Chief T. O. Adepiti & Ors. V. Governor Of Ondo State & Ors. (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

By a writ of summons dated 19th October 2000 filed on 23rd October, 2000 before the Ondo State High Court sitting at Okitipupa the appellants as plaintiffs sought the following reliefs against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants:

(1) DECLARATION that the 1984 ODEDE of Igboegunrin Chieftaincy declaration does not reflect the true and authentic custom, norms and tradition relating to the “Head Chief” Chieftaincy of Igboegunrin and is therefore illegal, irregular, invalid, null and void and of no effect.

(2) DECLARATION that ODEDE is a family title exclusively belongs to the children of descendants of Yasere in Mahin Kingdom.

(3) DECLARATION that any action or steps taken by the Government of Ondo State based on or pursuant to the proceedings findings and recommendations of Ilaje/Ese-Odo Local Government Chieftaincy committee held on Wednesday 2nd March, 1983 in the Secretary’s office at Igbokoda concerning Odede Chieftaincy are irregular, illegal, invalid, null and void and of no effect.

(4) An order setting aside the 1984 Odede of Igboegunrin Chieftaincy declaration.”

   Ilaje Local Government (3rd respondent herein) and Oba P. O. Kalejaiye (4th respondent herein) were later joined as 4th and 5th Defendants respectively by an order of the lower Court. Pleadings were filed and exchanged. The 5th Defendant filed a notice of preliminary objection dated 29th day of April 2005 premised on the following grounds:

(a) “That the condition precedent for the filing of this Suit pursuant to S.1, 2(1)(a), (b) and (2) of the Approval of Appointment of an Oba and Presentation of Instrument of Appointment and Staff of Office Edict No 2 of 1992 has not been met.

(b) That this action is incompetent against the 5th defendant for failure of the plaintiff to exhaust the available remedies in law before joining the 5th defendant in this suit pursuant to S. 2 (1) (a), (b) and (2) of the Edict No. 2 of 1992.”

   The objection was also raised in paragraph 25 of the 5th defendant’s Amended Statement of Defence. In a considered ruling delivered on 3rd day of July 2005 the Learned Trial Judge upheld the objection and struck out the entire suit. It is against this ruling that the Appellants have appealed to this court. The Appellants and 4th respondents herein filed and exchanged briefs of argument. Although duly served with the processes in the appeal and hearing notices against the hearing, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents did not participate in the appeal and did not file any process therein.

   From the four grounds of appeal contained in the notice of appeal dated 3/8/05 the appellants distilled a single issue for determination thus:

Whether or not this action is vitiated by the Approval of Appointment of an Oba and Presentation of Instrument of Appointment and Staff of Office Edict, 1991 or not.

The 4th respondent also formulated a single issue for determination thus:

Whether the trial Court was not right in striking out Appellant’s suit against the 4th Respondent having regard to the protection offered him under sections 1 and 2 of the Approval of Appointment of an Oba and Presentation of Instrument of Appointment and Staff of Office Edict, 1991 which his joinder violated.