Chief S.A. Dada & Ors. V. Otunba Adeniran Ogunsanya & Anor. (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KAWU, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court Of Appeal, Lagos Division, delivered on the 5th day of June, 1990, allowing the appeal from the ruling of Adeyinka, J dated 15th April, 1988 striking out the claim of the plaintiffs in the High Court for disclosing no cause of action. As stated in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the plaintiffs’ Amended Statement of Claim, at all the times material to this case, both the plaintiffs and the defendants were members of the African Church.

The claims of the plaintiffs in the High Court, who are respondents herein, as contained in paragraph 62 of the Amended Statement of claim are as follows:-

“1. A declaration that the time-honoured convention of appointing Lay President of the African Church from the Lagos Division namely any African Church member who is ordinarily resident in Lagos Division which accommodates the Headquarters of the African Church and of Vice Lay President rotationally from Divisions outside the Lagos Division ought to operate in this Election year of 1987 and ought not now to be disturbed having regard to the fact that the Vice Lay President for the period of 1987-1992 has this year been appointed from outside Lagos Division, to wit from Ijebu Division.

2. A declaration that until this time-honoured convention of appointment of Lay President and Vice Lay president has been changed or otherwise altered by a motion passed at the Annual convention of the African Church no individual or group of individuals can alter the position:
3. A declaration that the nomination of Chief Adeniran Ogunsaya of the African Church Cathedral (Bethel) Lagos in the Lagos Division of the African Church for the office of Lay president on 9th May, 1987, at the 86th Session of the Conference of the African Church held at Ijesha was valid, proper, conventionally constitutional, wherefore any other nomination from any Division of the African Church outside Lagos is invalid, irregular, null and void and of no legal effect being in flagrant violation of the convention of the African Church since or about the year 1982.
4. A declaration that the 1st Defendant is estopped from competing with the 1st Plaintiff or otherwise contesting against him for the office of the Lay President of the African Church in the year 1978 having in writing by letter dated 12th August, 1986, indicated to the African Church and the 1st Plaintiff as Chancellor, inter alia, that he had after a long deliberation finally and irrevocably decided not to stand for the said post of Lay President in 1978.
5. Consequentially, an order that Chief Adeniran Ogunsanya be declared the only candidate validly nominated as candidate for the office of Lay President, wherefore he be deemed to have been appointed unopposed as Lay President of the African Church with effect from 9th May, 1987, when Otunba J, Olu Awopeju was by convention of the African Church appointed Vice Lay President of the African Church and when 1st Defendant ceased to hold office both as Vice Lay President and Acting Lay president of the African Church.
6. An injunction to restrain the 2nd Defendant his servants and/or agents from taking order from 1st Defendant to damnify or impede the administration of the African Church and/or otherwise acting in concert with the 1st Defendant or independently to block or freeze the Account of the African Church with the First Bank of Nigeria Ltd., at Odunlami Street, Lagos, or in any other place wheresoever.
7. An injunction to restrain the Defendants their servants collaborators and/or agents from holding any meeting of the Conference of the African Church either as planned by them for 28th August, 1987, or for any other date at all pending the determination of the action herein.
8. An order that pending the determination of the action herein the 2nd Plaintiff as Vice Lay President of the African Church be at liberty to function, act as and perform the office of the Lay President of the African Church.
9. N250,000.00 general damages against the Defendants jointly and severally for falsely parading themselves as Acting Lay President and General Treasurer respectively, whereby the 1st and 2nd Defendants successfully blocked or froze the Account of the African Church at First Bank at Odunlami Street, Lagos, and thus prevented the African Church from paying the wages and emoluments of their staff and pensioners, namely the Primate, retired Bishops and other Clergy and workers of the African Church generally and also for inhibiting 2nd plaintiff from functioning as a duly and unanimously elected Vice Lay president of African Church. ”

The defendants, who are appellants herein, entered a conditional appearance after the commencement of the action and subsequently filed a motion dated 30th November, 1987 praying for the following reliefs:-

“(a) An order pursuant to Order 22 of the High Court of Lagos (civil Procedure) Rules and Order18, Rule 19 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965, striking out the plaintiffs endorsement on the writ of summons, and the statement of claim, and dismissing the action on the ground that it is frivolous, vexatious and it discloses no reasonable cause of action.

(b) For such further and/or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in all the circumstances.”

The ground for the application was that

“Even if all the averments in the Statement of Claims are proved, they do not support the Claim.”

After hearing submissions of counsel on the motion, the learned trial judge, on the 15th April, 1986 delivered his ruling, striking out the plaintiffs’ claims, holding, in the concluding part of the ruling as follows:-

“Whatever may be the convention the plaintiffs have not established in their Amended Statement of Claim that the convention had created a contract among the members of the African Church and that it was a term of the contract that the convention can only be changed or altered by a motion. There is also no authority for the relief sought that the convention can only be changed or altered by a motion, not by conduct, acts or omissions. Conventions are by their nature susceptible to change even by time.

The declaration of estoppel by the 1st defendant’s letter of 12th August, 1986 is also not justiciable. The Plaintiffs did not plead the consideration they had given for the 1st defendant’s letter which prevented him from changing his mind. It may well be unconscionable, immoral or even unchristianly of the 1st defendant to change his mind to contest the office of the Lay President in 1987, having decided in 1986 in the names of Christ not to do so but the Court is not concerned with morality or christianity but under Sec. 6(6) (b) 1979 Constitution, with the adjudicating for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of persons. If nine out of the eleven divisions of the African Church ganged up to change the convention, that shows an intention to change or alter the convention.

If the convention is not justiciable in a Court of law, the Court cannot restrain the defendants from changing it. The Plaintiffs’ action based on convention, estoppel by letter morality and Christianity is not enforceable in Court of law. The Plaintiffs’ action therefore discloses (sic) no reasonable cause of action.”

He thereafter advised the parties “to go back to the African Church to settle their disputes amicably in the name of Jesus Christ.”