Adesokan V Adegorolu (1997)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGUNDARE, JSC. 

This is a further appeal from an interlocutory decision of the High Court of Oyo State given on 11/ 7/88 wherein that court held that:

‘………….. the plaintiff has locus standi to present this action and that the action is not frivolous. vexatious, and an abuse of process of court. The action also discloses a cause of action.’

The plaintiff had by a writ of summons issued in February 1988 sued three defendants (now respondents in this appeal) claiming:

‘(a)  Declaration that according to the law, custom and tradition ofTede there are only THREE ruling houses for the Onitede of Tede Chieftaincy to wit. Daodu Agba, Adekalu and Egbeomo.

(b)  Declaration that the instrument dated 18th day of January, 1958 and registered on the 12th day of February. 1958. in so far as it purports to declare the customary law prevailing in Tede with respect to the appointment to the Onitede ofTede chieftaincy is wrongful, illegal and void.

(c) Declaration that Adekulu is the rightful ruling house to present a candidate for the Onitede of Tede chieftaincy.

(d) Declaration that the plaintiff is the Onitede-elect appointed in accordance with the law, custom and tradition of Tede,

(e) Injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, officers and agents from inviting any family other than the plaintiffs ruling house, Adekalu, to present a candidate for the vacant Onitede of Tede chieftaincy, and from acting pursuant to or taking any steps to implement the aforesaid registered declaration.’

Subsequently, Lawani, Adesokan,Tijani Adctokun. Alhaji Sulawu Olarloyin and Waidi Adeyemi, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of Gbangbade Erun Ruling House of the Onitede of Tede, sought and obtained an order of court to join in the action as co-defendants. The plaintiff filed his statement of claim and served copies on all the defendants. The 4 new defendants (who arc now appellants before us and shall hereinafter be so referred to) thereafter applied to the trial court for an order ‘striking out the plaintiff/respondents statement of claim and dismissing this action’ on the grounds:

‘1. The action is frivolous. vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court.

2. The plaintiff/respondent has no locus standi to institute this action.

3. The plaintiff/responderus statement of claim in this case discloses no reasonable cause of action.’

The motion was argued and in a ruling given on 11/7/88 the learned trial judge (Aderemi, J.) dismissed the application.