Kassim V. Adesemowo & Ors (2021)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the consolidated judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division delivered on the 14th day of June, 2012 in the consolidated Appeal Nos. CA/I/69/99 and CA/I/267B/99, wherein the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the Appellant in Appeal No. CA/I/267B/99 and 4th Respondent in Appeal No. CA/I/69/99 being the Appellant in this appeal and quashed the decision of the High Court nullifying the selection of the Appellant herein as Orimolusi of Ijebu Igbo on the sole ground that the 14th Defendant (at the trial Court) participated in the selection exercise when he was not a qualified kingmaker. The Court of Appeal also allowed the appeal of the 1st Respondent in this appeal who was the Appellant in appeal No. CA/I/69/99 and 1st Respondent in appeal No. CA/I/267B/2012 at the Court below, only to the extent of nullifying the participation of the 8th, 9th, 14th and 15th Defendants at the High Court who participated at the meeting of the kingmakers held on 6th January, 1997, the consequence of which gave the Respondent herein three (3) votes of the qualified kingmakers against (2) votes of the Appellant in this appeal. A brief facts giving birth to this appeal will suffice.

Upon the demise of Oba Daniel Adelayo Kupakude 1, the Orimolusi of Ijebu Igbo in 1994, it became the turn of Ojuromi Ruling House to fill the vacancy created by his death. In line with the provisions of the Chiefs Law of Ogun State, Cap 20, Laws of Ogun State, the secretary of the competent council, the Ijebu North Local Government set the machinery in motion by issuing a Public Notice calling on the Ojuromi Ruling House to hold a meeting for the purpose of filling the vacant stool of Orimolusi of Ijebu Igbo.

Eight candidates were nominated by the Ojuromi Ruling House including the Appellant and 1st Respondent herein. At the meeting of the kingmakers held on 6th January, 1997, the Appellant was nominated by a majority of six (6) votes against the 1st Respondent with three (3) votes. As a result, the Appellant’s name was forwarded to the Executive council of Ogun State for approval.

​Being aggrieved by the decision of the kingmakers, the 1st Respondent herein instituted an action at the High Court of Ogun State holden at Ijebu Igbo in suit No. HCB/5/97. By paragraph 39 of his amended statement of claim filed on the 17th day of March, 1997, the 1st Respondent claimed as follows:-

“1. A declaration that the nomination of the 5th Defendant by the Ojuromi Ruling House of Orimolusi chieftaincy of Ijebu-Igbo at the Ruling House meeting held on 2nd January, 1997 which was presided over by the 6th Defendant as the acting head of Ojuromi Ruling House and the subsequent selection/appointment of the said 5th Defendant as the Oba Orimolusi elect of Ijebu-Igbo, by the 7th-15th defendants who acted as the kingmakers at their meeting held on 6th January, 1997 are irregular, improper, illegal null and void, same being contrary to the provisions of the Orimolusi Chieftaincy declaration and the chiefs law, Cap. 20 (as amended) Laws of Ogun State of Nigeria.

