Lasisi Oyewunmi Aroyewun & Ors. V. Oba Yesufu Adeola Adediran (Ajoriwin Of Irawo) (2004)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

KATSINA-ALU, J.S.C.

This appeal is from a judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ibadan delivered on 25th June, 1990 whereby that court dismissed the appeal of the defendants.

By a statement of claim dated 14th March, 1986, the plaintiff claimed against the defendants four reliefs to wit:

(i) Declaration that the plaintiff is the only recognised Chief or Oba Ajoriwin of Irawo in Ifedapo Local Government Area of Oyo State of Nigeria.

(ii) Declaration that there is only one Irawo and no Irawo-Ile of Irawo-Owode in Ifedapo Local Government Area of Oyo State of Nigeria.

(iii) Perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from parading himself in any form as a recognised Chief or Baale within Irawo Community.

(iv) Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, privies and or supporters from illegally naming and using part of Irawo as Irawo Owode.

However, in the course of the trial the plaintiff withdrew the reliefs claimed in paragraphs (ii) and (iv) above. The only live claims before the trial court were (i) and (ii).

The brief facts of this case are these. Prior to 1952 the plaintiff and the 1st defendant contested for the Obaship of Irawo otherwise known as the Ajoriwin of Irawo a town near Oyo in the Oyo State of Nigeria. The plaintiff triumphed and was duly installed as the Ajoriwin of Irawo. The 1st defendant did not challenge his defeat in any of the ways open to him under the law. In protest however the 1st defendant and his supporters moved from Irawo to a place about 2 miles away to settle. The defendants christened this settlement “Irawo-Owode”.

As I have already indicated the defendants lost both in the trial court and the Court of Appeal. The defendants have now further appealed to this court.

In their brief of argument the defendants raised four issues for our determination. These read as follows:

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in view of the pleadings of the parties, especially the respondents and their evidence before the trial High Court, when it held that Irawo means Irawo-Owode plus Irawo-Ile when this was not the case canvassed by the parties.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have defined Irawo to mean Irawo-Owode and Irawo-Ile when the trial High Court had earlier found that the two places were separate and when there has been no appeal on the said finding.
3. Whether the dispute in this proceeding is a chieftaincy dispute and if so, whether the High Court or any court had jurisdiction at any time prior to the 1979 Constitution to entertain a dispute involving chieftaincy, the cause of action having arisen in 1952 and whether or not the provisions of the 1963 Constitution prevail.
4. Whether an order of injunction can be rightly ordered when a legal right thereto has not been established.

For the plaintiff, two issues were set down for determination by us in this appeal. They read as follows:

1. Whether in all the circumstances of this case the Court of Appeal was right in making the order for declaration as made and in granting the order of injunction.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the trial court has jurisdiction in the matter and that the dispute was not a chieftaincy dispute within the ouster clause of the Chiefs Law.

The two issues raised by the plaintiff encompass the four issues formulated by the defendants. For this reason, I adopt the plaintiff’s issues for the purpose of determining this appeal.

As I have earlier indicated in the course of the trial, the plaintiff withdrew reliefs (ii) and (iv) leaving only reliefs (i) and (iii) which for ease of reference I read them again: