Emmanuel Gbadebo Olusi & Anor V. Clement Sunday Obanobi & Ors (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal and cross-appeal from the judgment of P.I. Oduwo, J, delivered at the Ikare Akoko Judicial Division of the High Court of Justice, Ondo State on 18 – 6 – 2007.

The Appellants Emmanuel Gbadebo Olusi and Titus Oluwatayo Baale were respectively the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the suit instituted by the 1st – 3rd Respondents, that is Clement Sunday Obanobi, Simeon Ajayi Oluloyo and Julius Olaitan Obaniyi as Plaintiffs respectively representing the Ayanwa, Arepen and Parisu Ruling Houses of Olukakumo of Ikakumo against the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Appellants representing the Ayindu Ruling House of Olukakumo of Ikakumo, while the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants (now Respondents) Cross-Appellants) were the Governor of Ondo State. The Attorney-General of Ondo State and the Secretary of Akoko North – East Local Government.

The 1st to 3rd respondents as Plaintiffs in the Court below took out a writ of summons against the Defendants on 16/2/88 and claimed declaration that the customary law dealing with Olukakumo of Ikakumo provide for four (4) Ruling Houses in rotation to the title of Olukakumo.

It sought a declaration that the recommendation of the Ondo State Chieftaincy Review Commission (otherwise called the Morgan Chieftaincy Review Commission) and the subsequent “White paper” based on it are null, and void and contrary to the customary law regulating appointment to the said Chieftaincy. And, also that the procedure adopted by the Military Governor and the Government of Ondo State in approving a new Chieftaincy Declaration for the Olukakumo of Ikakumo Chieftaincy is illegal, null and void.

Pleadings were filed, exchanged and amended several times. In the course of trial, the Ondo State Government caused to be registered a new Declaration of the Olukakumo of Ikakumo Chieftaincy in March 1988.

The relevant pleadings in the court below turned out to be:

(a) Fourth further Amended statement of claim filed by the Plaintiffs on 24/1/2006.

(b) Further 4th amended Statement of Defence filed by the 1st and 2nd defendants on 16/11/2006 and

(c) Third Amended statement of Defence of the 3rd, 4th & 5th defendants filed on 18/10/2005.

The claims of the 1st to 3rd respondents as Plaintiffs as contained at pages 300 – 301 of the record of appeal are as follows:

(i) A declaration that according to the Customary Law dealing with the Olukakumo of Ikakumo Chieftaincy in the Akoko North East Local Government, Ondo State the following four ruling Houses have the right to provide candidates in relation for the Olukakumo of Ikakumo Chieftaincy. Namely (1) Ayanwa Ruling House (2) Aparisu Ruling House (3) Arepin Ruling House and (4) Ayindu Ruling House respectively.

(ii) A declaration that the recommendation of the Ondo State Chieftaincy review commission otherwise called the “Morgan Chieftaincy Review Commission” (set up by the Ondo State Government) on the Chieftaincy declaration of Olukakumo of Ikakumo Chieftaincy in the Akoko North East Local Government of Ondo State contained in the report of the Commission to the effect that only the Ayindu Ruling House has the right to provide candidates for the Olukakumo of Kakumo chieftaincy is null and void contrary to natural justice, oppressive, unjust illegal and of no effect whatsoever in that the said recommendation is contrary to customary law regulating the selection and/or appointment of a candidate for that Chieftaincy.

(iii) A declaration that the decision of the Ondo State Government contained in the white paper issued by the Ondo State Government on the Olukakumo of Ikakumo Chieftaincy in the Akoko North East Local Government sometimes in 1987 to the effect that only the Ayindu Ruling House has the right to provide candidates for the Olukakumo of Ikakumo Chieftaincy are null and void and of no effect whatsoever as they are based on the recommendation of the Chieftaincy Review Commission (i.e. the Morgan Chieftaincy Review Commission) and contrary to the customary law regulating the appointment to the said Chieftaincy.