Chief Fatonji Whetto & Ors V. Oba Morufu Ayinla Awode & Ors (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appeal challenges the judgment of Mabekoje, J., of the Ogun State High Court of Justice sitting at Ilaro striking out the appellants’ chieftaincy suit on grounds of prematurity of the suit and for lack of jurisdiction of the court below to entertain it.

The appellants as plaintiffs had in paragraph 62 of their joint second further amended statement of claim dated 8.3.03 averred the following reliefs against the respondents:

“1. Declaration that the plaintiffs who are of Egun tribe, in Ijofin, Yewa, Ogun State and descendants of the founder of Ijofin are entitled to nominate, present candidates and be appointed as the Baale or Oba of Ijofin in accordance with the history, tradition, customs and customary/native laws of Ijofin.

2. Declaration that any native or customary laws or enactment in Ijofin which restricts the rights to Baale or Oba of Ijofin to the Eyos (Yorubas) clan OR which deny the right of the Plaintiffs who are of Egun Clan or tribe of Ijofin and descendants of the founder of Ijofin to the Baale or Oba of Ijofin is not in accordance with the history, tradition, customs and customary/native laws of Ijofin and is therefore repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience and is therefore null and void.

3. Declaration that the acts of the defendants restricting the Baale or Oba of Ijofin to the Eyo (Yoruba) Clan of Ijofin to the exclusion of the plaintiffs who are of Egun Clan of Ijofin is Ultra Vires their power and against the history, native and customary laws of Ijofin.

4. Declaration that after the death of Baale Jubrila Ogunsekan in 1995 the 2nd plaintiff who is of Egun stock is the person entitled to be appointed as the Baale OR Oba of Ijofin in accordance with the history, tradition, Custom and Customary/native laws of Ijofin.

5. Declaration that the 1961 Chieftaincy Declaration of Ijofin is null and void and same is not valid as the customary law for the selection and appointment of the Baale or Oba of Ijofin.

6. Declaration that the appointment of the 1st defendant of Eyo stock as the Baale of Ijofin in 1997 after the death of Baale Jubrila Ogunsekan is irregular, illegal, unlawful and it is against the history, tradition, customs and customary/native laws of Ijofin.

7. Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or privies from restricting or denying the rights of the plaintiffs as Egun of Ijofin from nominating candidates for the Baale or Oba of Ijofin or from producing the Baale or Oba of ljofin.

8. Perpetual Injunction restraining the 1st defendant from parading himself as the Baale OR Oba of Ijofin , as his appointment is irregular and not in accordance with the history, tradition, customs and customary/native laws of Ijofin.

The suit went to trial after pleadings were exchanged. Both parties called evidence. Briefly stated the appellants’ case was that they are natives of Ijofin town in ogun state; their ethnic group is called Egun; the 1st-6th respondents are also natives of Ijofin town, but of the Eyo ethnic extraction; that appellants’ fore-bears were the original settlers at Ijofin town producing the Baales of the town until the trend was abruptly truncated by force by one chief Borokini, an influential Eyo man; when the Baale of Ijofin died in 1997, and the appellants’ side aspired to the Baaleship, the 1st-6th respondents objected on the premise that the stool is the prerogative of their ethnic group.

Evidence for appellants in the court below went further that the appellants reported the dispute to the 7th respondent, the prescribed authority of Ijofin town, to decide the rightful ethnic group to appoint the successor to the stool; the 7th respondent advised the two contending parties to meet and resolve the dispute between them amicably; the 2nd-6th respondents flouted the advice and proceeded by force to install the 1st respondent as the Baale of Ijofin town basing their action on a Declaration made in 1961 for the Ijofin Chieftaincy post.

The 2nd-6th respondents, according to the evidence tendered on their behalf, relied on the 1961 Declaration in Exhibit B as the Ijofin customary law for the appointment, selection and installation of the 1st respondent as the Baale of Ijofin town in Exhibit A, upon which they rested their case.