Prince Fatai Adelaja V. Otunba Adesesan a. Oguntayo & Ors (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUKHTAR, J.C.A.

The reliefs sought by the plaintiff as per the writ of summons in the lower court are as follows:

1. A declaration that, being a kingmaker by virtue of 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 Oraderomo of Ijebu- Ife the 1st defendant is not eligible to be nominated selected or appointed, approved and installed as Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife.
3. A declaration that the purported nomination of the defendant as a candidate by the Afurukeregboye ruling 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 of the 1st defendant by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 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 the 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 ordered by the trial Judge and closed at reply to the statement of defence of the 1st defendant. The case of the plaintiff as contained in his statement of claim is that there are three ruling houses in Ijebu-Ife, namely Amesofe, Olufesogbade and Afurukeregboye, to which he belongs. The 1st – 7th defendants are the kingmakers of Ijebu-Ife, whilst the 1st defendant is the head of all Omo Obas whose responsibility it is to convene a meeting of any ruling house whose turn is to nominate a candidate to fill the Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife vacant stool, and to present the nominated candidate to the kingmakers. After the demise of Oba Adebambo Oyenuga it became the turn of Afurukeregboye ruling house to nominate a candidate. A meeting of the said ruling house was convened and the plaintiff and six others were nominated, but the nomination of the 1st defendant was objected to by himself and some persons, but at a meeting held at the night of 18/5/95 the 1st defendant was appointed the Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife by his co-king makers.

It is the case of the 1st defendant that he is eligible to be nominated or appointed to fill the vacant stool of Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife under the provisions of the Chiefs Law of Ogun State and the declaration. When he was nominated, he did not deliberate with the kingmakers when they were considering the nominated candidates. More over he was within his rights as provided by the Chiefs Law and declaration, to be nominated as a candidate and appointed as the Ajalorun in so far as the declaration does not state that an Oraderemo and/or a kingmaker shall not be eligible for such appointment. The pleadings of the 2nd – 9th defendants are in consonance with those of the 1st defendant, and they in fact confirm that the 1st defendant is qualified to be nominated or appointed as the Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife, and that his nomination and selection are valid in law.

Witnesses testified for both sides to the litigation, and counsel addressed the court. The trial Judge appraised the evidence, considered counsel’s addresses and dismissed the plaintiff’s case. Dissatisfied with the decision the plaintiff appealed to this court originally on 8 grounds of appeal which were amended and increased to 14 grounds on the order of this court. In compliance with Order 6 Rules (2) and (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1981 as amended. Counsel exchanged briefs of argument, which were adopted at the hearing of the appeal. Seven issues for determination were formulated in the appellant’s brief of argument. The respondents also raised issues for determination in their briefs of argument. In the appellant’s reply to 1st respondent’s brief the learned S.A.N. objected to issues 2, 3, 4 and 5 formulated by the 1st respondent in his brief of argument, and urged the court to strike them out. The gravamen of his objection is that the issues are outside the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant, and since he has not cross-appealed he cannot formulate the said issues. He placed reliance on the cases of Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v. Simeon Osezuah (1997) 2 NWLR (Pt.485) 28; Buraimoh v. Bamgbose (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 109) 352.

The position of the law is that issues formulated for the purpose of treatment of an appeal must derive their source from framed grounds of appeal, and not out of the blues or just any pleading or decision attacked by a party. In other words, a ground of appeal must first of all be framed, it is then a related issue will be distilled from the ground. Once there is no ground of appeal that forms the basis of an issue then the issue becomes superfluous and non-issue and must be struck out. See Oshinupebi v. Saibu & Ors. (1982) 7 SC 104, Western Steel Works Ltd. v. Iron & Steel Workers Union (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.49) 284, and Unegbu v. Woli (1997) 2 NWLR (Pt. 486) 194. I have perused the issues raised in the 1st respondents brief of argument, and my opinion is that going through the appellant’s grounds of appeal, I find that the issues complained against are related to the grounds of appeal. So even though the 1st respondent did not cross-appeal, the fact that the issues arose from the appellant’s ground of appeal makes them valid. Issue (1) derives its source from ground (2) of the appeal issue (iv) derives its source from ground of appeal no. (2) and so on and so forth. I have however not adopted the issues of the 1st respondent for the treatment of this appeal, only those of the appellant. The objection is overruled. I will adopt the issues raised in the appellant’s brief of argument in treating the appeal, and I will take them individually and or merge some together, starting with issue (1) which reads thus:-

Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that she disbelieved the evidence of the appellant that the 1st respondent descended from the male line of Afurukeregboye ruling house because he, the appellant did not plead the genealogy of the 1st respondent in the statement of claim but in reply to the statement of the defence of the 1st respondent.

It is a fact that the appellant pleaded the reason for his alleged disqualification of the 1st respondent in his statement of claim as follows:-

17. The plaintiff avers that when he challenged the 1st defendant before the meeting of Afrurukeregboye ruling house held on 20/3/95 that he (the 1st defendant) was not a member of the Afurukeregboye ruling house, the 1st defendant stated that he is related to all the three ruling houses and particularly belonged to Afurukeregboye ruling house from his paternal side.
18. The plaintiff avers that he was present in court on 28/3/89 and heard the 1st defendant state in his evidence that he belonged to Afurukeregboye ruling house from his paternal side. The 1st defendant’s evidence in suit No.HCJ/6/85 refers.
19. The plaintiff maintains that the 1st defendant is not eligible as a member of Afurukeregboye ruling house for the filling of the vacant stool of Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife.

The 1st respondent in his statement of defence specifically denied paragraph (19) (supra) with the following averment.

6. With respect to paragraph 19 of the statement of claim the 1st defendant avers under the provisions of the Chiefs Law of Ogun State and the declaration, he is eligible to be nominated and/or selected or appointed to fill the vacant stool of Ajalorun of Ijebu-Ife.

In particular, the evidence of the appellant in support of the (supra) averment reads:-

“We opposed his candidature on the grounds that as a kingmaker with specific duties he is not entitled. We also protested that he is not a member of the ruling house through the female line. We said he had no right to be a candidate. I think my protest was recorded.”

In the course of cross examination the appellant’s evidence was not as forthcoming for he said:-

“I do not know that there is a declaration in respect of Ajalorun chieftaincy. See Exhibit ‘C8’. It is the declaration. All the custom of the people cannot be in the declaration. There is nothing in the declaration which says specifically that an Oraderemo cannot be an Ajalorun. But it is understood because he has been given specific duties to perform. Exhibits ‘C10’-‘C11’ is the minutes of Afurukeregboye ruling house dated 20/3/95. Minutes of nomination. It is not recorded in the minutes that I raised the objection that the 1st defendant is from the male line.”

The pertinent question here is, within the above evidence, can it be said that the appellant proved the disqualification of the 1st respondent to the Ajalorun Chieftaincy of Ijebu-Ife? Before the answer to this question can be determined I will first of all go further to examine the exhibits mentioned (supra) and the stages in the procedure for filling of the vacant stool. The first stage is the nomination. For expediency I will examine Exh. ‘L’, the declaration of the customary law regulating the selection of the Ajalorun Chieftaincy and reproduce the relevant provision below. It reads:-