Alh. Rasheed Adeoye Adesanya & Anor V. Alh. Rabiu Adekola Olayeni & Ors (1998)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUKHTAR, J.C.A 

In the Court below the respondents in this appeal who were the plaintiffs there took out an action against the appellants for the following reliefs, as per their statement or claim:

i. declaration that the 1st defendant is not a member of the Demoku/Aboki Ruling House of the Olisa or Ijebu-Ode Chieftaincy family and that he is therefore not entitled to be nominated and/or appointed as the Olisa of Ijebu-Ode.

ii. A declaration that the 2nd defendant is neither the Head or the Demoku/Aboki Ruling House nor the Head of the Olisa of Ijebu-Ode Chieftaincy Family and that he is therefore not entitled to convene a meeting of the said Ruling House for the purpose of nominating a candidate for appointment to the vacant Stool of Olisa of Ijebu-Ode. nor to present any candidate and in particular the 1st defendant to the Awujale of Ijebu land for his consent.

iii. A declaration that the traditional kingmakers of the Olisa of Ijebu-Ode Chieftaincy Family under the Registered Declaration have not appointed the 1st defendant to the vacant Stool of Olisa of Ijebu-Ode pursuant to the Registered Declaration for the Olisa of Ijebu-Ode Chieftaincy and as required by the Chiefs Law Cap. 20. Laws of Ogun State of Nigeria.

iv. A declaration that membership of the appropriate Ruling House and an appointment by the traditional kingmakers of Olisa of Ijebu- Ode Chieftaincy are conditions precedent to an approval of the candidature of an Olisa by the Ogun State Executive Council, and that in the absence of such membership and appointment the purported approval conveyed by the Office or the Executive Governor of Ogun State in its letter reference No. CHM.5/26/T/2 dated 29th July, 1993 is a nullity.

v. A declaration that the 4th Plaintiff having been properly nominated by the Demoku/Aboki Ruling House and having been properly appointed by the kingmakers is entitled to be considered for approval by the Ogun State Government after the consent of the Awujale of Ijebu land would have been obtained thereto.

An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from performing an installation ceremony and in particular restraining the Ogun State Government from presenting an instrument of Appointment as the Olisa of Ijebu-Ode to the 1st defendant at the said or any ceremony.

A notice of preliminary objection for an order striking out the suit on the ground that it is incompetent was filed by learned Senior Advocate or Nigeria for the defendants. The grounds of objection as staled in the notice are as follows:

i. The plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute the suit herein as they purported to have done.

ii. That leave of this honourable court to sue in a representative capacity was obtained as a result of misrepresentation/concealment of material facts from this honourable court.

The notice was supported by an affidavit together with annexures. Submissions were made by both counsel and at the end of the day the learned trial Judge dismissed the preliminary objection in a well considered ruling. Dissatisfied with the dismissal the defendants appealed to this court on six grounds of appeal.

Anxious that the appeal be disposed off with dispatch learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants took it upon himself to compile the record of appeal and file it before the court by way of a motion on notice for an order of accelerated hearing of the appeal, and an order or departure from the rules of this court, so as to allow to be heard on the bundle of documents he had compiled. Prior to that, learned Senior Counsel for the defendants had filed a motion or stay of further proceedings, which has not been taken.

Briefs of argument were exchanged by both sides with the exception of the Attorney General of Ogun State who is a nominal party, in compliance with order 6 rules (2) and (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1981, as amended. Learned counsel for the respondents was not in court at the hearing of the appeal, but since it was on record that he was aware that the appeal would be heard on that day, the appeal was taken in accordance with order 6 r.9(6) of the Courts Rules, and so the learned Senior Advocate adopted his brief of argument. Issues for determination were formulated in the two briefs, but I find that of the respondents more succint, and so will adopt them in the treatment of this appeal. The first issue is –