Olusola Fatunbi & Anor V Ebenezer O. Olanloye & Ors (2004)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

C. PATS-ACHOLONU, JSC.

This appeal is in respect of the right candidate to be the Baale of Igbogila. The appellants had instituted an action in the High Court claiming several reliefs the most prominent being that the 1st respondent being of Oshin family, which is not a ruling house in Igbogila, the approval accorded to his candidature is null and void and unconstitutional in that it is contrary to the customary law of Igbogila, and violates the spirit of the provisions of the Chiefs Law (Cap. 19) Laws of Western Nigeria as applicable in Ogun State. In the court of first instance, judgment was given to the plaintiffs. The present respondents thereupon appealed to the Court of Appeal which reversed the judgment of the High Court and gave judgment in favour of the said respondents and set aside the judgment of the High Court. Piqued no doubt by the turn of events the plaintiffs with the leave of the court appealed to this court. From the grounds of appeal, the appellants formulated 9 issues for determination . I hereby set them down as follows:-

1. Whether or not the appellants’ other reliefs or claims as endorsed on the Amended Writ of Summons and Amended Statement of Claim are secondary or incidental to the claim that Oshin is not a Ruling House in Igbogila.
2. Whether or not, as the Court of Appeal said, the requirement in Section 3, Illiterates Protection Law, that the writer of a document signed or thumb printed by an illiterate person must write his name in the jurat is meant for the purpose of tracing the writer. If so, what then is the protection given to the illiterate person on whose behalf the letter or document was written without compliance with the requirement of Section 3 of the said Law.
3. Whether or not the failure of the writer to comply with the provisions of Section 3 Illiterates Protection Law renders such letter or document so prepared, for and on behalf of an illiterate unenforceable, void ab initio or voidable at the instance of the illiterate person, if so, what is the ultimate effect of the document
4. Whether or not Exhibit “E” in this case, which does not contain the name and address of the writer, complied with the provisions of Section 3, Illiterates Protection Law (Cap. 47) Laws of Ogun State 1978 Edition.
5. Whether it was proper for the lower court to determine the validity of the appointment of the 1st respondent as Baale of Igbogila based on an invalid Exhibit E and not on the compelling oral testimony before the trial court.

6 If the above issue No. 4 is resolved in the negative, whether the 1st respondent can be said to have been validly appointed by the majority of the Kingmakers in Igbogila having regard to the oral testimonies of both parties before the trial court.

7. Whether from the abundant evidence on record, Osin Ruling House can be said to be the only Ruling House that exists in Igbogila.
8. Whether or not Exhibits ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ in this case, can be said to have been wrongly admitted having regard to the pleadings and evidence of the parties before the trial court and the provisions of Sections 93, 94, 96, 97 and 98 of the Evidence Act
9. Whether Section 10 of the Commission of Inquiry Law (Cap. 24) Laws of Ogun State, is applicable to Exhibits A, B and C and therefore render them inadmissible.

The respondent in turn framed five issues for consideration by the court. The issues distilled are as follows, to wit:

1. Whether the lower court was right in holding that the failure of the appellants to prove so as found by the learned trial Judge that there is Oshin Ruling House must affect the fate of other reliefs by the appellants which are secondary or incidental to the success of the main claim on the eligibility of Oshin as a ruling house in Igbogila.
2. Whether the lower court was right in holding that Section 3 of Illiterate Protection Law of Ogun State was complied with D.W.1 and that the appellants have failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was fraud, rigging or manipulation of votes as alleged by them.
3. Whether in relation to the number of ruling houses the lower court was right in holding that “it cannot be said that the plaintiffs/respondents have discharged their burden by calling sufficient and reliable evidence from the community to prove the custom they alleged”.
4. Whether the lower court was right in holding that Exhibits “A”, “B” and “C” were wrongly admitted by the trial court and that the trial court wrongly relied on them to find evidence of custom governing the Baaleship of Igbogila in favour of the appellants.
5. Whether the lower court was right in holding that by virtue of Section 10 of Commission of Inquiry Law (Cap. 24) Laws of Ogun State, Exhibits “A”, “B” and “C” were inadmissible to prove facts in recent years in relation to the Baaleship of Igbogila.

Before going further into the nuances of this matter having carefully read the pleadings of the parties, it is unarguable that the crux of the case i.e the real issue in controversy is whether Oshin is a Ruling House or in fact the Ruling House. After answering the poser, the next question is which of the contending persons should be the Baale of Igbogila; the 1st respondent said to be of Oshin which it is alleged is not a Ruling House and therefore cannot produce a traditional ruler of the community, or the 1st appellant for whom approval was not given but said to come from a Ruling House by his claim. A critical examination of the issues as made out by the appellants shows that the question to be resolved appears amorphous and not very succinct, and , they lack quality of clarity and precision. It seems to me that the issues as adumbrated by the respondents capture the essence of the ingredients as ingrained in the grounds of appeal.

Now let me take up issue No.1 because it seems to be the central kernel of the case. It is indeed from where other complaints have their inception. Let me recap the contents of paragraphs 1, 2, 7 and 8 of the plaintiffs otherwise the appellants’ Statements of Claim.

“Paragraph.1. 1st plaintiff is a member of the Fatunbi Ruling House of Igbogila.

Paragraph 2. The 2nd plaintiff is a member of the Morenikeji Ruling House of Igbogila.

Paragraph 7. The plaintiffs averred that there are 3 ruling houses in Igbogila viz:- Esu Ruling House, Fatunbi Ruling House and Morenikeji Ruling House.

Paragraph 8. The plaintiffs averred that there is no Oshin Ruling House in Igbogila”.

What this means from the appellants point of view is that if the 1st respondent does not come from any of the 3 Ruling Houses mentioned by the appellants in Paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim, then he cannot possibly be nominated or be selected as Baale as contended by the appellants. It is in this spirit that the appellants had averred in their pleadings that the court should declare that Esu, Fatunbi and Morenikeji are the only 3 Ruling Houses in Igbogila. Contrariwise, it is the respondents’ case that there is only one Ruling house in Igbogila which is Oshin, and that as a matter of fact the 1st and 2nd appellants and the 1st respondent had vied for and fought for the stool of Baale as members of Oshin Ruling House.

Now, interestingly, in the course of his testimony in court, the 1st appellant admitted having seen Exhibit ‘E’ (a document emanating from one of the Kingmakers) which has the expression “Oshin Ruling House” showing that he comes from Oshin written on it but he did not protest at the nomenclature or such a description of him being of Oshin ruling house. Equally too in reference to Exhibits F and F1, he said “The certificate showing their votes also show that my name was submitted by Oshin Ruling House”. To point out the importance attached to the issue of whether Oshin is a Ruling House or not the 4th plaintiff witness had testified as follows:-

“I do not know any candidate from Oshin Ruling House,…….. I used to hear of Oshin Family but I do not know of any Baale from Oshin House”.

The mainstay of the appellants’ case revolves around the one important point, that is, whether anyone from Oshin family which they contend is not a Ruling house in Igbogila can produce a Baale as it is not one of the 3 Ruling Houses. The conclusion of course is that if Oshin is a Ruling House, or as claimed by the respondents that the appellants once contested the chieftaincy title as coming from a Ruling house of Oshin same as the respondents are contesting, then the case of the appellants would fall flat down. The center piece therefore, of the case is to be found on the antecedent or history of what happened earlier before the institution of this action, id est, whether it is the story of the sour grapes and the fox, (the fox having made fruitless attempts by jumping up to pluck ripe apples abandoned the idea by stating that the apples were sour anyway). In the High Court, the learned trial court had held as follows:-