Chief M. I. Kudehinbu & Anor V. MR. Newton Oluwole & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Ondo State in suit No. HOK/81/1999 delivered on 15-3-2006 by Honourable Justice W. A. Akintoroye, J. where at the learned trial judge had given judgment in favour of the plaintiff at the trial Court who is now respondent and held and ordered as follows:-

“In conclusion plaintiff succeeds. The Court therefore declares in his favour as follows:-

(A) That the plaintiff is the person entitled to be enthroned as the maporure of Agerige Aheriland.

(B) An order of injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, privies from engaging in any re-consultation of Ifa oracle in selecting a candidate for the stool of the Maporure of Agerige Aheriland.

I award five thousand naira (N5000.00) costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.

A resume of the facts of the case as summarized in the statement of claim is that the plaintiff had claimed against the defendants who are now 1st, 2nd Appellants and 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents respectively for the following reliefs:-

1. A

1

declaration that the plaintiff is the person entitled to be enthroned as the Maporure of – Agerige, Aheriland.

2. An order of injunction restraining the defendants their servants, agents, privies from engaging in any consultation of “lfa” oracle in selecting a candidate for the stool of the Maporure of Agerige, Aheriland.

Aggrieved by the decision in favour of the plaintiff, the 1st and 2nd defendants have now appealed and upon six grounds of appeal initially filed on the 16th of March, 2006. See pages 216 – 210 of the record of appeal.

This notice of appeal was amended and filed on 8 -11 -2012 and a further amended notice of appeal was filed on 9 – 3 – 2015 but deemed properly on 18 – 3 – 2015 by leave of this Court to that effect.

The present 1st and 2nd respondents were substituted by leave of this Court substituting the deceased plaintiff/respondent as parties in the appeal

The appellants further amended brief of argument dated and filed on 9 – 3 – 15 but deemed filed on 18 – 3 – 15 was readopted.

It is instructive to note that the appellants had by motion on notice filed on 9 – 3 – 15 been granted leave to raise and argue/new