Chief James Ogunlusi & Ors V. Alhaji Brimoh Adedipe & Anor (1995)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IGE, J.C.A. 

This is a chieftaincy case. In the court below the 2 respondents in this appeal were plaintiffs in Suit No. HID/18/89. They sued the defendants/appellants to court claiming the following reliefs on behalf of the Olaso Ruling House of Abodi of Iremo Chieftaincy:-

1. A declaration that under the Native law and custom of Odo Ado, in Ado Ekiti the Abodi of Iremo a minor chieftaincy is a ruling house chieftaincy with two ruling houses viz:

(a) Olaso and Upon; the order of rotation and the identity of the ruling houses are: Olaso and Upon and it is the ruling house next entitled to present candidates that can select candidate within its ruling house and present the same to the Kingmaker the sole kingmaker is not entitled to act arbitrarily nor without the consent of the other chiefs in his council nor entitled to appoint a candidate from ruling house not entitled to nominate and that the Ewi is the Prescribed Authority to the Chieftaincy.

2. An order declaring as null and void the nomination and appointment of the 2nd defendant (Pius Talabi Fajuyi) as the Abodi of Iremo being contrary to the native law and custom and the appointment of the 2nd defendant made by the 1st defendant as sole kingmaker on 27/3/89 without the advice consent or concurrence of the Aremo in council as required under native law and custom.
3. An injunction restraining the 1st defendant from forwarding the appointment to the 3rd defendant for approval or taking any further steps in the process of appointment leading to installation.
4. A perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from acting as Abodi of Iremo or parading himself as the Abodi of Iremo or wearing any of the regalia of office of an Abodi of Iremo or attending the council of chiefs meeting in Iremo or performing any of the functions of the Abodi of Iremo. And ask for judgment in his favour.

Pleadings were ordered and filed. The 1st and 2nd defendants/appellants also filed their statement of defence containing 31 paragraphs.

After taking evidence from the parties and their witnesses, and after counsel for the parties had addressed the court, the learned trial Judge gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. The defendants/appellants are dissatisfied with this judgment delivered on 11/2/91 and have now appealed to this court against it.

The appellants filed 4 grounds of appeal and formulated the following 2 Issues for determination.

(a) Whether or not the trial court was right in granting reliefs not claimed by the plaintiff?

(b) Whether the trial court was justified in holding that the plaintiffs have proved their case and consequently giving judgment in their favour in view of the contradictory nature of the plaintiffs’ evidence vis-a-vis their claim, the paucity of evidence adduced in support thereto and the improper evaluation of such evidence?

The respondents also formulated two Issues for determination of the Appeal thus:-

1. Whether or not the issue between the parties were once and for all settled by the court.
2. Whether the defendants case and weight was stronger than that of the plaintiffs more so when the 2nd defendant did not give evidence thereby leaving all the plaintiffs evidence against him unrebutted.

Before going into the issues involved in this appeal I shall set out the facts of the case briefly.

The plaintiffs/respondents’ case is that they belong to the Olaso Ruling House of Abodi Iremo Chieftaincy and were entitled to select the next candidate for the post of Abodi which is a minor chieftaincy. That under the native law and custom of Odo Ado in Ado Ekiti, the Abodi Chieftaincy has 2 Ruling Houses i.e. Olaso and Upon to which the 2nd defendant/appellant belonged. They have also contended that the 1st defendant who is the kingmaker acted arbitrarily by rejecting the candidature of 2nd plaintiff/respondent from the Olaso faction and appointing the 2nd defendant/appellant as the next Abodi on 27/3/89.

The defendants/appellants’ case is that there was no Abodi known as Olaso hence the question of their nominating a candidate to fill the stool of Abodi did not arise. According to them the first Abodi was Olomola who begat Upon and Upon begat Fajuyi (2nd defendant/appellant). The 1st defendant/appellant who is the appointor or shall I say Kingmaker then went on to appoint 2nd defendant on 27/3/89 as opposed to 2nd plaintiff who was nominated by his own faction of the Olaso Ruling House.

It is this appointment which gave rise to the action in Suit No. HAD/18/89 which was decided in favour of the respondents. The appellants are dissatisfied with the judgment and have appealed to this court against it. I shall now deal with the 1st issue which touches on the question of whether or not the trial court was right in granting reliefs not claimed by the plaintiffs.

It is true that a trial court should never grant a relief or an award which a party did not ask for – See: the cases of Oredoyin v. Arowolo (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 114) 172; Odusote v. Odusote (1971) I NMLR p. 228; Emaphil Ltd. v. Odili (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 915.