Chief Jeremiah Olaitan Oduyoye & Ors V. Alhaji Adebisi Lawal (Baale of Imodi) & Ors (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ONALAJA, J.C.A.

The plaintiffs are members of Iselu Family of Imodi-Ijebu and brought the action in a representative capacity for themselves and on behalf of other members of Iselu Family aforesaid by a writ of summons issued in the High Court of Justice of Ogun State in Ijebu-Ode Judicial Division holden at Ijebu-Ode against the 3rd defendant individually but as against the 2nd defendant the Awujale of Ijebuland as the prescribed authority for the minor chieftaincy dispute of Ekiti-Ilu of Imodi-Ijebu.

After issuance of the writ of summons by the plaintiffs, it was served individually on the defendants who retained a joint legal practitioner for their defence of the action. Pleadings were filed, delivered, exchanged and amended. At the conclusion of trial the action concluded on amended statement of claim, amended statement of defence and reply to statement of defence which was not amended as a result of the amended statement of defence as an amended reply was not considered necessary.

Adopting and applying the cases of J.O. Lahan v. Lajoyetan (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt. 2) page 217, 1972 6 SC 190; Adebayo v. OAUTH (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt. 673) 585; Omoyinmi v. Olaniyan (2000) 4 NWLR (Pt. 651) 38; G. and C. Lines v. Oladeye (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 676) 613 CA; Onyero v. Nwadike (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt.471) page 231 CA; Sosanya v. Onadeko (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt. 677) page 34 CA, that the particulars of claims set out in the statement of claim supersedes the particulars of the writ of summons makes the claims of the plaintiffs discernable as set out in the concluding paragraph of the amended statement of claim henceforth the amended pleadings are referred to simply as statement of claim and statement of defence. Paragraph 53 of the statement of claim provides as under:

53. WHEREOF the plaintiffs claim as follows:
54. Declaration that the 1st plaintiff is the person entitled to be appointed as Ekeji-Ilu of Imodi-Ijebu

in accordance with the custom and tradition of the people of Imodi-Ijebu applicable to the Ekeji-Ilu of Imodi chieftaincy as well as the Chiefs Law of Ogun State, 1978.

2. Declaration that the 1st plaintiff has been properly appointed as the Ekeji-Ilu of Imodi-ljebu by those entitled by Customary Law of the Community to appoint him and in accordance with the Custom and Tradition of Imodi-Ijebu and the Chiefs Law of Ogun State, 1978.
3. An order compelling the 2nd defendant to give his statutory approval to the appointment of the 1st plaintiff as Ekeji-Ilu of Imodi-Ijebu in accordance with the Chiefs Laws of Ogun State, 1978.
4. A declaration that the 3rd defendant is not entitled to be nominated, appointed or approved by the 2nd defendant or any other person(s) as Ekeji-Ilu of Imodi-Ijebu.
5. A declaration that the purported nomination, appointment, approval and installation of the 3rd defendant as Ekeji-Ilu of Imodi-Ijebu are wrongful, irregular and in violation of the applicable Custom of Imodi-Ijebu as well as the Chiefs Laws of Ogun State, 1978.
6. An order setting aside the nomination, appointment, approval and installation of the 3rd defendant as Ekeji-Ilu of Imodi-Ijebu as same are in violation of the relevant custom and the Chiefs Law of Ogun State, 1978.
7. Perpetual injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from parading himself as the Ekeji-Ilu of Imodi-Ijebu.

The defendants joined issues positively with the plaintiffs in the statement of defence in accordance with the rule in Lewis & Peal (NRI) Ltd. v. Akhimien (1976) 7 SC 157, (1976) 1 All NLR (Pt.1) page 460; Adesanya v. Aderounmu (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt. 672) page 370 SC; Chief F. Akintola & Anor. v. Dedeke-Solano (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 24) page 589 SC.

To substantiate and establish their claims the plaintiffs testified for themselves and called in all five witnesses, in the course of their testimonies documents were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits, references shall be made to them in the judgment. The five witnesses were subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel to defendants.

Similarly, the defendants called five witnesses in all in defence of their cases. Documents were admitted in evidence and marked exhibits, references shall be made to them where necessary in the judgment. All defence witnesses were rigorously cross-examined by the learned Senior Advocate to the plaintiffs.

At the conclusion of testimonies learned Senior Advocate to the plaintiffs and learned counsel to the defendants addressed the learned trial Judge, who adjourned to deliver a considered judgment on 15th March, 1976 covered at pages 129 to 140 of the record of appeal.

In evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties the learned trial Judge set up the imaginary judicial scale under the rule in Mogaji v. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91-98; Okulate v. Awosanya (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 646) page 530 SC at pages 135, 137, 138, 139 and 140 of the record of appeal partly as follows:

The plaintiffs have limited their case to the appointment of 1st plaintiff as the Ekeji-Ilu of Imodi. However, the evidence led in this case show that the Ekeji-Ilu of Imodi eventually becomes the Baale of Imodi whenever a vacancy occurs. Further it is clear that the Baale of Imodi was a recognised chieftaincy to which part 2 of the Chiefs Law, Cap. 19, Laws of Western Region, 1959 was applicable – (see Recognised Chieftaincies Order WRLN 22 of 1959 at page 306 of Volume 1 Laws of Western Region 1959). This is clearly the basis for the making of exhibit B which was the registered declaration applicable to the chieftaincy.

However by W.S.L.N. 6 of 1976, the Baale of Imodi is now a minor chieftaincy since it is no more included in the list of recognised chieftaincies. It is the prescribed authority that now approves appointment to the chieftaincy. However the customary law as to appoint cannot change as only those who are appointed in accordance to that chieftaincy can be properly approved by the prescribed authority.

Generally, chieftaincy matters have now been codified in Ogun State and the Chiefs Law, Cap. 20 Laws of Ogun state, 1978 is the relevant law applicable to chieftaincy matters within the state. There are recognised chieftaincies to which part 2 of the law applies and appointment to these chieftaincies must be approved by the Executive Council or the Commissioner responsible for chieftaincy matters under section 30 (1)(b) of Cap. 20 – (see W.S.L.N. 7 of 1976). In relation to minor chieftaincies to which part 3 of Cap. 20 applies, it is the prescribed authority to such minor chieftaincies under section 22 (2) of Cap. 20;

One aspect is however clear and certain all appointments to all chieftaincies be it minor or recognised must be made in accordance with the Customary Law applicable to such chieftaincies … by those entitled by customary law to so appoint in accordance with the custom in relation to minor chieftaincies. Thus, while an appointment process starts with selection by ruling house, it ends with approval by the appropriate authority and without the necessary approval no one can validly call himself a Chief. See Ayoade v. Governor of Ogun State (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 309) 111 at 128 and also Gbadebo v. Abeokuta Local Government & Ors. (1983) 2 FNR 264.