Ganiyu Lawal Mosojo V Thomas Adesola Oyetayo & Ors (2003)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

L. KUTIGI, J.S.C.

In the High Court of Justice holden at Oshogbo, the plaintiff sued the defendants claiming as follows:

1. Declaration that the appointment and installation of Mr. Thomas Adesola Oyetayo (that is 1st defendant) by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th defendants, as the Obasinkin of Ila is contrary to the native law and custom of Ila-Orangun and is therefore null and void.
2. Perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from acting and or parading himself as the Obasinkin of Ila-Orangun.
3. Perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th defendants from recognizing the 1st defendant as the Obasinkin of Ila-Orangun.
4. An order of the court setting aside the Chieftaincy Declaration in Ila as affecting the Obasinkin Chieftaincy in Ila Orangun and to declare the same as being contrary to native law and custom of Ila Orangun and therefore null and void.

Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged. The plaintiff with leave of court later filed an amended statement of claim. The 1st to 8th defendants filed a joint statement of defence. The 9th and 10th defendants also filed their joint statement of defence. The case then proceeded to trial. At the trial the plaintiff testified and called five other witnesses while seven witnesses gave evidence for the defendants.

Briefly put the plaintiff’s case is that he is a member of the Obasinkin Logun Kando family of Ila-Orangun and that he took the action on behalf of himself and the family. He said the Obasinkin Chieftaincy is exclusive to his family and that the appointment of the 1st defendant as the Obasinkin by the other defendants is contrary to native law and custom of Ila-Orangun, because the 1st defendant is not related to the Logun Kando family. He traced the history of all the eleven Obasinkins who reigned up to the last one who died in 1982 to his family. The defendants on the other hand contended that although the 1st defendant was not a member of the plaintiff’s family, they relied on the Chieftaincy Declaration of 1960 (exhibit D in the proceedings) which added the family of the 1st defendant as a second ruling house in respect of the Chieftaincy. The plaintiff’s reaction to this 1960 Chieftaincy declaration (exhibit D), was that the family was not aware of it and that at any rate the Obasinkin Chieftaincy has been relegated to a minor Chieftaincy by virtue of THE RECOGNISED CHIEFTAINCIES (REVOCATION AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ORDER 1976 (W.S.L.N. 6 of 1976), that it was no longer subject to the provisions of Part 2 of the Chiefs Law of the former Western State and consequently the 1960 Chieftaincy Declaration was no longer applicable.

After the close of evidence on both sides, learned counsel for the parties addressed the court. In a reserved judgment, the learned trial Judge carefully evaluated and weighed the evidence led before him and found for the plaintiff. He concluded his judgment thus –

“In my considered judgment, the plaintiff has proved his case and he is entitled to the reliefs sought. I grant the following orders-

1. A declaration that the appointment and installation of Mr. Thomas Adesola Oyetayo (that is the 1st defendant) by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th defendants, as the Obasinkin of Ila is contrary to the native law and custom of Ila-Orangun and is therefore null and void.
2. Perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from acting or parading himself as the Obasinkin of Ila-Orangun.
3. Perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th defendant from recognising the 1st defendant as Obasinkin of Ila Orangun.
4. An order setting aside the Chieftaincy Declaration in Ila as affecting the Obasinkin Chieftaincy in Ila Orangun in that it is contrary to native law and custom of Ila-Orangun and therefore null and void.

Dissatisfied with the above judgment, the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal, holden at Ibadan. In a unanimous judgment the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial High Court. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the plaintiff has now appealed to this court. The parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument which were adopted and relied upon at the hearing of the appeal.

Mr. Ajayi learned counsel for the plaintiff has identified in his brief the following issues as arising for determination in the appeal. They read –

“1, What is the cause of action and when did it accrue in the matter

2. Whether as regards the Obasinkin Chieftaincy, the Chieftaincy Declaration of 1960 is still valid and subsisting having regard to the Recognized Chieftaincies (Revocation and Miscellaneous) Order, 1976 (W.S.L.N. 6 of 1976).
3. Did the High Court (Court of first instance) in this matter have jurisdiction to entertain this matter as it did”

I ought to say at this juncture that this is a straight forward case. The facts are largely not in dispute. This is clearly a question of the application of the law to the facts as found or established in court.

Issue (1)

The question here is simply whether the cause of action in this case arose in 1960 when the Chieftaincy Declaration (exhibit D) was made and the 1st defendant’s family made a second ruling house therein, or in 1983 when the 1st defendant was installed as the Obasinkin to the detriment of the plaintiff’s family.

The Court of Appeal clearly in my view came to an erroneous conclusion when it held that –

“It is therefore apparent that the act exhibit ‘D’ which constitutes the cause of action in the instant case arose in 1960 and not in 1982 on the demise of the Obasinkin Jekayinfa and I so hold” (see per Okunola, JCA on page 284).