Chief Gbadawiyu Akanbi Kabiawu & Ors V. Alhaja Nimota Esu Thompson & Ors (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State (Coram Honourable Justice M.O. Obadina) delivered on the 14th day of December, 2005.

The Appellants were the claimants in the court below while the Respondents were the Defendants.

RELEVANT FACTS

The case of the parties as summarized by the learned trial judge at page 5 of the records is of immense help in the understanding of the case for adjudication and for ease of reference same is set out hereunder:

“The case of the claimants is that they are the descendants by blood of King Kosoko 1 and are entitled to succeed to the office of Olojo and Asajon of Lagos. That the declaration made under the Obas and chiefs law of Lagos State 1981 by the Governor of Lagos State regulating the selection of the Oloja of Lagos does not represent the correct tradition, custom and historical facts of the Oloja Chieftaincy. That the failure of the Lagos State Government views thereon infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed by Section 33 (3) of the 1979 Constitution.

The case of the 1st – 5th, 7th and 8th Defendants is that king Kosoko 1 had only 9 children as contained in the Declaration of 3rd November, 1983. That the claimants with the exception of the 1st claimant are descendants of domestics and sojourners in the place of king Kosoko 1.

The 6th Defendant’s case is that he is the one entitled to the stool of Oloja of Lagos having been nominated by the Akinsanya Oloja ruling house, the first ruling house entitled to present a candidate for the stool by virtue of the Declaration exhibit P14 (registered on the 3rd November, 1983).

It is beyond doubt that the ambit of the dispute between the disputants (other than the 9th and 10th Defendants) has to do with the inadequacy or otherwise of the declaration in respect of the Oloja of Lagos Chieftaincy and the need to amend same (as claimed by the claimants) or as claimed by the 1st – 8th Defendant that the existing declaration registered on 3rd November, 1983 should not be amended but maintained as it is.

The learned trial judge took evidence from all the parties and after the submissions of counsel on the issues delivered judgment on the 14th day of December, 2005. The judgment of the court is reproduced at pages 905-949 of volume 111 of the records.

The claimants being aggrieved by the judgment by a notice of appeal dated 21st day of December, 2005 reproduced at pages 952-954 of the volume 111 of the records caused an appeal to be lodged against the judgment.

Before the expiration of the time within which an appeal could be lodged against the judgment aforesaid the Appellants caused an amended notice of appeal dated 18th day of January 2006 to be filed and same is reproduced at 1046-1050 of volume 1st of the records.

By an application dated the 20th of February, 2007 and granted on 18th May, 2008, the Appellants were allowed to further amend the grounds and notice of appeal at pages 1046-1050 of volume 111 of the records. The further amended notice of appeal was filed on 16th May, 2008.

By a most recent application dated 12th July, 2011, the Appellants have further sought an order to further amend the notice and grounds of appeal by filing and serving a 2nd further amended notice of appeal and a deeming order in respect of the one already filed and served. The order was granted by this Honourable court on the 7th of February 2012.