Alhaji A.W. Akibu & Ors. V. Alhaja Munirat Oduntan & Ors. (1991)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

O. OBASEKI, J.S.C. 

The applicants herein by motion on notice pray this Honourable Court for three orders, the first and second of which are for interlocutory injunction and the third for an order to maintain the status quo as per the terms of the order of the High Court of 31st day of October, 1986 pending the determination of the appeal and an order to allow the 3rd appellant/applicant to maintain the status of a capped Chief pending the determination of the said appeal. In terms of their motion, the applicants pray-

1. For an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents and the entire members of their family from giving effect to the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 12th February, 1990 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal lodged against the said judgment.
2. For an order of interlocutory injunction restraining both the appellants and the respondents and all the entire members of the Eletu-Iwashe family from dealing with and/or alienating the properties of the Eletu-Iwashe chieftaincy family pending the appeal lodged against the judgment dated 12th February, 1990;
3. For an order to maintain the status quo as per the terms of the order of the High Court in its Ruling dated 31st day of October, 1986 pending the outcome of the appeal. The said order reads as follows:

‘For these reasons, it is my considered view that a stay should be granted pending the determination of the appeal filed by the 1st to 3rd defendants/applicants. An order is hereby made accordingly. It is hereby also ordered that the 1st to 3rd defendants/applicants shall not until the final determination of the appeal filed by them do any act that will cause a breach of the peace by members of the Eletu-Iwashe chieftaincy family and that every member of that family shall, until that time, keep the peace in respect of all matters relating to the chieftaincy title and the properties attached thereto.”

(ii) And to allow the 3rd appellant applicant to maintain the status of a capped Chief pending the determination of the said appeal’

The proceedings in which this application is made were initiated by notice of appeal filed on 14/2/90 against the decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on the 5th day of February, 1990. That decision was given in a matter which came on appeal before the Court of Appeal. That matter was the grant of a stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court of Lagos in suit No. LO/231 and 545/81 dated 15th July, 1986 in a Ruling delivered on 31st October, 1986. The Court of Appeal in its judgment delivered on 5th February, 1990 set aside the stay of execution granted by the High Court. Being dissatisfied the defendants have appealed against the removal of the order of stay.

The defendants have also appealed to the Court of Appeal against the judgment of the High Court which was stayed and the appeal is pending in the Court of Appeal. There is therefore no appeal pending before this Court in respect of the substantive claims for which the plaintiffs/respondents got judgment. What are these claims I will set them out as endorsed on the writs of summons. In suit LD/231/81 the plaintiffs claim:

“1. A declaration that the Ogabi, Kusimi and Kumoku families are the only existing branches of the Eletu Iwashe chieftaincy family;

2. A declaration that the Dosunmu family of which the 1st to 3rd defendants are members, is not a branch of the Eletu Iwashe chieftaincy family;
3. A declaration that consequently Ogabi, Kusimi and Kumoku branches of the Eletu-Wase chieftaincy family are the only branches of Eletu-Wase chieftaincy family entitled to nominate candidates for the Eletu-Wase chieftaincy family;
4. A declaration that the 3rd defendant or any member of the Dosunmu family is not entitled to be nominated and/or installed the Eletu-Wase of Lagos;
5. A declaration that the declaration made on the 20th day of August, 1979 by the 4th defendant is null and void and of no effect whatsoever;
6. A declaration that the approval given on the 7th day of August, 1980, by the Executive Council of the Lagos State Government, of the declaration made by the 4th defendant on the 20th day of August, 1979 is null and void and of no effect whatsoever;
7. A declaration that the registration of the said declaration is null and void and of no effect whatsoever;
8. A declaration that the 4th defendant’s letter to the Dosunmu family dated the 14th of October, 1980 directing that they nominate one of their members as the Eletu-Wase elect is null and void and of no effect;
9. A declaration that the nomination of the 3rd defendant by other members of the Dosunmu family as the Eletu- Wase elect is null and void and of no effect;
10. A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and/or agents from giving effect in any manner to the declaration dated the 20th of August, 1979.”

And the plaintiffs’ claims in suit No.LD/545/81 are:

“1. A declaration that the purported appointment of the 3rd defendant-Badmus Agoro as the Eletu-Wase of Lagos and the purported approval of the appointment contained in the letter:Ref. 001600C/Vol.2/293 dated 25th March, 1981 issued under the hand of the Council Manager of the 4th defendant to the Head of the Eletu-Iwashe chieftaincy family are null and void and of no effect;

2. A declaration that the 3rd defendant is not the Eletu-Iwashe of Lagos.
3. An injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from holding himself out as the Eletu-Iwashe of Lagos and/or performing any of the traditional functions of the Eletu/Iwashe or enjoying any of the traditional rights and privileges of the Eletu-Iwashe or enjoying any of the traditional rights and privileges of the Eletu-Iwashe or enjoying any of the traditional rights and privileges of the Eletu/Iwashe;
4. N5,000 damages for trespass to the Iga (Palace) of the Eletu-Iwashe of Lagos; and
5. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and privies from trespassing and/or continuing to trespass on the Iga (Palace) of the Eletu-Iwashe of Lagos.

In suit No.LD.231/81, the learned trial Judge granted and made the declarations and orders sought in claims (1), (2) and (3); and 5 to 10 and refused the declaration sought in claim 4 Before granting the declarations, the learned trial Judge, Oladipo Williams, J. said, observed and found as follows:

“I have approached the dispute between the plaintiffs and the 1st to 3rd defendants with great anxiety and I am of the opinion that there could not have been a Dosunmu branch of the family. I find that the Ogabi, Kusimi and Kumoku branches are the only existing branches of the Eletu-Iwashe chieftaincy family, that the Dosunmu family of which the 1st to 3rd defendants are members is not a branch of the Eletu-Iwashe chieftaincy family which should be recognised and that Ogabi, Kusimi and Kumoku branches of the family are the only branches of the Eletu/Iwashe chieftaincy family entitled to nominate candidates for the chieftaincy title.

The present dispute has arisen in my opinion because the Tribunal of Enquiry appointed in 1975 came to the wrong conclusion by declaring that there are five ruling houses instead of three as mentioned above. I find therefore that the declaration made on the 20th day of August, 1979 by the 4th defendant was null, void and of no effect whatsoever and that it should not have been approved as was done on 7th day of August, 1980. Consequently, the 4th defendant’s letter to the Dosunmu family dated 14th October, 1980 directing that family to nominate one of its members as the Chief Eletu-Iwashe was null and void and could not be said to be of any effect whatsoever.

Because of all these findings, an order of injunction should be made and it is hereby made restraining the defendants and/or their agents from giving effect in any manner to the declaration dated 20th August, 1979…

For reasons earlier given in this judgment in Suit No.LD/231/81, the declaration and order sought in (1), (2) and (3); (5) to (10) of the claims are hereby made. It will be seen that the claim in (4) that the 3rd defendant and his relations be declared not entitled to the chieftaincy title has been refused. This refusal is made in order to make it possible for the declaration of the Ruling Houses to be revised in order to bring them in conformity with the findings made in this judgment.