Abraham Adekunle & Ors. V. Chief Akinremi Aremu & Ors. (1997)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUKHTAR, J.C.A.

This is an action taken in representative capacities by the plaintiffs who belong to various family chieftaincies of Ilero, against the holder of Sobaloju chieftaincy and some officials of the Government. According to the plaintiffs the Sobaloju chieftaincy is the last in the hierarchy of the chiefs of Ilero according to the customary law of Ilero starting with the Elero of Ilero. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first Elero of Ilero was Ogunola Abere, the son of Labinjo who settled at Igboare later called Ilu Aro with his people and was at the helm of affairs of Ilu Elero. Oluyero Akano who migrated from Irawo was conferred with the first hereditary chieftaincy of Jagun of Ilero, and his descendants have been the successive Jaguns, the next in rank to the Elero. Elero Akinola conferred other migrants with the hereditary chieftaincies of Olukotun, Ajeji, Olukosi, Mogaji, Olukotun and they all followed in order of seniority. The title of Sobaloju was conferred on one Olayeri the ancestor of the 1st defendant by Elero Mokolade Alao, the third Elero of Ilero, and he became the eighth in rank to the Elero.

The Jagun always acted for the Elero whenever the latter was unavailable, but around 1964 the then Jagun fell out of favour with the then Elero, Olawayanju Akangbe, and the Elero made the 1st defendant supercede the Jagun in various matters. After the death of that Jagun (Otunla Ajani) and the ascension of the 1st plaintiff, as Jagun, Oba Akanbi restored the rights of Jagun on the new Jagun after the intervention of some people. The 1st defendant, the Sobaloju, resisted. The report of an investigation confirmed the Jagun as second in rank to the Elero, and it was accepted by the Oyo State Government. However at the advent of politics the matter was revisited, and the then Government wrote recognizing the Sobaloju as the second-in-rank to the Elero inspite of the Elero’s resistance and his protests. By this action the other chieftaincies were downgraded. Consequently they instituted this action in the court below claiming the following reliefs:-

“(1) A declaration that the decision of Oyo State Government that the Sobaloju of Ilero is the second-in-rank to the Elero of Ilero is against the history, custom and traditions of Ilero and is therefore improper, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.

(2) A declaration that the Sobaloju of Ilero is the eight-in-rank to the Elera of Ilero.

(3) As (1) declaration that the Jagun of Ilero the Olukotun of Ilero, the Ajeji of Ilero, the Olukosi of Ilero, the Mogaji of Ilero and the Oluketu of Ilero are senior-in-rank to the Sobaloju of Ilero.

(4) Injunction restraining the 1st defendant Chief Akinyemi Aremu (Sobaloju of Ilero) from parading himself as the second-in-rank to the Elero of Ilero.

(5) Injunction restraining the defendants and all persons acting under their authority for giving effect to the decision of Oyo State Government that the Sobaloju of Ilero is the second-in-rank to the Elero of Ilero.

The 1st defendant objected to the competence of some of the plaintiffs in instituting the action. The case as stated in traditional history of Sobaloju in his further amended statement of defence is contrary to that of the plaintiffs, for according to him, Alawoote, his ancestor, was the first Sobaloju, and was treated as the second-in-command to the Elero from that time to the present day. In between this period attempts were made to relegate the Sobaloju to the eighth position in the hierarchy of the chieftaincies in Elero. The 2nd and 3rd defendants however, confirmed that the Sobaloju is the second-in-rank to the Elero, that the 1st defendant was downgraded during the first Republic for political reasons and for incurring the wrath of the Elero.

At the close of the parties’ case their counsel addressed the court. The evidence adduced were evaluated by the learned trial Judge who also considered the addresses, and at the end of the day dismissed the case of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by this dismissal the plaintiffs appealed to this court on nine grounds of appeal which were later increased to 11 by an order of this court on 22/8/90. In compliance with Order 6 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1981, as amended, counsel with the exception of that of the 4th respondent exchanged briefs of argument which were adopted at the hearing of the appeal.

The 4th respondent filed an application for extension of time to file the 4th respondent’s brief, but he never showed up in court to move the application. Hence the application was struck out on 6/6/94.

Eleven issues were formulated in the appellants’ brief of argument; whereas six were raised in the 2nd and 3rd respondents’ brief. I will treat the appellants’ issues starting with issue (1) which reads:-

1. Whether having regard to the provisions of sections 6(6) (b) and 236 of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the decision of the Oyo State Government that the Sobaloju of Ilero should be formally recognised as the second in rank to the Elero of Ilero gave rise to a right of action by the plaintiffs or gave the plaintiffs a right to judicial relief.

As far as this issue is concerned I have gone through all the grounds of appeal, (both in the original notice of appeal, and the additional grounds of appeal) but I have not detected the ground that covers this issue. An issue for determination that is not clothed by a ground of appeal is worthless, as it cannot stand on its own, in which case it cannot be treated for the purpose of determining an appeal. It is settled law that an issue for determination must now and derive its source from a ground of appeal. Where it is not so derived then it becomes redundant and a non-issue which must be struck out and discountenanced. See Fasoro V. Beyioku (1988) 2 NWLR part 76 page 263, Akinbinu v. Oseni (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 215) page 87, and Sahimi V. Akinola (1993) 5 NWLR part 294 page 434. In this wise the said issue (1) reproduced supra is hereby struck out.

Issue No. (2) is whether the learned trial judge was right to have held that the plaintiffs’ cause of action in this case arose in 1968 and not in 1982 when he found that “there was no evidence as to what the final decision of the State Government was, apart from the letter (Exhibit ‘H’). I will treat this issue together with issue (3). Issue (3) is whether the learned trial judge was right to have held that the inquiry conducted into the Sobaloju of Ilero chieftaincy in 1981 and the decision of the Oyo State Government on the Report of the Inquiry were superfluous for the determination of the time when the plaintiffs’ cause of action arose. It is on record that the plaintiffs pleaded the hierarchy of the chieftaincies in Ilero starting from the Jagun who is next to the Elero and supported it with evidence which were not controverted. The reason for the disruption of the line was given by the third plaintiff as follows:-