Abilawon Ayisa V. Olaoye Akanji & Ors (1995)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

ONU, J.S.C.

The appeal herein, emanating from the Court of Appeal, Ibadan is one involving a chieftaincy dispute originating from Iseyin Local Government of Oyo State. It is sequel to that court (hereinafter referred to as the Court below) on 9th July, 1990, upholding the appeal of the 5th defendant/appellant (hereinafter in the rest of this judgment called appellant) against the decision of the High Court of Oyo State presided over by Ibidapo-Obe, J., dated 2nd October, 1987 which was declared a nullity and was sent back for retrial de novo before another Judge of the said High Court.

The action was first commenced in the Oyo State High Court sitting at Oyo by a Writ dated 18th July, 1986 and filed on 22nd July, 1986. In it, the 1st to 3rd plaintiffs/respondents for themselves and on behalf of all three Male Ruling Houses, challenged the appointment of the appellant (then the 5th of nine defendants with the Governor of Oyo State, now 4th respondent, the Attorney General of Oyo State, now 5th respondent and Mr. O. O. Akinloye, Secretary Iseyin Local Government, now a passive 6th respondent respectively) as the Alado of Ado-Awaye in Iseyin Local Government Area of Oyo State, as follows:-

“1. Declaration that under the traditional Customs, usages and practices of Ado Awaye, only male lines are recognised for the purposes of considering, selecting appointing and installing Alado of Ado Awaye.

2. Declaration that there are Three Ruling Houses based on male lines namely: (i) Oyinlola (ii) Akindele and (iii) Adeniyi for the Alado of Ado-Awaye Chieftaincy in Iseyin Local Government Area of Oyo State.
3. Declaration that Alado of Ado-Awaye Chieftaincy Declaration approved by the Military Governor of Oyo State on the 28th May, 1986 were contrary to Ado-Awaye Traditional Practices, Customary Law and Usages and the Chiefs Law Cap. 21, Laws of Oyo State, 1978 and therefore should be set aside.
4. Declaration that Maku, Olaogun and Olusosun Ruling Houses Incorporated into the said Chieftaincy Declaration belong to the female line, already eliminated and unrecognised by the generality of the people of Ado-Awaye.
5. An Order removing the names of the following purported Ruling Houses i.e. (i) Maku (ii) Olaogun and (iii) Olusosun for the Alado of Ado-Awaye Chieftaincy stool in the Iseyin Local Government Area of Oyo State from the Approved and Registered Declaration in respect of succession to the Obaship of Ado-Awaye.
6. Alternatively, Plaintiffs ask for an order breaking the Oladunni Ruling House into Three to embrace Oyinlola, Akindele and Adeniyi Ruling Houses.
7. An Order setting aside any selection already done or likely to be done, any appointment already made or is likely to be made, any approval already given and/or likely to be given, and/or any installation already performed of any Alado of Ado-Awaye from the female line, particularly from Maku Ruling House or from Olaogun or Olusosun Ruling House by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd and 4th Defendants.
8. An injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants and their servants, agents and privies from taking any or further steps towards approving, effecting or causing the approval of Maku Ruling House and/or the kingmakers approving for installation any candidate for the vacant stool of Alado of Alado-Awaye from the said Maku Ruling House”.

But first, I wish to review the facts of the case, which may be summarised briefly as follows:-

The appellant, Abilawon Ayisa. is a member of the Maku Ruling House of Alado of the Ado-Awaye Chieftaincy. With the late Oba Lakisokun Ayisa I, Alado of Ado-Awaye joining his ancestors on February 25, 1983, the stool of Alado of Ado-Awaye naturally became vacant. Be it noted that the Chieftaincy stool of Alado-Awaye is a recognised Chieftaincy under the Chieftaincy Law of Oyo State of 1978 but which had hitherto no Chieftaincy Declaration under the Chiefs Law of 1959 to guide the Government of Oyo State in nominating and approving candidates to fill that stool consequent upon a vacancy.

As a result of this lacuna and to prevent any further chaos in the filling of the vacant stool of Alado of Ado-Awaye, the Oyo State Government in response to the representations made by some people including Princes who petitioned it and requested for a Chieftaincy Declaration, it set up an inquiry. At the end of it all, Chieftaincy declaration for the Alado of Ado-Awaye Chieftaincy (Exhibit 17) was promulgated and duly registered in 1986, barely 3 years after the stool became vacant.

In place of the three former Ruling Houses of Oyinlola, Akindele and Adeniyi, there were now created in the new Declaration (Exhibit 17) four Ruling Houses, to wit: Olaogun, Olusosun, Oladunni and Maku, with the latter earmarked to commence the rotation accordingly. As it (Maku Ruling House) was about presenting its candidate, the 1st to 3rd plaintiffs/respondents on behalf of the three erstwhile Ruling Houses, filed the suit giving rise to the appeal herein, challenging Exhibit 17 and questioning its mode of making during an interregnum instead of during the lifetime of a reigning chief. They in addition asked for other reliefs as hereinbefore set out.

The case proceeded to trial after the exchange of pleadings which were amended. with the Amended Statement of Claim being further amended with leave of court. Both parties adduced evidence through witnesses, but at the close of the case for the defence which in fact began and ended on the 14th day of July, 1987, with the calling of two witnesses, namely, one Abel Abiodun Akintaru as DW1 and Folarin Abilawon, son to the appellant as DW2. the following vital notes, to which I shall advert later in this judgment, were made by the learned trial Judge.

The case for the 5th defendant. All counsel for the parties agree to address on 22/7/87.

Court:- Since all Counsel agree to address during vacation as they would not like this case to be taken de novo, case adjourned to 22/7/87 for the Legal address. ”

For no apparent cause and for an unexplained reason, the trial court sat on a date not communicated to the defendant. Curiously enough, too, nothing appeared in the court’s record on 22/7/87 – the dated fixed for address. Rather. In the absence of both Plaintiffs and defendants as well as their counsel, on 29th September, 1987, the next date when the case came up again, the learned trial Judge made the following illuminating notes:”

Parties are absent.

Parties not represented by Counsel.