Eleso M.A. Vs The Government Of Ogun State & Ors (1990)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ESO, J.S.C. 

The relevant facts of this case which is on appeal to this court are not in contest. The plaintiff, Chief F.A. Oyalowo and the 4th defendant, E.A. Eleso, both belong to the Oke Idiroko section of Ijaiye. There are three sections to wit: Abese, Adebakin and Oke Idiroko and by Ex. C, which is a resolution that the appointment to the Balogun chieftaincy should be in rotation, indicate the plaintiff and the 4th defendant section as the one to produce a candidate at the material time.

The Alake [3rd defendant] was the prescribed authority pursuant to section 22(1) of the Chiefs Law, Laws of Ogun State of Nigeria 1978, Cap.20.

The plaintiff in his pleadings and evidence had in court claimed that he had been nominated by the people of Oke-Idiroko and that he was presented to the community at large and was installed by the Iyalode who placed the Akoko leaves on his head and that he was later presented to the Alake who accepted and approved his appointment. He was not invited to any inquiry or settlement of dispute by the 1st to 3rd defendants that the 3rd defendant has no right to appoint any Balogun for Ijaiye. The 4th defendant on the other hand, gave his own account to the effect that he was in fact nominated in absentia by the people of Oke Idiroko and the presentation to the community was also done in absentia. When he later saw the chiefs, his nomination was confirmed and he gave his consent to serve.

The account of the meetings of the Chiefs, who met to consider the nominations of both candidates, was given by the 4th defendant. And that was that the Chiefs were four in number. They were equally divided in their votes for the two candidates. The prescribed authority, the Alake of Egbaland however refused to react to the voting, that is, failed to use a casting vote which he believed to be bad. The Alake referred the matter to the government and the government resolved the matter in favour of the 4th defendant.

The trial court accepted the evidence of the plaintiff only in regard to his nomination. He disbelieved his evidence that he was presented to the Alake and approved by him. He held that, on the evidence, the plaintiff could not rightly claim to be the Balogun of Ijaiye and Are Egba.

How about the other candidate the 4th defendant The trial court held that the four chiefs were not kingmakers as they were presumed to have been, the Alake had no casting vote. The 1st defendant, the government wrongly assumed the power of the prescribed authority. The effect is that the appointment of the 4th defendant was also not valid.

He concluded –

I have taken pains to examine the sections of the Chiefs Law dealing with this case and (sic) I am with the relevant sections which are sections 18 and 20, 21 and 22 with other subsections of the chiefs law which are relating to this case have not been complied with. There is no doubt that the chieftaincies involved in this action are minor chieftaincies and they do not require any recognised and approved registered declaration showing that kingmakers are essential in the appointment.

After a very careful consideration of the evidence before the court and the submission of counsel on points of law, I have come to conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case satisfactorily but there is no doubt that the plaintiff has an interest to protect and his case has not failed in toto. I have also found that the method of appointment of the 4th defendant was not proper and it will be difficult to enter judgment in favour of the 4th defendant. The 4th defendant is certainly not having a claim before the court and it is only the duty of the court to point out that such appointment should not be allowed to stand in interest of justice without making any reference to the irregularities involved in the making of the appointment.

In conclusion, I have found that both the plaintiff and the 4th defendant are not entitled to judgment it becomes necessary to consider the proper order to be made in the circumstances, I would therefore request counsel to address me briefly on the proper order to make in the circumstance.

And the learned Judge called for argument on the order to make. He concluded –

After a very careful consideration of the circumstances of this case I have decided to enter a non suit against the plaintiffs claims on its entirety.

The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal. The 4th defendant also cross appealed.