Nathaniel Oyekan & Ors. V. Amos Akinrinwa & Ors. (1996)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

ONU, J.S.C.

In the High Court of Justice, Oyo State of Nigeria holden at Oyo, in SUIT NO. HOY/5/83 the appellants herein as plaintiffs, claimed against the respondents, then as defendants, the following reliefs as endorsed on their Writ of Summons:-

“1. Declaration that under the traditional customs of Akinmorin only male lines are recognised for the purposes of considering, selecting, appointing and installing Baales of Akinmorin.

2. Declaration that there are FIVE, based on MALE LINES, and NOT SEVEN, Ruling Houses for Baale of Akinmorin Chieftaincy in the Oyo South Local Government Area of Oyo Stale.
3. Declaration that the 1st defendant who is from a female line, is not entitled to be considered, selected, appointed, approved, and or installed as Baala of Akinmorin on the ground that such consideration., selection, appointment, approval, and or installation are contrary to the traditional customs and practice of Akinmorin which recognise MALE LINES only for the purpose of appointing Baales of Akinmorin.
4. An order removing the names of the following purported Ruling Houses, that is, (1) OLA, (2) WINSESAN (OYEDUNTAN) for the Baaleship of Akinmorin the Oyo South Local Govt Area of Oyo State from the registered Declaration in respect of succession to the Baaleship of Akinmorin.
5. An order setting aside any selection already done and or likely to be done, any appointment already made and/or likely to be made, any approval already given and/or likely to be given, and/or any installation already performed and/or likely to be performed of any Baale of Akinmorin from the FEMALE LINE, particularly that of the 1st defendant by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants before the final determination of this suit.”‘

Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged by the parties. The case went to trial in which the learned trial Judge (Ibidapo Obe. J.) on 25th April. 1986 after sifting the evidence adduced by all sides in line with their pleadings (the 1st respondent having filed his statement of defence separately in answer to the appellants statement of claim and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents filed a joint statement of defence ), gave judgment against the respondents. Being aggrieved by this decision the respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal sitting in Ibadan (hereinafter referred to as the court below) which on 20th July 1988 allowed their appeal. The appellants on being dissatisfied with the said decision have now appealed to this court on four grounds contained in their Notice of Appeal.

I wish firstly to state briefly the facts giving rise to the appeal herein. Which arose from a dispute involving the chieftaincy office of the Baale of Akinmorin in Oyo Local Government of Oyo State and which is a recognised chieftaincy under Part 2 of the Chiefs Law Cap 21 Laws of Oyo State, 1978. It was registered and approved by a Declaration in 1956. The Declaration which provided for seven Ruling Houses is Exhibit ‘M’ in this case. Following the death of David Amole Oladoja, the former Baale of Akinmorin in 1979, the Government of Oyo State, caused to be set in motion in 1980 machinery for appointing a new Baale whereby the OLA RULING HOUSE as contained in Exhibit ‘M’ was called upon to nominate a candidate or candidates for the vacant stool. The five appellants took out a writ against the four respondents before the trial court aforesaid, claiming that the last two Ruling Houses contained in Exhibit ‘M’ (Ola and Winsesan-Oyeduntan) came from female lines and contending in addition, that in Exhibit ‘M’ they are not recognised Ruling Houses on their own.

The Ola Ruling House subsequently unanimously selected and presented the 1st respondent (now said to be dead) but the traditional Akinmorin Kingmakers rejected his candidature on the ground that he was an illiterate as well as emerging from a female line out of the five, as against the seven Ruling Houses set out in Exhibit ‘M’. Despite requests by the Government for a reconsideration of their stand on the basis that their decision was not on a valid ground, the kingmakers maintained that the 1st respondent was disqualified. In consequence thereof, the Government of Oyo State empanelled warrant kingmakers to perform the functions of the traditional kingmakers who subsequently selected the 1st respondent as the rightful and proper person to fill the vacancy. After the selection procedure had been completed, the 1st respondent’s appointment was approved and he was installed as the Baale of Akinmorin. The contentions of the appellants in their writ and statement of claim were that the incumbent Baale was an illiterate; that he was from a female line and that there are, in fact, five Ruling Houses as against the seven set out in Exhibit ‘M’. They further contended that the selection, appointment and/or installation of the 1st respondent were contrary to the customs, tradition and practice of Akinmorin.

