Chief F. A. Matanmi & Ors. V. The Governor of Ogun State & Ors. (2003)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MURITALA AREMU OKUNOLA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling of B. O. Ogunade J. sitting at High Court No. 1, Otta, Ogun State delivered on the 27th day of January, 2001.

The facts of this case briefly put were as follows:

The appellants herein were the plaintiffs in the court below, said the defendants (Respondents herein) claiming the following reliefs:
1. Declaration that by tradition the people of the villages and areas in Ilogbo ward of Otta District and Ojodu Abiodun Administrative Area namely: (4) Olowo (5) Oke Oji (6) Agasa Adewale (7) Idiroko (8) Ogunwade (9) Ilugboro (10) Fagbayi (11) Ajegunle (12) Igbusi (13) Abule Oke and the people of the villages and areas around Ijoko/Otta in Otta ward II of Otta namely: (1) Agoro (2) Ijokolemode (3) Itoki (4) Oko (5) Rabiyan-Igboju (6) Mosafejo (7) Ikeja (8) Ajageoju (9) Ntabo (10) Okanran (11) Ijegemo belong to Ado-Odo/Otta Local Government.

2. Declaration that the area of the land situate lying and being at the villages mentioned in claim 1 (one) above and delineated in a plan to be filed later, form part and are components of Ado-Odo/Otta Local Government.

3. Declaration that the 5th defendant is not a competent and proper person to participate or Chairman the 6th Respondent set up by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to adjudicate on the boundary dispute between the plaintiff and the 4th respondent

4. An order directing the 4th defendant to pay over to the Ado-Odo/Otta Local Government all monies collected by way of levies and taxes from the affected areas to the Ado-Odo/Otta Local Government.

5. Injunction restraining the 5th and 6th defendants by themselves, their agents, servants, their privies or otherwise howsoever from adjudicating on the said boundary dispute between Ado-Odo/Otta Local Government and Ifo Local Government.

6. Injunction restraining the 4th defendant by itself, its agents, its servants, or its privies or otherwise howsoever from administering the affected areas stated in reliefs 1 and 2 above.

7. Injunction restraining all the defendants from treating and or administering the affected areas stated in Relief 1 (one) above as part of Ifo Local Government.

The gravamen of the Appellants’ objection as argued in the lower court was that the court, subject to Ogun State Boundary Commission Edict No.5 1991 which set up the Ogun State Boundary Commission, whose action the appellants complained about has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. The appellants files their writ of summons and statement of claim which was amended on the 10th of May 1999 and upon service of same on the Respondents, they filed their statement of defence.

After filing and arguing some applications, the respondents filed a motion on Notice dated 13th day of October 1999 contending that by virtue of Local Government and Community Boundary Settlement law Cap. 64, 1978 Law or Ogun State, the court below lacks jurisdiction to entertain this matter. The argument proffered on behalf of the appellants as can be found on pages 68 to 69 of the records was that the Ogun State Boundary Commission whose action the appellants are challenging in the court below was created by virtue of Ogun State Boundary Commission Edict NO.5 of 1991, while the Local Government in question was contained in Cap. 64, Law of the Federation 1990, Furthermore, that the Edict No. 5 by section 1 (one) had superseded the Local Government and Community Boundaries Settlement Law 1978. The learned trial judge delivered his ruling on the 27th day of August over-ruling the argument of the appellant and ruled that the Local Government and Community Boundaries Settlement law 1978 is applicable and therefore he had no jurisdiction.

Dissatisfied with this ruling, the appellants filed their Notice of Appeal dated 8th February 2001 containing two grounds of appeal.

From the two grounds of appeal the appellants formulated the issues that call for determination in this appeal thus:
“1. Whether the learned trial judge correctly interpreted S.1 of Ogun State Boundary Commission Edict No. 5 of 1991.
2. Whether the provision of S.1 Ogun State Boundary Commission Edict No, 5 1991 Cap. 64 of Laws of Ogun State shall still be operational.
3. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in applying Cap. 64, Laws of Ogun State 1975 in resolving the issue of jurisdiction in a matter that arose from the action of a body or commission created by Ogun State Boundary Commission Edict NO.5 of 1991 and
4. Whether the learned trial Judge was correct when he held that the plaintiff’s cause of action arose in 1989.