Gabriel O. Okeshola V. The Military Governor of Oyo State & Ors (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUKHTAR, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of Kolawole J. of the Oyo State High Court sitting in Ibadan. The claims of the plaintiff (who is now the appellant) in that court as per the writ of summons are as follows:

1. Declaration that under the system regulating succession to the stool of Baale of Pako it is the turn of Omusulaja family to nominate a candidate or candidates for appointment to the vacancy in the Baale of Pako chieftaincy.
2. Declaration that the kingmakers for appointment of the Baale of Pako chieftaincy are the Odofin, Balogun and Jagun of Pako.
3. Declaration that the purported nomination and of appointment of the 3rd defendant of Pako chiefs in council is illegal, irregular, wrongful, invalid and in breach of the customs relating to Pako chieftaincy.
4. Declaration that the direction of the 1st defendant contained in letter Ref. No. CB. 141.175/18/88 of 9th October, 1987 asking the 2nd defendant to approve the appointment of the 3rd defendant as Baale of Pako is illegal without or in excess of jurisdiction, irregular, wrongful and null and void.
5. An order setting aside the said letter.
6. An order directing the 2nd defendant to approve the appointment of the plaintiff as the Baale of Pako forthwith.
7. Injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their agents, servants and or privies or otherwise howsoever from approving or recognising the 3rd defendant as the Baale of Pako.
8. Injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from parading himself as the Baale of Pako.

The summary of the case of the plaintiff is that, he was nominated by the Omusulaja family of Pako to fill the vacancy created by the demise of Baale Alli Adebisi Ajibade in April, 1984, and it became the turn of Tubi ruling house to present a candidate. Three branches of Tubi ruling house exist. The plaintiff’s name was forwarded to the kingmakers who appointed him the Baale of Pako and forwarded his name to the prescribed authority, the Baale of Igboora (the 2nd defendant). The 3rd defendant from Iwo-Lafisagba branch of Tubi ruling house was presented to the 2nd defendant; hence there was a dispute on whose appointment to approve. The 1st defendant in a letter dated 9th October, 1987 requested the 2nd defendant to approve the appointment of the 3rd defendant.

The 1st defendant denied most of his averments and asserted that the kingmakers held a meeting at Odofin’s house on 23rd February, 1986 and elected the 3rd defendant with 8 votes against 3 votes for the plaintiff. As a result of the dispute in the appointment there was an investigation, and after the investigation, another election which still saw the 3rd defendant as the winner was held.

Witnesses gave evidence and counsel addressed the court. Learned trial Judge appraised the various evidence, and at the end of the day granted two reliefs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was unhappy with the decision, and appealed to this court on 6 grounds of appeal. Counsel exchanged briefs of argument which were adopted at the hearing of the appeal. Issues for determination were raised in each brief of argument. Six issues were formulated in the appellant’s brief of argument, and they read:-

(i) Whether on the evidence before the court the learned trial Judge was justified in failing to hold that there are traditionally only three kingmakers for the Baale of Pako chieftaincy.

(ii) Whether the learned trial Judge was justified in refusing to hold that appointment to the Baale of Pako chieftaincy is rotational when there was clear and satisfactory evidence before him in favour of such holding.

(iii) If issues (i) and (ii) are determined in the negative, whether the nomination and appointment of the 3rd defendant as Baale of Pako were valid considering that the same were not made by the Omosulaja family and the three traditional kingmakers of Pako respectively.

(iv) Whether the Executive Council is empowered under the law to approve the appointment of a minor chieftaincy office holder.

(v) Whether the prescribed authority over a minor chieftaincy can be compelled by the executive council to exercise his powers in a particular way.

(vi) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in making an order not sought by any of the parties before him.

The 1st and 3rd respondents adopted the above issues in their briefs of argument.

I will start the treatment of this appeal with the first issue supra. The number of kingmakers entitled to appoint the Baale of Pako under the Pako native law and custom is the crucial point of this issue. The appellant in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the statement of claim pleaded the number as follows:-

15. The kingmakers entitled to appoint the Baale of Pako under the custom and tradition of Pako are the Odofin, Jagun and Balogun and they (minus the Balogun, then deceased) were the ones who appointed the plaintiff.
16. The kingmakers could under the Pako custom act notwithstanding any vacancy in their number and at their discretion could appoint any of the lesser chiefs in Pako to sit with them when deliberating over an appointment.

The evidence adduced to prove the above averments are:-