Chief Gabriel Oparanti & Ors V. Alhaji Nasiru Oyeniyi & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the High Court of Justice, Osun State, sitting at Osogbo in Suit No. HOS/7/2010, delivered on 18-2-2011 but which enrolled order was dated and issued 17 -2 -2011.

For the avoidance of any ambiguity. I shall set out the history and facts of the case on appeal as clearly set out by the appellants.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ?the 1st and 2nd respondents’) filed their suit before the lower Court to challenge the validity and demand for the nullification of the 2005 Amended Ataoja of Osogbo registered chieftaincy declaration (hereinafter called ‘2005 declaration’), challenge the number and order of rotation of the ruling houses, demand for the merger of Matanmi and Oyipi ruling houses, demand for the removal and derecognition of Laro and Lajomo ruling houses, demand that only their own Sogbo Ruling house and no other ruling house should present candidate(s) to succeed the immediate past Ataojo, Late Oba Iyiola Oyewale Matanmi 111 who hailed from Matanmi ruling house and so on as

1

contained in the writ of summons (pages 1 to 4 of the record) and the statement of claim (pages 5 to 15 of the record) and more importantly the 16 reliefs claimed at paragraph 64 (i) to (xvi) of the statement of claim at pages 12 to 14 of the record.
The appellants denied the claim in its entirely as set out in their statement of defence (pages 195 to 200 of the record). By paragraphs 30 – 31 of their said statement of defence, the appellants objected to the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the case on many grounds some of which were that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to institute the case, the case was caught by principles of res judicata, capable and limitation period, some of the defendants were not juristic persons capable of suing and/or being sued and so on. As required by the rules of the lower Court and expressly indicated in their defence, the appellants applied vide their motion on notice dated 20/1/2011 but filed on 21/1/2011 for the said preliminary issued or points of law to be set down for hearing before the hearing of the substantive suit since those issues were capable of disposing of the whole case without going

2

through the rigours of full trial (pages 395 to 485 of the record). All the respondents were duly served with the said application.
Oba Olanipekun was neither a party to the substantive case nor the 1st and 2nd respondents’ motion dated 17/9/2010 (pages 622 to 643 of the record) filed to set aside and which eventually led to the setting aside of all the process that led to his nomination, selection, approval and issuance of instrument of appointment and presentation of staff of office as the Ataoja of Osogbo as per the lower Court’s ruling of 18/2/2011 (pages 757 to 774 and 1130 of the record) Which is the subject of this appeal.
In its ruling of 1/11/2010, the Trial Court rightly held that an application that challenged the jurisdiction of the Court took precedence over and above all other applications and that such applications should always be heard first (pages 1076 to 1090 of the record) only for the same Court to reverse itself on 28/1/2011 by its refusal to hear and give any date for the hearing of the appellants’ motion on notice filed on 21/1/2011 challenging the Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the case despite some legal authorities and

3

the lower Court’s ruling of 1/11/2010 cited to the Court on the pre that the said appellants’ motion is not a preliminary objection per se”. (pages 1071 to 1075 of the record).
It is noteworthy that on 28/1/2011 when the 1st and 2nd respondents’ motion to set aside Oba Olanipekun’s appointment etc. was moved, the ruling was expressly and openly adjourned to, and actually delivered in the open Court on 18/2/2011.
Strangely, the enrolment of order of the said ruling was already made, issued, dated and signed by the Trial Judge and the Registrar of the lower Court on 17/2/2011, a day before the said ruling was actually delivered (pages 1131 to 1134 of the record).”

The relevant processes for the determination of this appeal are
1. The Amended Notice of Appeal dated and filed on 3 – 02 – 2016;
2. The Amended Appellants’ Brief of Argument dated and filed 2 –
2 – 2016 but deemed filed on 16 – 5 – 2016.
3. The 1st and 2nd respondents’ brief of argument.
4. The appellants’ reply brief dated 8 ? 4 -2016 and of argument filed 11 – 4- 2016 and deemed filed on 16 – 5 -2016.

?The Appellants amended grounds of appeal and

4

their particulars thereof are reproduced thus:-
Amended grounds of appeal
Take that the 1st to 7th appellants being dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court of justice of Osun State, Osogbo Judicial Division, Osogbo contained in the ruling of Honourable Justice A. A. Aderibigbe dated 18th February, 2011 doth hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal, Akure upon the amended grounds set out in paragraph 3 and will at the hearing of the appeal seek the amended reliefs set out in paragraph 4.
And take further notice that the names and addresses of the persons directly affected by the appeal are those set out in paragraph 5.
2. Part of decision appealed against
The whole decision except the lower Court’s finding that none of the parties or their counsel gave any undertaking to the lower Court on 8/9/2010.
3. Amended grounds of appeal
The learned judge erred in law and acted without jurisdiction when on 18/2/2011, he set aside all the processes that led to the nomination, selection, approval and issuance of instrument of appointment and presentation of staff of office to Alhaji Jimoh Oyetunji Olanipekun (hereinafter referred to

5