Lawrence Adebola Oredoyin & Ors. V. Chief Akala Arowolo & Ors. (1989)

ESO, J.S.C.

An appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Court of Appeal [Ademola, Uthman Mohammmed and Owolabi, JJ.C.A.]. The majority judgment, which was the judgment of the court, was written by Owolabi Kolawole, J.C.A., with which Adenekan Ademola, J.C.A., concurred, with Uthman Mohammed, J.C.A., dissenting.

It was a chieftaincy matter and the claim of the plaintiffs, Chief Akala Arowole, Chief Salawu Soberu and Chief Bakare Okobale for themselves and as representatives of all members of Osugbo and other cults in Imota, except the first to third defendants, was as follows:

(i) A declaration that the appointment of the 1st defendant Lawrence Adebola Oredoyin as the Ramodu Imota is unlawful and ought to be set aside.

(ii) An order setting aside the said appointment;

(iii) An order restraining the 1st defendant from holding himself out as the Ramodu of Imota or performing any of the customary functions of the said Chieftaincy.

(iv) A declaration that the 3rd defendant is not qualified to hold the office of Olisa of Imota and accordingly his purported appointment to that office is null and void and

(v) An injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from holding himself out as the Olisa of Imota or performing any of the customary functions of the said Chieftaincy.”

The learned trial Judge, Martins, J., took evidence, and after a close examination of the facts, made some findings of fact. It is necessary that I set them out hereunder:

“The third defendant, J. K. Okelarin was appointed the Olisa of Imota on 7th June, 1978. There was no dispute surrounding his appointment, and both parties to this action, agreed that he was appointed as such Olisa by the late Oba named Adejo that is, the predecessor in title of Lawrence Adebola Oredoyin who is the first defendant to this suit. The dispute surrounding the third defendant was that while the plaintiffs claimed an Olisa must belong to one of the ruling houses the contention of the defendants was that this needed not be so. The Judge resolved the issue as follows –

“On a calm view of these submission, on the evidence available before me, I am of the view that the third defendant is the present Olisa of Imota, he having been duly elected or appointed by late Oba Adejo, the predecessor in title of the first defendant. The plaintiffs themselves in their evidence did not deny his being the Olisa at Imota now. Some of them took part in his installation as the Olisa sixth, P. W. in particular who is the first plaintiff. It was contended that the Olisa must be from the Ruling Houses, the plaintiffs themselves could not confirm that all Olisas were from the Ruling Houses. The learned Judge further found that the Lagos State Government, by Gazette No. 15 of 7th October, 1981, acknowledged the appointment of the Olisa as having been made under the Chiefs Law.”

Now, there has not been an appeal against this finding of fact. No such appeal was lodged to the Court of Appeal and obviously, no such appeal could have been lodged, nor in fact, was lodged to this court. The Judge dismissed the case against the third defendant.

As regards the first defendant, the contention of the plaintiffs was that an appointment of Ramodu of Imota, by balloting, was contrary to native law and custom which only permitted consultation with Ifa Oracle.

The defendants however relied upon legislation, that is, the Oba and Chiefs Law 1981 No.6, which of course, permits no place for the Ifa Oracle. The Chieftaincy Declaration, which was made in 1957, and under which the 1st defendant was appointed, says nothing about consultation with Ifa Oracle. The learned trial Judge in regard to the Ifa Oracle held –

“The plaintiffs must be living in a different world whenever they talk about Ifa Oracle in the selection of Ramodu or they are behind time or they do not move with the time.”