Alh. Wahab Odeyale & Anr. V. Alh. Hammed Olapade Babatunde & 3 Ors. (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ISTIFANUS THOMAS, J.C.A.

The appeal is against the ruling of Ibadan High Court of Justice, delivered by M. L. Abimbola, Judge, on 9th February, 2005 striking out the appellant’s suit upon the hearing of the preliminary objection, raised by the 1st & 2nd Respondents respectively, challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain the suit.

The Appellants claimed at the lower court as follows:-

1. Declaration that Odeyale the great ancestor of the plaintiffs was, under native law and custom of the Yoruba, the founder of Odeyale Village usually called Inu Odi Odeyale via Akanran Ona Ara Local Government Ibadan.
2. Declaration that the Plaintiffs are the descendants of Odeyale the founder of Odeyale Village usually known as Inu Odi Odeyale Akanran Road, Ona Ara Local Government Ibadan.
3. Declaration that under Yoruba native law and custom the Odeyale’s descendants are to be appointed the Baale of Inu Odi Odeyale Akanran Road, Ona Ara Local Government Ibadan to the exclusion of any person or group of person.
4. Declaration that the first and second Defendants are not descendants of Odeyale the founder of Odeyale village known and called Inu Odi Odeyale Akanran Road Ona Ara Local Government Ibadan and its environs and consequently they are not entitled under Yoruba native law and custom to be appointed Baale of Inu Odi Odeyale and its environs as intended by the 3rd and 4th Defendants during Baale Inu Odi Odeyale dispute referred to the 3rd and 4th Defendants for arbitration.
5. Perpetual injunction restraining the 3rd and 4th Defendants from appointing and installing none of the 1st and 2nd Defendants as Baale Inu Odi Odeyale and its environs Akanran Road, Ona Ara Local Government, Ibadan.
6. A mandatory order of the court directing the 3rd and 4th Defendants to appoint and install the 2nd Plaintiff Baale Odeyale Village.

At the lower court, when the Defendants but now Respondents were served with the writ, 1st and 2nd Respondents filed their preliminary objections separately that read as follows:-

1st Defendant/Respondent

(i) The Plaintiffs action is premature.

(ii) The Plaintiffs have failed to follow due process of law in bringing this suit.

(iii) The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiffs suit.

2nd Defendant/Respondent

(i) The court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the Plaintiffs.

(ii) This action is premature and constitutes abuse of court process.

(iii) This action discloses no cause of action.

(iv) The 3rd and 4th Defendant/Respondent are not juristic entities and cannot sue or be sued.

At this stage it is apt to give the facts between the parties before filing of the suit at the lower court. As a result of the vacancy that existed in the stool of a minor chieftaincy title of BAALE ODEYALE in Ona Ara Local Government Area of Oyo State, the 2nd Appellant Mr. Raufu Idowu Olayiwola Odeyale, the 1st and 2nd Respondents namely, Alhaji Hammed Olapade Babatunde and Mr. Amos Adedokun respectively, were variously presented to the 3rd and 4th Respondents for consideration and appointment by their respective families. This gave rise to a chieftaincy dispute between the contestants. The 3rd and 4th Respondents as the Yoruba traditionally prescribed authority for chieftaincy, invited the three contestants and their respective families to resolve the disputes. Based on the parties’ invitation, the contestants and their families submitted to the arbitration of the 3rd and 4th Respondents that is to say His Royal Highness, the Olubadan and Advisory Council, and both parties attended their sittings where each contestant then submitted his representation for his eligibility to fill the vacant stool of BAALESHIP OF ODEYALE. While the arbitration was still in progress, and there was no decision, the appellants, left and instituted their writ of summons before the Lower High Court seeking the reliefs reproduced above. It was on this basis that the 1st and 2nd Respondent filed their respective preliminary objections in which they urged the lower court to strike out the Appellant’s suit. The preliminary objection was sustained and the suit was struck out, hence the Appellants have appealed on six grounds of appeal which was filed on 11th February, 2005.