2. A declaration that the meeting of Ijebu-Igbo kingmakers held on 6th January, 1997 by which the 7th-15th defendants purportedly selected/appointed the 5th defendant as the Oba Orimolusi – elect was not properly constituted and therefore incapable of performing the statutory duty of selecting/appointing any candidate or candidates as Oba Orimolusi – elect and the said selection/appointment of the 5th defendant as the Oba Orimolusi – elect is irregular, improper, illegal, null and void and of no effect.
3. An order setting aside the purported nomination of the 5th defendant by the Ojuromi Ruling House of Ijebu-Igbo and his subsequent selection/appointment as Orimolusi elect of Ijebu-Igbo by the 7th-15th defendants who acted as the kingmakers of the Orimolusi Chieftaincy title of Ijebu-Igbo as the said 5th defendant was not eligible to be proposed as a candidate for the vacant stool of Orimolusi of Ijebu-Igbo nor could he be selected/appointed.
4. An order of injunction restraining the 4th defendant being the consenting authority to the Orimolusi Chieftaincy, from giving his consent to the said purported appointment or selection of the 5th defendant as the Oba Orimolusi elect of Ijebu-Igbo by the 7th-15th defendants.
5. An order of injunction restraining the 5th defendant from parading or holding himself out as Oba Orimolusi elect of Ijebu-Igbo and from presenting himself to anybody whatsoever for any installation as the Orimolusi of Ijebu-Igbo.
6. An order of injunction restraining 1st and 2nd defendants either by themselves, their servants, agents and/or functionaries from giving effect to the purported selection/appointment of the 5th defendant as Oba Orimolusi ofIjebu-Igbo.
7. And for such consequential orders or further reliefs as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances”.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged by the parties and after the trial and final addresses of counsel, the learned trial Judge delivered his judgment on the 11th day of August, 1998.

In his judgment, the learned trial Judge held that the selection/nomination of the Appellant by the Ojuromi Ruling House was valid and in accordance with both the Orimolusi of Ijebu-Igbo Chieftaincy Declaration and the Cheifs Law of Ogun State, 1978. The learned trial Judge however held that the participation of the 14th Defendant, Chief J. A. Onadeko (the Pampa of Japara) was improper and that his participation invalidated the meeting of the kingmakers and as such, same is null and void.

​Being aggrieved with the different findings and holding of the learned trial Judge, both the Appellant and the 1st Respondent appealed against same to the lower Court in Appeal Nos. CA/I/69/99 and CA/I/267B/99. The two appeals were later consolidated by the order of the Court of Appeal and heard together. Briefs were filed and exchanged as usual.

In their judgment, (at the risk of repetition), in respect of suit No. CA/I/69/99, the learned Justices of the lower Court upheld the decision of the learned trial Judge that the Appellant was entitled to be selected as a candidate to fill the vacant stool of Orimolusi of Ijebu-Igbo but contrary to the decision of the learned trial Judge, held that he is from the female line and ought to have been considered only where there is no suitable candidate from the male line.

The lower Court further held that the 8th, 9th and 15th defendants were not entitled to participate at the kingmakers’ meeting held on 6th January, 1997.

With regards to suit No. CA/I/267B/99, the lower Court held that the 8th, 9th and 15th defendants were not entitled to participate at the meeting but reversed the decision of the learned trial Judge and held that their participation did not render the meeting invalid. The lower Court finally held as follows:-

“The net result I reach in appeal No. CA/I/69/99 and appeal No. CA/I/267B/99 is that nine (9) kingmakers that composed the meeting for the selection exercise, four of them – 8th, 9th, 14th and 15th defendants were not qualified to participate as kingmakers. Their participation in the selection exercise was therefore bad. The consequence is to delete their votes, which are hereby deleted leaving the 5th Respondent in appeal No. CA/I/69/99 and Appellant in appeal No. CA/I/267B/99 with two (2) votes against the 3 votes of the Appellant in appeal No. CA/I/69/99 and 1st Respondent in appeal No. CA/I/267B/99 which would have entitled him to win the selection exercise against the 5th Respondent in appeal No. CA/I/267B/99 — see Ibrahim (supra). The 3rd Respondent is accordingly ordered to set in motion the necessary machinery for the qualified kingmakers to reconvene for the purpose of selecting one of the candidates from the male line, but in the event no qualified candidate is found in the male line, candidates from the female line shall be considered and presented by the Head of Ojuromi family for selection or appointment as the Orimolusi of Ijebu-Igbo by the kingmakers.”

Further aggrieved by the decision of the Court below, the Appellant has appealed to this Court vide notice of appeal filed on 2nd October, 2014 upon the leave of this Court being sought and obtained. Both parties filed and exchanged briefs in consonant with the rules of this Court.