Nathaniel Olaoye Oyediran & Ors V. Jimoh Oyeyemi Olayede & Ors (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ALFRED P.E. AWALA, J.C.A.

This is a Chieftaincy Appeal matter from the High Court of Justice of Oyo State of Nigeria holden at Ogbomoso presided over by Abimbola J in Suit No. HOE/56/96 whereat the Plaintiffs/Appellants sued the Defendants/Respondents claiming the following reliefs:

“(a) A Declaration that the kingmakers or Aresa of Iresa-Adu Chieftaincy having not met to consider, screen and select one of the nine (9) candidates sent to the 2nd Defendant, the 1st Defendant, has not been validly or lawfully selected or nominated by the kingmakers to fill the vacant Chieftaincy of Aresa of Iresa-Adu,

(b) An injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants from presenting the name of the 1st Defendant to the Soun of Ogbomoso Land and/or the Military Administrator of Oyo State as consenting authority as the person validly or lawfully -nominated-or selected by the kingmakers of the Aresa of Iresa-Adu Chieftaincy to fill the vacant stool of Aresa of Iresa-Adu.

For an apt understanding of this appeal it is pertinent to tell the background story as can be gleaned from the transcript record. It is as follows:-

The Aresa-adu of Iresa-Adu Chieftaincy has two Ruling Houses namely (1) Emiolu Ruling House and (2) Oshunbiyi Ruling House. Oba Jacob Oladepo Emiolu having joined his Ancestors from the former Ruling House; it was the turn of Oshunbiyi ruling House to present a candidate to fill the vacant stool of Aresa of Iresa-Adu, in Surulere Local Government of Oyo State.

Pursuant to the provision of section 15 of the Chiefs Law of Oyo State, 1978, Vol.1 Cap 21, the Secretary of Surulere Local Government, of Oyo State, the 2nd Defendant, wrote a letter to the Head (Mogaji) of Oshunbiyi Ruling House to present a candidate or candidates to fill the vacant stool of Aresaadu of Iresa-Adu. The said Mogaji in consequence called a family meeting to nominate a candidate to fill the vacant stool. At the meeting nine (9) members (Princes) of the family indicated their interests in the vacant stool. The meeting instead of nominating one, recommended all nine names to the family head/Mogaji, who in turn sent the nine names to the kingmakers for the Aresaadu Chieftaincy stool to select one. The 1st Defendant as their choice name was sent to the said 2nd Defendant for necessary action in line with the said law section 15 Cap 21, Vol. 1 laws of Oyo State, 1978.

The other eight candidates cried fowl. They sued the chosen candidate Prince Jimoh Olayede, as first defendant, the Secretary of the council, as 2nd defendant and the council itself – Surulere Local government, as the 3rd Defendant. Parties filed and exchanged pleadings. Between 16/12/1999 and 3/3/2000 the case was heard and counsel for the parties addressed court the same day that is to say 3/3/2000. On 14/4/2000 judgment was delivered and it was in favour of the defendants.

Aggrieved, the Plaintiffs appeal to this court by a Notice of Appeal dated 28/4/2000. The Notice of Appeal was amended, approved by this court on 15/3/ 02 therein the Appellants formulated ten Grounds of Appeal. As per the Rules of this court parties Learned Counsel files and exchanged their respective Briefs of Arguments namely Appellants’, 1st Respondents and 2nd & 3rd Respondents’ Briefs of Arguments. No Reply Brief was filed by the Appellants.

The appellants distilled five issues for the determination out of the ten Grounds. The 1st Respondent’s counsel adopts the five issues as could by the appellants while the 2nd and 3rd Respondent raised two issues.

Before I proceed to reproduce the five issues couched by the Appellants and adopted by the 1st Respondent’s counsel together with the two issues formulated by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, I shall dispose of 1st respondent preliminary objection he raised in his Brief of Argument at page (1) one thereof it reads:

“Preliminary Objection:- At the hearing of this appeal, the Appellants (sic) the 1st respondent shall object to.

(a) The filing of Grounds of Appeal without stating the Particulars of the grounds.

(b) The jumbling up of issues for determination by the Appellants.