Chief Macaulay Akindusoye V. Chief Oluwole Ikugbayire & Anor. (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivered the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Ogun State, sitting at Ijebu-Ode delivered by O. A. Adesida, J. on Wednesday, 10th day of May, 2006.

The Appellant as the plaintiff in the lower court took out this action for himself and on behalf of members of Bagbe family by a Writ of Summons dated and filed on the 13th day of December, 2004, claimed against the defendants jointly and severally the following reliefs:-

“(1) A DECLARATION that the plaintiff is the Baale of Bagbe and any purported removal or attempt to remove him is illegal, unlawfully uncommunity null and void.

(2) A DECLARATION that the Community in Aiyede Ikale in Ogun Waterside Local Government in Ogun State bounded by Aiyede Community in one side, bounded by Lawo-Ode Community in the 3rd side and bounded by Gbagada Stream in the 4th side is called Bagbe and not Lapeti Community.

(3) An Order restraining the 2nd defendant from recognizing the 1st defendant as the Baale of Bagbe or any other person as the Baale of Bagbe.

(4) An order of the court compelling the 2nd defendant to release the monthly stipend of the plaintiff from the Local government which the 2nd defendant had withheld for the past six years to the plaintiff.

(5) N1,000.00 being general damages for the embarrassment and inconvenience which the defendants had subjected the plaintiff to.”

At the trial, pleadings were filed and exchanged. In support of his case the plaintiff gave evidence and called a sole witness while each of the defendants testified and called a witness.

The background fact on the part of the plaintiff is that his grandfather was Bagbe who founded a village and named it Bagbe after himself. He had five (5) wives in his life time, and the fifth was called Lapeti, the mother of Omotire, who was the mother of the 1st Defendant. The plaintiff is said to have been the Baale of the village for over (forty) 40 years, was appointed Baale of the village during the reign of the father of the 2nd defendant, was receiving a salary and had a seat at the public sitting as the Baale of Bagbe.

The plaintiff alleged that the village the defendant changed the name of, is the place called Bagbe. It is the case of the plaintiff that the 2nd defendant’s with/move to make the 1st defendant the Baale resulted in the Baaleship tussle in the village.

The defendants contended that the village called Bagbe is no longer in existence as it had been deserted about eight (8) years ago. The 1st defendant claimed the plaintiff was not the Baale and that the members of the community want him (1st defendant) as the Baale. The defendants claimed the place the plaintiff called Bagbe is actually Lapeti from time immemorial.

On the other hand, the case of the Respondents as defendant is that Bagbe and Lapeti are two different and places about 1KM apart from each other. It was contended that the 2nd Defendant/Respondent had neither removed nor attempted to remove the Appellant as Baale of Bagbe and that he the 2nd Defendant/Respondents refuted being liable to pay the Appellant any such damages as neither of them ever embarrassed nor caused the Appellant any inconvenience.

At the close of trial, the learned trial judge dismissed the plaintiff/Appellant’s claims.