His Majesty Oba (Dr.) Adedapo Adewale Tejuoso & Ors V. Egba Traditional Council & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

NONYEREM OKORONKWO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

Delivering judgment in a suit commenced by an Originating Summons dated 20/11/95 and filed in the Ogun State High Court on 21/11/95, the trial Court per A.O. Oduntan declared that:

?The Amended Registered Declaration relating to the Baale of Ifo Chieftaincy which was purportedly approved on the 29th day of May, 1991 and registered on the 1st day of July, 1991 (Exhibit B) was not made in accordance with the Chiefs Law of Ogun State and as such it is a nullity?. The Court went ahead to set the said Declaration aside and to grant an Injunction against its future use.

The appellants herein were dissatisfied with the judgment and on 14/11/96 filed a Notice of Appeal which was subsequently amended in a 2nd Further Amended Notice of Appeal wherein the numerous grounds of appeal were raised including ground one below:

The learned trial judge erred in law and disregarded the issues placed before him when he held:

?This action is not to declare whether the Olowu of Owu or the Alake of Egbaland is the consenting authority in respect of the Baale of Ifo Chieftaincy but

1

rather to determine whether the amended Registered Declaration Exhibit ?B? approved on the 29th day of May, 1991 and registered on 1st day of July, 1991 was made in accordance with the Chiefs Law Cap. 20 Laws of Ogun State of Nigeria, 1978 and thereby came to a wrong decision in holding that the issue before him was not whether the Alake of Egbaland or Olowu of Owu was the consenting authority in respect of Baale of Ifo Chieftaincy.?

From the grounds, the appellants in their brief of argument raised the following seven issues for determination viz:

Whether an Originating Summons was a proper and competent form of commencing this action having regard to the fact that the facts were contentious and whether the trial of this case on Originating Summons was not thereby vitiated? Grounds 6, 8, 10.

Whether or not the trial judge properly appreciated the issues in dispute in this case and whether the decision of the Court given in that regard was not rendered wrongful and void? Grounds 1, 12 and 15.

Whether or not the plaintiffs? action was statute barred and therefore incompetent and un-maintainable against the defendants

2

by virtue of the provisions of S. 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Law? Ground 17.