Josiah Olomosola & Anor. V. Chief Aladire Oloriawo & Anor. (2001)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

TOBI, J.C.A. 

Following the death of Chief Gabriel Omoniyi, the stool of Okiti of Iju became vacant. It is the Ausi Chieftaincy of Imun Quarter, Iju. Oba Amos Farukanmi, the 1st appellant, was installed as the Okiti of Iju.

Thereafter, Josiah Olomosola, the 2nd appellant, was installed as the Ausi of Imun Quarter, Iju by the 1st appellant.

An action was filed in the High Court of Ondo State, Akure Judicial Division by the respondents seeking two declarations and an order of injunction as follows:

(a) Declaration that the purported nomination and installation of Mr. Josiah Olomosola the 1st defendant as Chief Ausi of Imun Quarters, Iju by Oba Amos A. Farukanmi, the 2nd defendant sometime in March, 1993 are irregular contrary to native law and custom of Imun Quarters, Iju and thereby null and void.

(b) Declaration that Mr. Isaac Fatuase the 2nd plaintiff is the person properly nominated as the next Chief Ausi of Imun Quarters, Iju according to native law and custom of lmun Quarters, Iju and thereby entitled to be installed as the Chief Ausi of Imun Quarters, Iju.

(c) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from parading himself as Chief Ausi of Imun Quarters, Iju.”

The respondents case is that the 1st appellant is not a member of their family which is Onifonkoyode family, and as such not entitled to be appointed as the Ausi of Imun Quarter, Iju. It is on that basis that the respondents challenged the appointment of the 1st appellant, claiming that his appointment was irregular, null and void as it was contrary to native law and custom of Imun Quarter.

The learned trial Judge gave judgment in favour of the respondents. He said in the penultimate paragraph:

“I have considered and evaluated the evidence adduced by both parties and their witnesses in this case. I have also weighed the evidence of the parties on the balance and have preferred that of the plaintiffs to that of the defendants. I accept the testimony of the plaintiffs and their witnesses as being true, acceptable and therefore accepted. On the other hand, and from my observations of the defendants and their witnesses, while each of them particularly both defendants, were giving evidence in the witness box, I do not feel convinced that they were speaking the truth. I find that the 1st defendant is not entitled to have been installed as the Ausi of Imun in Iju in place of the 2nd plaintiff whom I find to have been properly selected and duly entitled to have been installed as the Ausi of Imun.”

Dissatisfied, the defendants filed an appeal. Briefs were filed and exchanged. The appellants formulated the following three issues for determination:

“C1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in admitting evidence of facts and matters not pleaded to form the basis of his decision.

C2. Whether the learned trial Judge had not first demolished the case of the defendant before considering case of the plaintiff and if so whether this was erroneous in point of law.

C3. Whether the trial court was right in not disregarding the case put forward by the plaintiffs as regards the 1st defendant of the Ausi family or as to the entitlement of the 1st defendant to the Ausi Chieftaincy when that was not the case of the plaintiffs on the state of the pleadings.”