Oba Oluwadare Adepoju Adesina & Anor. V. Joseph Olu Ojo & Ors. (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHINWE E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A, (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Ondo State Akure judicial division (Akinwalere J) in the consolidated suits AK/371/96 and AK/372/96, delivered on the 16th day of December, 2004. The appellants herein were the 3rd and 4th defendants while the 1st and 2nd respondents were the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs respectively in the said suits.

The plaintiffs instituted their separate actions originally against the Military Governor of Ondo State and the Hon. Attorney General and Commissioner of Justice, Ondo State as the 1st and 2nd defendants respectively. The 3rd and 4th defendants, the appellants herein on their own application were joined as co-defendants by the Court. The Plaintiffs in their amended statement of claim sought the following reliefs:

1. (a) Declaration that they are the traditional Obas and paramount rulers of their respective communities in Akure and that they are entitled to be admitted to Part 1 of the Chief s Edict 1984 of Ondo State as recognized chiefs.

(b) That the plaintiffs be accorded the right to wear paraphernalia of office as traditional Obas and paramount rulers of their respective communities.

2.(a) An order setting aside as null, void and of no effect the 1st and 2nd defendants letters to the plaintiffs ref. No. CD/C. 147/Vol. 11/422 and No. CD/C. 147/Vol. 11/424 dated 6th November, 1996 by which the 1st and 2nd defendants relegated the plaintiffs in status by making them Akure Chiefs under the Deji.

(b) An order setting aside as null and void and of no effect whatsoever any purported steps taken or anything done by the 3rd and 4th defendants pursuant to the letter Ref. No. CD/C. 147/Vol. 11/422 and No. CD/C/147/Vol. 11/424, dated 6th November, 1996.

3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants their servants, agents or privies from relegating the plaintiffs in status by making them Akure chiefs under the Deji.

The facts which led to the institution of this case are as follows: The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs are the Iralepo of Isinkan, Akure; and the Osolo of Isolo, Akure respectively. They claim to have been installed as traditional and paramount rulers by the princes and the Kingmakers of their respective communities without any input whatsoever by the Deji of Akure. They claim that notwithstanding the contiguity of their communities to Akure, they have some festivals and characteristics which distinguish them from Akure. They are therefore not within the Chieftaincy structure of Akure and do not rank within their hierarchy. They claim to have been “Oba de facto” of their respective communities and what they are now seeking by this suit is government recognition of their positions as Obas and paramount rulers of their respective communities and to be admitted to Part 1 of the Chiefs Edict of 1984 of Ondo State as recognized chiefs.

They claim to have always conceded traditional supremacy to the Deji as the 1st class Oba in Akure and its environ. The defendants in their amended statement of defence denied the plaintiffs’ claims. They averred that the plaintiffs’ communities of Isinkan and Isolo are merely quarters within Akure; their traditional rulers cannot therefore be accorded the status of Oba as the Deji has for centuries reigned as the paramount traditional Oba of Akure land to the exclusion of any other paramount traditional ruler. The defendants alleged that following incessant agitations by the plaintiffs since their installation for recognition, the Ondo State Government, 1st and 2nd defendants reacted by issuing exhibits Q and V which sought to align the plaintiffs with Akure Chiefs.

The plaintiffs rejected the government decision and sought by this suit the nullification of the decision. The defendants alleged that the status of the plaintiffs as Iralepo and Osolo have always been that of minor chiefs of their quarters in Akure town since their voluntary merger with Akure over a century ago. Their ancestors had accepted their position within Akure Chieftaincy system without qualms. There was consequently no basis for the claim of the plaintiffs for recognition as paramount rulers under part 1 of Ondo State Chiefs Edict 1984. Issues were then joined and the case proceeded to trial. The plaintiffs called 9 witnesses and tendered documents in support of their claims. The defendants called 5 witnesses and also tendered documents to buttress their defence. In a reserved judgment, the learned trial judge gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs granting all the reliefs they sought.

Dissatisfied with the Judgment, the 3rd and 4th Defendants/Appellants have now appealed to this court. The 1st and 2nd defendants in the lower court (Governor of Ondo State and His Attorney-General) did not appeal and became nominal respondents in this appeal as 3rd and 4th respondents. The parties, except the 3rd and 4th respondents filed and exchanged briefs of argument which were duly adopted and relied upon at the hearing of the appeal.

Mr. Falowo learned counsel for the appellants in his brief of argument identified the following issues as arising for determination in this appeal. They are:

ISSUE 1

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits of the respondents having regard to the cause of action disclosed in their amended writ of summons and statement of claim and the time the cause of action arose.

ISSUE 2