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.
- 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.
- 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.
The 1st to 9th defendants who are the principal defendants denied that Osokeji Atesimara Royal Family of Ketu is the only Ruling House entitled to present a candidate to fill the vacancy created by the death of the Alaketu of Ketu. They relied on Exhibit “D” and contended that from the time of its registration it superceded any other customary law pertaining to the chieftaincy.
The learned trial judge in a reserved judgment concluded thus:
“The declaration is contrary to traditional history and Custom of Ketu, it was made in violation of the rule of natural justice and as such it is null and void and of no effect.”
He proceeded to grant the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs. He also made the following orders which did not form part of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs:
“(e) Within three months from today the Local Government Council concerned should take necessary action to make and register chieftaincy declaration for Alaketu of Ketu chieftaincy reflecting Osokeji Atesirnara as the only Ruling House.
(f) Within two months after registration of the said declaration of Alaketu of Ketu chieftaincy appropriate steps should be taken as laid down by the Oba and Chiefs Law of Lagos State to fill the vacant office of Alaketu of Ketu.”
The appeal of the defendants to the court below was dismissed. It held that the learned trial Judge came to a correct conclusion when he held that the declaration is null and void for the reason of failure to give a hearing to the persons whose interests were affected. The defendants have further appealed to this court. From the grounds of appeal filed, they submitted two issues for our determination:
“(a) Whether or not the lower Courts properly evaluated the evidence before them when they found that Osokeji Atesirnara is the only Ruling House in Ketu
(b) Whether or not it was therefore proper for the lower Courts to have ordered that Epe Local Government council, should within three months from the day of the judgment, take necessary action to make and register a chieftaincy Declaration for Alaketu Chieftaincy reflecting Osokeji Atesimara as the only ruling House when in fact, the respondents did not even ask for this relief at all”
The above issues flow from the grounds of appeal filed and having been adopted by the plaintiffs in paragraph 5.03 of their brief of argument, it is unnecessary for me to reproduce the issues identified by them in their said brief.
The defendants submitted in their brief that the trial Judge as well as the court below failed to properly evaluate the evidence proffered by the plaintiffs themselves with regard to the issue of the Ruling House for the Alaketu Chieftaincy. They contended that the plaintiffs in their statement of claim averred that their ancestor was one Osokeji who had an only son called Adeniran who begat four children, namely, Efunderu, Adeona, Otunwunmi, and Otujeru. The defendants further contended that the record of proceedings at the trial court is replete with evidence that Otunwunmi Atesimara is just one branch of the entire Osokeji Ruling House and that Exhibit “B” (the agreement with late Oba) specifically stated that it is the entire Osokeji family that will produce future Obas and not only one branch (Otunwunmi Atesimara) as represented by the plaintiffs. We were urged to set aside the findings of the lower courts to the effect that only one branch, namely, Osokeji Atesimara branch as the only Ruling House fit to fill the Alaketu Chieftaincy because the pleading and the evidence of the plaintiffs did not justify that finding.
The plaintiffs in the brief of argument filed on their behalf submitted that the court below rightly upheld the finding of the trial court that the plaintiffs’ family, Osokeji family (otherwise known as Osokeji Atesimara) is the only ruling family in Ketu according to traditional history and custom of Ketu. They further submitted that the entire Osokeji family got the late Oba Kaekson Oluwo Adenuga who came from the female line to sign an undertaking that he would not allow anyone who is not from Osokeji family to succeed him and that the courts below came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs’ family is the only ruling House to provide candidate for the stool of Alaketu of Ketu.
The learned trial Judge held as follows:
“As earlier stated in this judgment the family history of Osokeji Atesirnara narrated by the plaintiffs was not challenged by the defendants. The history is quite clear and I believe it. It is to the effect that there is only one ruling family at Ketu and that is Osokeji Atesimara family. It appears very clear that the declaration Exhibit “D” was irregularly made without the knowledge of the people concerned for the purpose of extending the chieftaincy right to other two families. The declaration is contrary to traditional history and custom of Ketu, it was in violation of the rule of natural justice and as such it is null and void and of no effect.”
The court below agreed with the above findings of the learned trial Judge.
It went further and held:
“In this case, the trial Judge who heard and saw the witnesses believed the respondents’ witnesses. The findings of facts which he made reasonably follow (sic) from their evidence which he believed. There is really nothing of substance urged why he should not have believed these witnesses, and, particularly, the 1st plaintiff witness ….. Quite apart from the evidence of other witnesses who are of the same family as the 1st plaintiff witness, there is evidence of the 3rd witness, Koya Rufai, who is a member of Odele family and who testified that the Osokeji family is the only ruling house in Ketu and that the Odele family is not a ruling House.”
I am unable to see the substance in the contention of the defendants that the courts below did not properly evaluate the evidence before them when they found that Osokeji Atesimara is the only ruling House in Ketu.
The plaintiffs in paragraph 2 of their amended statement of claim averred as follows:
“2. The 1st plaintiff is the head of Oshokeji Royal family which is otherwise known and called OSOKEJI ATESIMARA ROYAL FAMILY OF KETU which is hereafter referred to as “Osokeji family”.
In their statement of defence, the 1st to 9th defendants admitted paragraph 2 of the amended statement of claim in paragraph 1 of their statement of defence thus:
“1. The 1st to 9th defendants admit paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 48 and 55 of the amended statement of claim.”
The defendants cannot now retract their admission of a specific fact pleaded by the plaintiffs. As that fact was admitted by the defendants, no further proof of its truth was required and they are bound by it and the trial court was justified in acting on it. This court will not also countenance any argument of the defendants to the effect that the trial court or the court below did not evaluate the evidence relating to such admitted fact. See Okparaeke v. Egbuonu & Ors. 7 WACA 53 at 55, National investment & Properties Co. Ltd v. The Thompson Organisation Ltd & Ors. (1969) 1 All NLR 138 at 142 and Ajuwon v. Akanni & Ors. (l993)9NWLR (Pt.316) 182 at 204. From the state of the pleadings it cannot be correct as canvassed by the defendants that the lower courts did not properly evaluate the evidence before them when they found that Osokeji Atesimara is the only ruling house in Ketu. The task of the defendants in this appeal is made more difficult by the fact that there are before us concurrent findings of fact by both the trial court and the court below. It is settled law that such concurrent findings, where there is sufficient evidence to support them should not be disturbed. See Njoku &Ors. v. Eme & Ors. (1973) 5 SC 293 at 306 and Kale v. Coker (1982) 12 SC252 at 271. If anyone is to complain about the findings, it is not the defendants who are not members of Osokeji family.
In view of what I have said above, I must answer the first question in the affirmative.
Coming to the second question submitted by the defendants, I agree that the learned trial Judge went beyond the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs when he ordered the Epe Local Government Council to make and register Chieftaincy declaration for Alaketu of Ketu chieftaincy reflecting Osokeji Atesimara as the only ruling house within three months from its judgment and prescribing the time within which the vacancy should be filled. As these reliefs were not before him, he was not competent to grant them. They were gratuitously made and are hereby set aside. The said orders are consequential and do not affect the judgment of the learned trial Judge.
In the final result, this appeal fails and it hereby dismissed with N10,000.00 costs to the plaintiffs.
SC.118/1995