Chief Sunday Ayelabola & Ors V. Chief Ajijolaogun Ode & Anor (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the ruling of the High Court of Kwara State delivered on 27th January 2014 by T.S. Umar, J wherein the learned trial judge dismissed the defendants/appellants ‘preliminary objection for incompetence. Disgruntled by that decision the appellants filed a notice of appeal dated 30th January 2014 and filed on 31-01-2014 premised on the following lone ground:

“The learned trial judge erred in law in assuming jurisdiction when he held that.

“…the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law of Kwara State deals with appointment already made by the Governor. In this particular case, the complaint is on selection process. As such the authorities cited by the applicants are not appropriate to this case.”

The learned counsel for the appellant and respondent alike both raised and argued a single issue distilled from the lone ground of appeal thus:

Whether the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law of Kwara State deals only with appointment already made by the Governor and does not extend or apply to complaint on selection process making judicial authorities cited by Appellants irrelevant.

Hostilities between the appellants and the respondents were triggered when the respondents, as claimants took out writ of summons against the appellants (defendants) on the 14th March 2006 claiming for a declaration that it was the turn of Ile Ilowu family in Odo-Eru Ruling House to produce an Oba for Idofin-Igbana In Oke-Ero Local Government Area of Kwara State and not Alomilogba and that the appointment of 3rd Defendant by the Oba-in-Council as represented by 1st and 2nd defendants was wrongful, null and void. The Respondents consequently prayed the court to order the 3rd Defendant to stop parading himself as the appointed candidate for the stool of Oba Idofin-Igbana.

When the writ and other processes were served on the Appellants, they filed a preliminary objection on ground that the condition precedent to filing the suit, i.e. payment of N10,000.00 fee, was not complied with and prayed the lower court to dismiss the suit. The lower court through Honourable Justice Akoja sitting of Omu-Aran upheld the objection and struck out the suit. The appellants appealed against that ruling. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the ruling and sent the matter back to lower court, for trial before another judge.

The appellants herein filed another notice of preliminary objection on 31st July 2012 praying that the respondents has not complied with the requirements of section 3(3) of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law of Kwara State which is a condition precedent before suits like this can be instituted and prayed the court to strike out the case for being incompetent. (See pp. 54-87 of the record).

The lower court heard the parties and delivered its ruling on 27th January 2014 consequent upon which the objection was dismissed on ground that the law is inapplicable, hence this appeal premised upon a single ground and the above lone issue was vehemently argued by the learned counsel on both sides.

The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the trial judge erred in his ruling that chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law of Kwara State applies only to where appointment had already been made by the Governor, and not where the complaint is on selection processes.

Reference was made to the earlier judgment of this court in Appeal No. CA/IL/15/2007 delivered on 11th June 2008 where it was held thus:

“Upon a sober examination of the averments and the reliefs sought by the Appellants in their statement of claim at page 12-15 of the record (which reliefs has been reproduced earlier in the body of this judgment), it is evident that the Appellants are challenging the selection process conducted by the Oba-in-Council which threw up the 3rd Respondent as the candidate for appointment as chief of Idofin-Igbana. It is their position that selection to the stool is by rotation and presently, it is the turn of the Ile-Olowu family in Odo-Eru Ruling House to produce the Oba of Idofin-Igbana. They contend that the Ile Olowu family produced three suitable candidates for selection by the Oba-in-Council, the Appellants further contend that instead of complying with tradition and approving a candidate from the claimants family, the Oba-in-Council picked a candidate from the Alomilogba family, which had already taken its turn in the rotation. If is quite obvious that what is being challenged in the claim at the lower court is the selection process by the Oba-in-Council of a candidate for the stool of the Oba of Idofin-Igbana.” (See pp. Pg.64-65 64-65 of the record).

It was argued for the appellant that since this decision has not been appealed against till date, it remains valid and subsisting. By this judgment it goes, without further argument, that the respondents are challenging the selection process for the stool of Oba Idofin-Igbana by the Oba-in-Council.