argument formulated 3 issues for determination as follows:

“(a) Whether having regard to the pleadings and evidence, the Court of Appeal was right in overturning the decision of the trial Court by which that Court held that the 1st Defendant did not descend from the male line of the Afurukeregboye Ruling House. This issue is distilled from Ground 1 of the grounds of appeal.

(b) Whether in the face of the provisions of Section 34 of the Evidence Act and the evidence before the trial Court, the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the learned trial Judge breached the rule of natural justice and was wrong in law in rejecting the proceedings in Suit No. HCJ/6/85 in evidence. This issue is distilled from Grounds 2, 3 and 4 of the grounds of appeal.

(c) Whether in all the circumstances of the case, the Court of Appeal was right in ordering a re-trial of the case This issue is distilled from ground 5 of the grounds of appeal.”

The learned counsel for the 15th respondent filed a brief and distilled 2 issues for determination as follows:

“1. Whether, having regard to the circumstance of this case, the way and manner the proceedings in Suit No. HCJ/61/85 was rejected did not occasion a miscarriage of justice warranting the Court of Appeal to interfere with the decision of the trial court; and

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in its decision ordering a new trial.

In his brief the 1st respondent’s counsel raised a preliminary objection to the competence of the appeal. During the oral hearing of the appeal he abandoned the objection and I hereby strike it out.