Oba Lawal Ifabiyi V Chief Solomon Adeniyi & 2 Ors (2000)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

ONU, J.S.C. 

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division which on 30th April, 1992 unanimously reversed the decision of Orilonise, J. sitting at the High Court of Kwara State, Omuaran wherein the Plaintiff, herein Appellant, claimed against the defendants/respondents, jointly and severally for a declaratory order:-

“(1) That the plaintiff is the head of the Ile-Ire district and that he is the rightful title holder to represent Ile-Ire district in the Ifelodun-Irepodun Traditional Council.

(b) A perpetual injunction prohibiting the first defendant from parading himself or doing any act which may give false impression that he is the head of lle-Ire the 2nd and 3rd defendants and their servants and or agents from so treating the 1st defendant.”

After pleadings had been ordered, filed and exchanged by the parties, the appellant called one witness in proof of his claim while the defence called two witnesses. Some documents were tendered following which at the conclusion of the trial, learned Counsel on either side copiously addressed the learned trial Judge (Orilonise J.) who in a reserved judgment dated October 28, 1988, found for the appellant in part as follows:-

‘”Now, on the issue of who is the district head of Ile-Ire district between the plaintiff and the first defendants, I find from the evidence before me that the Oba Onire’s Stool had existed for about 300 years now.

It has been in existence for a period of over 250 years before the emergence of the Baleship or Obaship of Owa-Kajola, an institution founded only in 1940. I accept and believe the evidence of the 1st defendant that the first Oba of Owa Kajola was Oba Ogunbiyi while the present incumbent and 1st defendant is the second Oba along that line. From the totality of the evidence adduced in this case, I find that the plaintiff as the present Oba Onire of Owa Onire is therefore a more senior traditional ruler that the 1st defendant as the district head of Ile-Ire district. I therefore declare the plaintiff as the district head of Ile-Ire district. To decide otherwise would be tantamount to super-imposing a part on a whole, having earlier found that Owa Kajola is a breakaway fraction of Oba Onire.”

The evidence of the 1st defendant (DW1) that he is the paramount Onile of Ile-Ire district recognised by the Kwara State Government is a clear misapprehension of the contents of exhibits 2 and 4 which conveyed governmental approval that Ile-Ire district representative on the Ifelodun/Irepodun Traditional Council should be rotated between Owa Kajola and Owa Onire beginning with Owa Kajola. The appointment of the 1st defendant as a representative of Ile-Ire district in the Ifelodun/Irepodun Traditional Council does not automatically confer on him the district headship of Ile-lre district. Equally, I find from the evidence and having regards to S.76(2) (b) and 4(c) of the Kwara State Local Government Law. 1976 that unless by order of the Military Governor establishing a Traditional Council, a traditional title holder does not automatically qualify to be a member of such a Council because he is district head. Having held that the plaintiff and not the 1st defendant is the district head of Ile-Ire district, I order that the 2nd and 3rd defendants be henceforth restrained from treating the 1st defendant as the district head of Ile-Ire district. By his appointment as a representative of IIe-Ire district in the Ifelodun/Irepodun Council, either defendant under section 76(2) (b) the 1st defendant does not become the district head of Ile-Ire district and he is hereby restrained from parading himself as such.”

The trial Court thereupon concluded by making the following orders:-

“(i) That the plaintiff is hereby declared as the district head of the Ile-Ire district in Ifelodun/Irepodun Local Government.

(ii) The appointment of the 1st Defendant as a representative of Ile-Ire district in the Ifelodun/ Irepodun Traditional Council by the Military Governor of Kwara as contained in exhibits 2 and 4 does not entitle the 1st defendant to parade himself as the head or district head of Ile-Ire district.

(iii) The 2nd and 3rd defendants, their servants or agents are hereby perpetually restrained from treating the 1st defendant as the head or district head of Ile-Ire district.”

The 1st defendant/respondent (the 2nd and 3rd respondents being mere stakeholders remained passive) was unhappy with the said decision and so appealed to the Court below where he won. The appellant has appealed to this Court where, in accordance with the Rules of Court, he filed a written Brief of Argument in which he identified three issues from his four grounds as arising for our determination as follows:-

“(i) Is it proper for a Court, the Court of Appeal, to formulate issues (Ground 2).