Chief Amusa Saka Banjoko & Ors. V. Mr. Yekini Adewale Salau Ogunlaja & Anor. (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellants as plaintiffs in the trial court initiated this action in a representative capacity against the 1st Respondent as Defendant at the High Court of Ogun State, sitting at Sagamu by a writ of summons taken out on 26th May, 2003 in which the following reliefs were claimed:

“(a) A declaration that the Defendants are not members of Otuyelu family, Ikorodu and as such could not use the Otuyelu family name to ascend to and/or take any chieftaincy title, i.e. Baale of Otuyelu village, Mosimi Sagamu, Ogun State.

(b) A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from holding themselves out/or in any way acting introducing themselves as members of Otuyelu family of Ikorodu.”

The background facts on the part of the Appellants are that the 1st Respondent (as 1st Defendant) was alleged to have presented himself to the Oba Jimoh Sosanya the prescribed authority over the area in which Mosimi Otuyelu and Akogun villages form part of. The Oba was said to have testified as to how after installing the 1st Defendant took him to the Akarigbo of Ijebu Remo for his blessing and instrument of office.

At the close of the hearing in the trial court the learned trial judge O.O. Majekodunmi, J. in his judgment delivered on 20th November, 2006 dismissed the action. The then Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the decision initially filed their Notice of Appeal dated 22/12/06 on 4/1/07 which was amended pursuant to the order of court granted on 23/6/09. The Amended Notice of Appeal was filed on 24/6/09, from which the Appellant identified five (5) issues for determination. The issues are as follows:-

“(1) Could the 1st Defendant validly be installed Bale of another village where he does not belong to by holding himself out as a child of that village thus committing a deception.

(2) Can a person living in Akogun Village be nominated and installed as Bale of Otuyelu Village which may be some distance away’ but which he has no connection with.

(3) Is it allowed for a person with no relationship with a particular name choose that name for the purpose of acceding to a chieftaincy position even when this will likely cause grave misunderstanding as to his relationship with the owners of the name so chosen.

(4) Was the evidence properly weighed on the imaginary scale.

(5) Is there no duty on courts of law to stop the use of names of others where such a use is likely to be fraudulent of the 1st Defendant as the Baale of a place he had no ancestral relationship with them and is contrary to the tenets of good conscience and custom.”

On his part the 1st Respondent formulated three (3) issues for the determination of this appeal. They are:

“(1) Whether the lower court is not right in holding that the 1st Defendant had not held himself out as a member of Otuyelu family nor used the Otuyelu family name to take the Chieftaincy of Baale of Otuyelu, thereby dismissing the suit of the Plaintiffs/Appellants.

(2) Whether the lower court is not right in holding that it was not proved that the 1st Defendant fraudulently presented himself to DW1 or that he had been using the Otuyelu family name to mislead the whole world.