Chief J. O. Onifade V. Chief Fatodu the Odofin of Okepa Ilawe Ekiti & Anor. (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

TIJJANI ABDULLAHI, J. C. A.

This is an appeal against the Judgment of A.S. Daramola (J) in suit No. HCR/I AND 18/96 sitting at Ikere-Ekiti High Court delivered on 22nd day of April 2004, following a ruling delivered by the said Judge on a preliminary objection raised by the 1st Defendant/Respondent against the case filed by the plaintiff/Appellant.

By a writ of summons taken out by the Plaintiff/Appellant against the Defendants/Respondents, dated 16th day of January 1996, the Plaintiff/Appellant claimed at the lower Courts as follows:

“(a) A declaration that by history, native law and custom of Ilawe-Ekiti the Onipa of Okepa in Ilawe-Ekiti and not the Odofin of Okepa, Ilawe-Ekiti is the head of Okepa quarter in Ilawe-Ekiti.

(b) An order on the first defendant never to style, parade, call and represent himself as the head of Okpa Quarter, Ilawe-Ekiti.

(c) An order on the second, third and fourth defendants by themselves and their agents, servants and privies from derecognizing plaintiff as head of Okepa Quarter, Ilawe-Ekiti and from recognizing instead the first defendant as the head of Okepa Quarter, Ilawe-Ekiti and further from paying the first defendant any salary, stipend, allowance, perquisites or anything at all as head of Okepa Quarter, Ilawe-Ekiti.

(d) An order on the defendants to pay to the plaintiff his salary, allowances and other perquisites which had been wrongfully, illegally and unconstitutionally stopped from 1st November, 1995 till now and to continue paying the same henceforth.”

Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged by the parties but before hearing began, the 1st Defendant/Respondent filed a preliminary objection based on the following ground:

“The cause of action arose in 1973 when the High Court lacks (sic) jurisdiction to entertain chieftaincy matter by virtue of 1963 constitution.”

Needless to say, arguments were taken for and against the preliminary objection and in a well considered ruling, the trial Judge held thus:

“In the light of the foregoing, I hold that the Plaintiff/Respondent’s action is not justiciable on ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute therein when the cause of action arose. Consequently, the objection of the Defendant/Applicant is well taken and is hereby upheld. The Plaintiff/Respondent’s consolidated Suit No. HCR/18/96 and HCR/1/96 is accordingly struck out. The Plaintiff/Respondent shall pay N2,000.00 costs to the Defendant/Applicant.”

Dissatisfied with the ruling of the lower court, the Plaintiff/Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal which carries three grounds of appeal. Shorn of their particulars they are as follows:

“(1) The lower Court erred in law in holding that the cause of action in the case arose in 1975, and not in 1995.

And this led to a miscarriage of Justice.