Sequel to the appeal filed in this court the appellants filed their changed briefs of argument in accordance with the rules of court. Four issues were distilled from the four grounds of appeal filed by the appellants who, in the alternative, submitted six additional issues for our determination, to wit:

1. Whether the 1st respondent being from a female line is entitled unconditionally, to be considered, nominated and appointed in the first instance, as Baale of Akinmorin in compliance with Akinmorin Chieftaincy Declaration (Exhibit ‘M’) being the Native law and custom governing and regulating such consideration, nomination and appointment.
2. If not so, whether the condition, precedent for the consideration, nomination and subsequent appointment of a candidate from the female line, have arisen under the provisions of Exhibit ‘M’, the Baale Akinmorin Chieftaincy Declaration being the Native Law and Custom governing and regulating such consideration,nomination and appointment.
3. If the answers to the above “TWO ISSUES” are in the negative, whether the qualification or otherwise of the 1st respondent under sections 14 and 15 of the Chiefs Law (Cap 21) Laws of Oyo State, has arisen at all.
4. Whether in view of the preponderance of evidence adduced by the plaintiffs before the trial Court upon which the court found that a female line and that the purported Ola Ruling House represents a female line which is not a ruling house as such, the consideration, nomination and subsequent appointment of the 1st respondent as Baale of Akinmorin was valid as being in compliance with the provisions of Exhibit ‘M’ Baale of Akinmorin Chieftaincy Declaration.

ALTERNATIVELY:-

5. What if any, is the cumulative effect of non-compliance with the provisions of Baale Akinmorin Chieftaincy Declaration, Exhibit ‘M’ – in the consideration, nomination and appointment of the 1st respondent as Baale of Akinmorin.
6. Whether the Kingmakers duly performed their functions as required of them under sections 14 and 15 of the Chiefs Law of Oyo State (Cap. 21)
7. If so, whether the appointment of warrant Kingmakers by the Government in the circumstances was right and not contrary to section 17 of the said Chiefs Law of Oyo State (Cap. 21)
8. Whether, even if the 1st respondent is qualified under sections 14 and 15 of the said Chiefs Law of Oyo State, his appointment as Baale of Akinmorin could stand as valid in view of non-compliance with the provisions of Exhibit ‘M’ (Baale of Akinmorin Chieftaincy Declaration) being the Native Law and Custom governing and regulating the said appointment in the consideration, nomination, appointment and presentation for approval of the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent.
9. Whether after the close of addresses by counsel in a case, it is an infraction of a litigant’s right of fair hearing guaranteed under section 33 of the 1979 Constitution and audi alteram partem rule to send a list of further and/or fresh authorities and comments made thereon to the Judge with copies sent to the other counsels (sic) in the case for their information and comments if they so wished.
10. Whether in the particular case in hand, the learned trial Judge based his judgment on the said further address.

The respondents filed no brief or briefs of argument either separately or jointly.

At the hearing of the appeal on 22nd April, 1996 the appellants were neither present nor were they represented by counsel. The 1st respondent who was also shown to be absent and unrepresented, was said to have had his name struck out by an order of this court made on 22nd March, 1993 upon the announcement of his demise. Mr. O.A. Boade, Acting D.O. L.A.S, Oyo State, who announced his appearance for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents and also confirmed the death of the 1st respondent, stated that he had sent an application by courier mail service before leaving Ibadan to Abuja for the hearing of the appeal. As the case was fixed for hearing on that day, this court ruled that the appeal be taken as argued on the brief filed since the appellants and their counsel were absent in court and judgment was accordingly reserved until today.

The argument proffered on the appellants brief has been made in the following order:

1. Issues 1, 2, 5 and 8 relate to Ground 1
2. Issues 3, 6 and 7 are predicated on Ground 2.
3. Issue 4 is concomitant with Ground 4, while
4. Issues 9 and 10 emanate from Ground 3 respectively.

Before my consideration of these issues as formulated, I wish to reiterate this court’s admonition to counsel times without number that it is wrong for counsel to formulate issues for determination in excess of the grounds of appeal filed. Indeed, it has been stated to need further emphasis and stressing by this court that except in special cases where the grounds of appeal so dictate it is undesirable to formulate an issue in respect of each ground of appeal. See Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Aideyan (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 118) 646; Buraimoh v. Bamgbose (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 352 and Utih v. Onoyivwe (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 166) 116 at 214, to mention but a few.

In the instant case where there were only four grounds of appeal filed, the precipitate action of learned counsel for the appellants to have submitted in his brief ten issues in all for our determination is, to say the least, superfluous and unsolicited. The learned counsel for the appellants having however neatly put the ten issues under four heads as above, and in the absence of any issues proffered on behalf of the respondents, I will treat the above issues in their order of sequence and arrangement as follows:-

ISSUES 1, 2, 5 AND 8: