Oba Rufus A. Adejugbe & Anor. V. Engr. Joseph Akanbi Ologunja (2004)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

PATS-ACHOLONU, J.S.C.

The main points in contention in the case are who of the 2nd appellant and the respondent should occupy the relatively minor chieftaincy stool of Edemo of Ado-Ekiti. Following the procedure of appointment by way of election conducted by the 1st appellant as against the advice of Elerebi the eldest of their people the 2nd appellant won the contest and was duly recognised as Edemo, the two contestants having come from the same Aduloju ruling house.

The respondent then applied to the High Court and sought for an order of certiorari and prohibition against the appellants. He equally claimed other reliefs and injunction restraining the 1st appellant from appointing the 2nd appellant. The gravamen of his complaint was that the procedure used in the presentation of the 2nd appellant as Edemo was not in accord with their tradition. In the affidavit in support of his prayers in the High Court, he indicted the 1st appellant for refusing to recognize him in spite of all entreaties by the members of the Aduloju ruling house, and referred to a letter from the four people who had hitherto vied the position with him but who later withdrew and canvassed for his appointment. Evidence revealed that the 1st appellant took umbrage at the fact that the Aduloju family had rejected the candidature of the 2nd appellant because he was said to be a descendant of a slave, one late Opokiti. His anger against the 1st appellant the Ewi of Ado-Ekiti in particular was that in his palace the Ewi himself had pleaded with the ruling house of the Aduloju not to refer to the 2nd appellant as a son of a slave. The respondent had queried the procedure of making the appointment by way of election which he lampooned as being contrary to the tradition and custom of appointing or nominating an Edemo.

In the High Court, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application stating that the procedure by way of conducting an election to determine the preference of the candidate of the ruling house was in order and that the appointment of the 2nd appellant was sequel to the majority votes he garnered in the ruling house.

On appeal, the court below allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower court. The appellants now on record appealed to this court by filing 12 grounds of appeal from which they framed 5 issues for determination. These issues distilled from the grounds of appeal are as follows:-

1. Whether the misconstruing of the appellants’ case by the lower court did not occasion a miscarriage of justice when the facts stated to be undisputed between the parties which were disputed formed the kernel of the decision of the lower court to the detriment of the appellants’ case.
2. Whether the lower court was right to have totally abandoned the relevant, pungent and straight forward issues formulated by the pm1ies but instead raised new issues suo motu that were not covered or circumscribed by the grounds of appeal filed in the case.
3. Whether the lower court was right in the way it applied the decision in the case of Ekpendu v. Erika when the decision was totally irrelevant to the case put forward by the parties and this led to a miscarriage of justice against the appellants.
4. Whether the court below was right in the view it took of the provisions ofsection 13(4) of the Chiefs Laws of Ondo State applicable to Ekiti State when it held that there was no dispute on the Edemo stool to warrant the invocation of the said sub-section and when it held that there was valid nomination and presentation of the respondent to the 1st appellant by the Aduloju family when this was not so.
5. Whether the lower court was right to have allowed the appeal before it by granting all the reliefs claimed in the originating process by the respondent when many of the reliefs had been abandoned by the respondent and whether from the totality of the facts of the case the respondent was entitled to judgment.

The respondent who cross-appealed framed 5 issues in his brief which apparently took care of the main brief and the cross-appeal as well; to wit:

1. Whether the lower court’s view that the material facts in this case are not in dispute is a proper inference from the evidence on record.
2. Whether the principal and the sub-issues formulated by the Court of Appeal properly arose from the grounds of appeal before the court.
3. Whether reference to the principle in Ekpendu v. Erika by the Court of Appeal on the importance of the concurrence of the family head in the sale of family land as an analogy in defining the importance of the role of the family head in the nomination exercise by a ruling house has not occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
4. Whether the lower court was right in its conclusion that the 1st appellant exceeded his jurisdiction under section 13(4) of the Chiefs Law of Ondo State
5. Whether the lower court was right in allowing the respondents’ appeal and granting the reliefs sought by the respondent.

On the 1st issue the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that contrary to the holding by the Court of Appeal that the material facts in the case are not disputed, there is abundant evidence that much was disputed. He referred to the letters by Elerebi to the 1st appellant dated 30th November, 1992 and 24th February, 1993 one of which the Court of Appeal described as a nomination when in fact it was not one of that, it was a letter “written by the Elerebi in which he explained his roles in the selection of a successor to the Edemo stool”.

They further argued that the facts which the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal said were not in dispute are the very kernel of the case between the parties. The respondent in his contra argument as reflected in his brief contended that what the appellate court stated in its judgment as to facts not in dispute was the correct statement of the matter.

Indeed a careful reading and understanding of the import of the letter by the Elerebi, Pa Matthew Faje shows that he was informing the Ewi of Ado-Ekiti of the name submitted. In the 2nd letter of 24th February, 1993 he stated among other things;

“You will only permit your Royal Highness to repeat that Engr. Joseph Akanbi Ologunja is the choice of his people and would wish you to give his appointment due consideration,”

In this first letter that was dated 30th November, 1992 the Elerebi ended the letter in this manner;

“I have also the opinion that I have exhausted all avenues necessary to carry out the assignment given by your Royal Highness and to say that Engr. Akanbi Ologunja is the choice of Adeloju ruling house and is hereby recommended for your consent and consequent appointment .., It is in your wisdom and God’s guidance that you gave me the privilege as Elerebi to advice you on this issue and pray that you would live long enough to enjoy good things of the world.”

My understanding of these letters is that they represent the advice given by the Elerebi who merely was requested to make a representation to the Ewi of Ado-Ekiti who may or may not accept the recommendation. It was not and did not mean a final representation by the ruling house. It must be understood that the respondent had alluded to a statement credited to the 1st appellant that the respondent and his supporters should cease describing the 2nd appellant as a son of a slave, There was a dispute as to who was really the nominee of the family.

In the affidavit sworn on 21st March, 1994, the respondent deposed as follows:-