Nurudeen Adebisi Adeye & Ors V. Chief Sanni Agbatogun Adesanya & Ors (2001)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGWUEGBU, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Lagos Division dismissing the appeal of the defendants against the judgment of Hotonu, J. sitting in the Lagos Judicial Division of the High Court of Lagos State. The trial court granted all but one of the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs and even granted some reliefs not claimed. It is against this judgment of the court below that the defendants have now appealed to this court.

The plaintiffs who are respondents both in this court and the court below instituted the action “for themselves and on behalf of Asokeji Atesimara Royal Family of Ketu”. They claimed against the defendants jointly and severally as follows:

“1. A Declaration that the Alaketu of Ketu Chieftaincy declaration made by Ejimin District Council on 23rd September, 1970, and approved by Secretary to Military Government on 17th December, 1971, and registered on 29th January 1972, be set aside being made in fraud of the Osokeji Atesimara Royal Family by the inclusion of Odele Ruling House therein contrary to the Agreement reached by the then Alaketu Oba Karimu/Kackson Adisa Olanubi Oluwo with the Osokeji Atesimara Royal Family pursuant to an Agreement dated 6th august, 1955, and without obtaining the approval of the said Family or disclosing same to the said Family who only recently became aware of the fact when an Alaketu is now to be selected.

2. A Declaration that the selection of Nurudeen Adebisi Adeye as a candidate for the office of Alaketu of Ketu is irregular, invalid, null and void and of no legal effect as being contrary to traditional law and custom of Ketu in that he was no member of Odele Family nor of Osokeji Atesimara Ruling House nor is he a native of Ketu and was not selected by lawful or legitimate members of Odele House nor by anyone belonging to Osokeji Ruling House.
3. A Declaration that the only lawful and competent candidate offered for the office of Alaketu of Ketu in succession to Oba Alaketu of Ketu Karimu/Kackson Adisa Olanubi Oluwo is Prince Adeyemi Adefowora and that he is entitled to be presented by 8th and 9th defendants and other kingmakers and/or all otherwise qualified persons to 11th defendant for recognition and other ceremonies to perfect his succession to the throne of his aforesaid predecessor Oba Alaketu of Ketu.

4 ……………………………………………………….

5 ……………………………………………………….

6 ……………………………………………………….

The last three reliefs sought by the plaintiffs are for injunctive orders.

By a chieftaincy declaration made on 23rd September, 1970 by Ejimin District Council, approved on 17th December, 1971 and registered on 29th January, 1972 pursuant to the Chiefs Law Cap 19, Laws of Western Region of Nigeria, 1959 which was then applicable, (Exhibit “D”) it was declared that there are three Ruling Houses in Ketu, namely:

(i) Odele Ruling House,

(iii) Ralu Ruling House and

(iii) Osokeji Ruling House.

When the stool became vacant, the Epe Local Government by a public notice dated 7th April, 1985, invited members of the Odele Ruling House to present a candidate to fill the vacancy. This invitation was pursuant to Exhibit “D” – the registered declaration. It would seem that Odele family presented the 1st defendant, Nurudeen Adebisi Adeyeye as the candidate. Following the presentation, the plaintiffs commenced the action, which led to this appeal.

The case of the plaintiffs as contained in their amended statement of claim and evidence may be summarised thus. That the Osokeji family is by tradition and custom the only Ruling Family at Ketu, that the former Alaketu of Ketu conceded that fact and gave a written undertaking to that effect but later joined in the making of Exhibit “D” which went contrary to his written undertaking. They contended that Exhibit “D” was not valid because it did not represent their custom relating to the chieftaincy and was made without consultation with their family as their interests were affected by the extension of the chieftaincy to other families. They further contended that Exhibit “D” was fraudulently procured.