Jacob Oyerogba & Anor V. Egbewole Olaopa (1998)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

BELGORE, J.S.C.

This is a mailer concerning the succession of minor chieftaincy of Onilado of Igboora. Igboora is in the Ibarapa district of those southwestern Oyo speaking Yorubas but was under the suzerainty of Baale of Ibadan (now known as Olubadan of Ibadan). They share boundary with Egbas to the South and Yewas (formerly Egbados) to the southwest. Essentially they are Oyos but by linguistic twist known as Ibarapas. Ighoora has as its village head a Baale. In this suit as it is now the style in many Yoruba hamlets, attempt was made to refer to Baale as “Olora of Igboora”, but for the purpose of (his judgment it is the title of Baale that I shall use.

The 1st appellant. Jacob Oyerogba the Baale (Bale) of Igboora and is the prescribed authority for the appointment of lesser chiefs under him. His town falls under Eruwa Local Government, but his traditional allegiance is to Olubadan. The second defendant belonged to Ajadi family, The evidence of The 2nd appellant and respondent were brought in by order of court following the deaths of the original 2nd appellant and respondent. The appellants were defendants at the trial Court while the plaintiff was representing the Ojo and Oje families. Due to creation of new local government the original Ibarapa Local Government has been broken up and Igboora now falls in Eruwa Local Government. The suit was instituted following the appointment of 2nd defendant by 1st defendant as Onilado of Igbo Ora. Plaintiffs case was that the Onilado chieftaincy started or descended from one Odulana and there has been only six Onilados in the history or Igboora, all descending from Odulana in the following order:

1. Odulana
2. Akanwo
3. Iyonwu
4. Oje
5. Ojo
6. Ogunrinde.

For the 2nd defendant it was contended that the Onilado chieftaincy originated from one Durogbade the ancestor of 2nd defendant and that Ajadi, his father was Onilado before Ojo, that is after Oje, thus claiming that seven previous Onilados reigned. Thus it was when Ojo, the fifth Onilado according to the plaintiff, but sixth according to the defendants, and Ogunrinde (the last Onilado) was appointed, one Olaitan Akande instituted an action on behalf of himself and Ajadi Family (10 which second defendant claims ancestry) in 1946 at Ibadan (suit No. 1/1/1946) against Ogunrinde and Adeoye, the then Baale of Igboora challenging Ogunrinde’s appointment as Onilado. The main plank of Olaitan Akande’s claim was that his own father. Ajadi, was at one time the Onilado. The High Court dismissed the 1946 claim. It must be mentioned that the second defendant belonged to Ajadi family. The evidence in suit 1/1/1946 (Exhibit A) was to the effect that Ajadi was never a substantive Onilado but merly acted during minority of the person entitled. Perhaps he never even died acting in that capacity. On the entitlement of Ajadi family to Onilado title the plaintiff relied on Exhibit A as estopped against the defendants and also to establish his claim.

The High Court in this present suit held that Exhibit A was available as estoppel against second defendant and that no member of Ajadi family was entitled to the title or Onilado of Igboora. Further the trial court held that first appellant, as prescribed authority under Chiefs law was merely to approve appointment of those entitled under customary law to the minor chiefs under him. Finally it was held that Onilado chieftaincy originated from Odulana, the ancestor of the plaintiff and not from Durogbade as claimed by the defendants. Judgment was therefore entered for the plaintiff as claimed.

The defendants appealed to Court of Appeal which entirely up-held the decision of trial High Court. In arriving at their decision the Justices held that on the whole the evidence of defendant was in some respects at variance with their pleadings, that the plaintiff was privy in blood to first defendant in Exhibit A. that 1st defendant was privy in law to 2nd defendant in Exhibit A, and that 2nd defendant is privy in blood to the plaintiff in Exhibit A. This Court of Appeal held that on the totality of the pleadings and evidence before the trial Court including Exhibit A that Court had come to the right conclusion and therefore dismissed the appeal.

Thus the appeal to this court.

Before this Court, on the grounds of appeal, the following issues for consideration were raised in the three briefs of argument as follows:-

1. Appellants:

(a) Whether the judgment in Suit no.1/1/46 – Exhibit ‘A’ was available as an estoppel against the 2nd defendant in this case when the parties in Suit No. 1/1/46 are not the same as the parties in the present action.

(h) Whether the plaintiff in this case can make use of the said judgment in Suit No. 1/1/46 as a representative of Oje and Ojo Families 10 found an estopped against the 2nd defendant in this case when Oje and Ojo Families were not parties to the action in Suit No. 1/1/46.

(c) Whether any other descendant of Odulana apart from Oje and Ojo families could still lay claim to Onilado Chieftaincy.

2. In the 2nd appellant’s brief only one issue is formulated as follows:

“Whether or not the parties in Exhibit A and instant suit are the same having not instituted and defended both suits in the same right and capacities”

3. The respondent for his own part, formulated two Issues, to wit.

I. whether the panics in Exhibit A are the same as the panics in this suit…

II. whether the holding of the trial Court referred to by the Count of Appeal that the Onilado chieftaincy was still restricted to Odulana family was supported by the evidence