Alhaji Lawani Atoyebi & Anor V. The Governor Of Oyo State & Ors (1994) Alhaji Lawani Atoyebi & Anor V. The Governor Of Oyo State & Ors (1994)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BELGORE, J.S.C. 

The appellants were the plaintiffs at trial High Court and also the appellants at the Court of Appeal. They concluded their statement of claim as follows:-

“WHEREOF the plaintiffs claim as follows:-

1. Declaration that the first defendant’s letter purporting to designate the Alepata as the Senior Traditional Ruler in Igboho is against the ancient traditions, history, customs and usages of Igboho and is therefore unjust, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.
2. Declaration that the Onigboho is the only traditional ruler in Igboho.
3. Declaration that the Alepata is only a quarter chief in Oba Ago quarters in Igboho and not a traditional ruler.
4. Order restraining the first defendant, his servants, agents privies or those lawfully taking orders from him from further giving formal or any recognition to the Alepata as the senior traditional ruler in Igboho and/or in the alternative.
5. Order restraining the Alepata from parading himself as the most senior traditional ruler or a traditional ruler of Igboho.”

The town called Igboho is one of the ancient Oyo towns, it shared perhaps in the upheavals of last century leading to sack of Oyo Ile (or old Oyo) but managed somehow to remain in one place. The plaintiffs come from a family that always produce Onigboho of Igboho. By the evidence in court there are two versions of the hierarchy of rulership in the town – that of the plaintiffs and that of the 3rd defendant now 3rd respondent in this court as he was in the Court of Appeal. Trial Judge, Yekini Adio J. (as he then was) narrated in his judgment the entire evidence before him. It is however useful for a full understanding of this case to summarise the evidence, mostly based on the pleadings.

The plaintiffs/appellants claim to represent the two ruling houses that in rotation present Onigboho of Igboho. Unfortunately evidence of this rotation was not presented to court and Exhibit 12, the report of Mr. C.E.B.B Simpson’s Report on his enquiry under Section 37(3) Chieftaincy Law held on 10th June, 1957 said so much. However, the plaintiffs claim to be descendants of one Tondi, a hunter from Eruwa who actually, according to them founded Igboho. As against this claim the 3rd defendant’s assertion is that Oyo was at one time deserted and one Eguguoju, an Alafin settled at Igboho having founded the place.

What is not in dispute however is that Igboho at all material period up to and after Eguguoju was under the Oyo Empire and whether Alafin founded Igboho or not he was the undisputed overlord. Igboho is to the West-South- West of the ruins of old Oyo and is a fair sized town in the present Oyo North. The plaintiffs claim the present Onigboho is about the seventeenth in succession but by 1957 they could only indicate four generations of Onigbohos and name of Tondi was never mentioned. As the aborigines they claim superiority over whoever is Alepata of Igboho who they regard as mere ward head at Igboho.

The trial Judge, after reviewing all the evidence of 3rd defendant and his witnesses and recent situation whereby he regarded Alepata as the superior ruler of Igboho and that Onigboho was under him. Trial Judge never relied on traditional history alone but found that the recent situation dating for several years convinced him that the Alepata must be the overlord of Onigboho and not the other way round. He relied on the inquiry held in 1957 (Exh.12) and that of 1982 resulting in the government of former Western Region of Nigeria recognising Alepata as the superior chief of Igboho.

The surprising element in this matter is that the witnesses for the plaintiffs even could not agree on geneology of Onigboho. Whereas in the petition to Ministry of Chieftaincy Affairs (Exhibit 11) they named nine previous Onigbohos, the one on the date of the petition being the tenth. There has been evidence of more than this number. The enquiry under Chieftaincy Law Section 37(3) in operation in 1957 by the Local Government Adviser, Mr. Simpson, dated 10th June, 1957, whose Report is Exhibit 12 at trial court recommend as follows:-

“1. I recommend that Jeremiah Afolabi is recognised as Onigboho of Igboho.

2. I recommend that Government makes it clear that the Alepata is recognised as head chief in Igboho.
3. I recommend that when the Chieftaincy declarations for Igboho are made that one unified set of kingmakers for all titles be included so as to stop any split in the town, and that …………the council should be instructed to (have one unified set of kingmakers) (Brackets are mine).”

The remarkable aspect of this report is that both parties vying for Onigboho’s stool in 1957 never mentioned Tondi as the founder or first settler at Igboho. The name of Tondi as the ancestor came up for the first time in a land dispute No. HOY/ 20/72 where Adenekan Ademola J. (as he then was) totally disbelieved the story that Tondi was the founder of Igboho; a far reaching finding not appealed against up to now. Even though it was a land matter but traditional history of who first settled and who owned the land came to play prominently. Trial court had no difficulty in finally rejecting the present plaintiffs’ case and dismissing it. Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court.

On appeal to this court the following issues are formulated for determination.

“The issues for determination ill this appeal:

2.01. The first issue for determination in this appeal is whether Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in which Onigboho was recognised in 1932 as the Village Head of Igboho with a salary of 24.00pounds (Twenty four pounds) per annum whilst the Alepata was merely referred to in Exhibit 1 as a Chief of Igboho without stating that he was paid any salary and the traditional evidence of the plaintiffs/appellants established that the Onigboho is the only traditional ruler of Igboho and that he is senior and superior in status to the Alepata who is a minor chief in Igboho.

2.02. The second issue for determination is whether the Alaafin of Oyo or the Governor of Oyo State of Nigeria can unilaterally make the third defendant/respondent, Chief Solomon Oyediran, who is of the minor chieftaincy of Alepata of Igboho and not of a royal blood as he is not a member of any royal family in Yoruba land, the Oba of Igboho contrary to the Native Law and Custom and Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 tendered at the trial of the appellants’ case.