Alfa Issa Akano V. Ilorin Emirate Council & Ors (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MURITALA  AREMU OKUNOLA, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the judgment of Gbadeyan J of the High Court of Kwara State holden at Ilorin delivered on 24th of November, 1995 wherein the Court held that the appointment of the Plaintiff/Respondent as Bale or Oluo of Oke-Oyi took effect from 1/9/93. The Court further prohibited the 1st Defendant/Appellant from parading himself as Bale or Oluo of Oke-Oyi and the 2nd Defendant/Respondent from treating him as such.

The facts of this case briefly put were as follows:

The Appellant herein was 1st Defendant in a Suit brought by the 3rd Respondent. In the High Court, 3rd Respondent herein as plaintiff claimed against the Appellant, 1st and 2nd Respondents jointly and or severally as follows:

(i) Declaration that the Plaintiff is the Oluo of Oke-Oyi having been so appointed by the Oke-Oyi Kingmakers and approved by the Kwara State Governor under Section 3(1) of the Chiefs (App & Dep) Law.

(ii) A Declaration that the 2nd Defendant has no power to appoint an Oluo for Oke-Oyi in view of Section on 78(1) (j) of the Local Government Edict Law No.8 of 1976 and Section 13 of the Chief (Appointment and Deposition Amendment Edict No.8 of 1985).

From the 19 grounds of appeal, the 1st Defendant/Appellant formulated the following six issues for determination in this appeal. These are:-

(1) Whether, at the close of pleadings, there was any issue joined as to the number of Kingmakers and Ruling Houses in Oke-Oyi and that the Plaintiff had the support of the majority thereof to warrant the finding by the learned trial Judge that there are four (4) Kingmakers in Oke-Oyi majority of which supported the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant?; Grounds 7, 12, 13, 18 and 19.

(2) Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the Plaintiff was properly appointed Baale of Oke-Oyi? Grounds 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17 and 20.

(3) Whether there was any relief known to law which the Plaintiff could be granted and whether the Plaintiff asked for the proper relief having regard to his pleadings? Grounds 1, 2, 6, and 16.

(4) Whether the conduct of the Plaintiff was not such as to preclude him from the grant, in his favour of a declaration sought? Ground 14.

(5) Was the right approach adopted in this case by the learned trial Judge in his judgment and what is the effect of this?

(6) Whether the award of N12, 000.00 as cost was not excessive and punitive? Ground 5.

On the other hand the Plaintiff/3rd Respondent agreed with the issues formulated by the Appellant and cross appealed. From the 2 grounds of cross-appeal he formulated the following 2 issues for determination in the cross-appeal viz: