Alhaji Raimi Adigun & Anor V. Alhaji Yekinni Aremu Ariori Osaka (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ONALAJA, J.C.A. 

The plaintiff commenced an action against the two defendants, jointly and severally in the High Court of Oyo State, holden in Oyo. After service of the writ of summons on the defendants pleadings were filed, delivered, exchanged and amended several times. The trial was concluded on further, further amended statement of claim and amended statement of defence.

As it is trite law in our civil jurisprudence that, the facts pleaded in the statement of claim supersede the facts in the writ of summons and so the claims of the plaintiff are as pleaded in paragraph 34 of the further, further amended statement of claim as follows:-

“34 Whereof the plaintiff claims declaration that:-

1. The recommendation, nomination and/or selection of Alhaji Raimi Adigun (1st defendant) for the conferment of the chieftaincy title of Onidese, by His Royal Highness, Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Olayiwola Adeyemi III, be declared null and void, contrary to customary law regulating the nomination, selection and conferment of the said Onidese Chieftaincy.
2. That the recommendation, nomination, selection and/or conferment of the title of Onidese, on Alhaji Raimi Adigun by His Highness, Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Olayiwola Adeyemi III, is not in accordance with the hitherto existing Onidese Customary Law relating to Onidese chieftaincy title.
3. That the plaintiff was the rightful candidate recommended, nominated and selected by members of Onidese family for the conferment of the chieftaincy title of Onidese of Idese by His Highness, Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Olayiwola Adeyemi III.
4. The conferment of the title of Onidese on the 1st defendant be declared irregular and contrary to Onidese Customary Law, null and void and of no effect and should be set aside.
5. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their privies, servants and/or agents otherwise whosoever from conferring, parading, recommending, nominating or selecting the 1st defendant with the chieftaincy title of Onidese of Idese.
6. Perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from parading or holding out himself as and/or performing the traditional functions of Onidese.

To establish his claims, plaintiff testified for himself and called two witnesses. On his part 1st defendant testified for himself and called four witnesses. 2nd defendant did not testify and did not call evidence.

Learned trial Judge in review of the evidence and pleadings of the parties at page 50 of the record of appeal observed and stated as follows at lines 4-37:-

“From the pleadings on both sides, it is not in any doubt between the parties that, Dese Olaogoru was the first Onidese of Idese Chieftaincy family, otherwise called Ariori Osaka Chieftaincy family. But, the plaintiff in his pleadings, aver that he is a principal member of Osaka family, the only ruling house that is entitled to Onidese of Idese Chieftaincy and that the 1st defendant is a descendant of Arinago family; his (1st defendant) ancestor being one Akingbade, a guest of Ariori at Osaka compound. Tracing the history of the 1st defendant, he further avers that Kike had two wives namely (i) Adeoti and (ii) Latoun. Adeoti begat Jaiyeola, Segilola and Adebomi for Kike and Latoun begat 6 children namely: Salami Esuola, Juweratu, Adeniran, Asiawu Lowo, Moradeun and Raimi Adigun (1st defendant) for Kike. Although, according to him (plaintiff), Latoun remarried Ojo Ariori on the death of Kike, the only child Latoun had for Ojo Ariori was Adekunle (now deceased) and not the 1st defendant (Raimi Adigun).

The case of the 1st defendant in support of his contention that he is entitled to Onidese chieftaincy title is that, Ariori Osaka begat Kike otherwise called Kike Adekambi. Latoun who married Kike Adekambi had Salami, Esuola, Juweratu and Moradeun for Kike by that marriage. He denies that Kike was the son of Akingbade of Arinago family. On the death of Kike Adekambi, the 1st defendant avers that after the death of Kike, Latoun, his wife, was bequeathed to Ojo Ariori and in turn she gave birth to Adeniran, Lowo, Raimi Adigun (1st defendant) and Adekunle. It is also his case, that the birth of the plaintiff by his mother (Ogunjoke) for Ojo Ariori, generated a heated controversy as he was alleged to have been born by Ogunjoke to one Adeyanju of Adagbaboyembe compound, Oyo, but was later adopted by Ojo Ariori.”

The learned trial Judge reviewed plaintiff’s evidence and his two witnesses at pages 50 to 52 of the record of appeal. The cross examinations were also recorded, reviewed and noted. The letter of nomination and selection of plaintiff by Osaka family as Onidese was conveyed to 2nd defendant and was admitted as exhibit P1.

Through 2nd PW, who testified as Secretary of Onidese chieftaincy family otherwise called Osaka family, tendered as exhibit P2 the minutes of the meeting of Osaka family held on 28/7/91, was written in Yoruba language not being the language of the court, the learned trial Judge directed that the parties were to appoint a translator mutually agreed and acceptable to the parties. This directive was not followed or heeded by the parties hence Exhibit P2 was not used as evidence in the consideration of this case by the learned Judge.

At pages 51-54A the learned trial Judge reviewed the evidence and the case of the 1st defendant and his witnesses.

After this, the learned trial Judge summarised the addresses of learned Counsel to the parties wherein plaintiff formulated three issues as arising in the case for resolution as follows:-

“(1) Whether the plaintiff and 1st defendant are members of Onidese family;

(2) Whether Onidese chieftaincy family has been legally conferred on the 1st defendant; and