Philip Olagunju & Anor V. Chief Olawumi Obajin (The Ororin Of Irorin, Aaye Quarters, Ilawe Ekiti) (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal arose from the judgment of the Ekiti State High Court Ado Ekiti Judicial Division delivered on 27th June, 2008 by J.O. Adeyeye, J. in which the learned trial judge dismissed all the claims of the appellants as plaintiffs.

The background facts are that the appellants instituted this action against the respondent and one late Patrick Adu as defendants. The claim before the trial court was as follows:-

a) “A declaration that Aro family of Aaye Quarters, Ilawe Ekiti has exclusive right to nominate candidates to fill the vacant posts of Aro, Inufinba, Bobajua, Akogun, Agbankin and all other chieftaincies in Aaro family of Aaye Quarters, Ilawe Ekiti.

b) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant his privies or servants from nominating and or installing any candidate or candidates as Aro, Inufinba, Bobajua, Akogun, Agbaakin and all other chieftaincies in Aaro family of Aaye Quarters, Ilawe Ekiti”.

Shortly after the writ of summons was taken out and served, Patrick Adu who was the second defendant died, his name was thereafter struck out.

The appellants instituted the action in a representative capacity for and on behalf of Aro family Aaye Quarters, Ilawe Ekiti. On their part, they claim to be members of Aro family, Irorin Aaye Quarters, Ilawe Ekiti. The Aro family were said to have three branches Oke-Aro, Aarin-Aro and Isale-Aro with several chieftaincy titles, some of which are vacant, namely Bobajua, Inufinba, Akogun, and Aro. The appellants’ family had nominated their members to fill two of the vacant chieftaincy titles, namely Aro and Bobajua. The appellants claimed that only their family could exclusively nominate and produce candidates to fill those vacancies. The names of past holders of the chieftaincy titles were given in evidence and the appellants in their evidence claimed that Oloja Aaye is the head of Aaye Quarters and is the lawful person who can install any person presented to him by the appellants. It was said that sometime in 2002 the respondent who is said to be a chief priest from Irorin unilaterally nominated late Patrick Adu who came from the

appellants’ family and made moves to install him as Bobajua without consultation with the appellants’ family. The appellants protested against the action of the respondent but the installation was stalled by his demise. The appellants contended that the respondent lacked the power to install any person to fill their various family chieftaincy titles. The appellants gave instances in the past when the respondent tried to install some chiefs but, he was disallowed by the Local and State Governments. The appellants insisted that Irorin is part and parcel of Aaye Quarters, Ilawe Ekiti.

On the part of the respondent, he contended that he is the head of Irorin Quarters, a separate and distinct entity from Aaye Quarters, Ilawe Ekiti and that he has the power to install any person or persons as chiefs in his domain. He contended that the appellants are from Bobajua family in Irorin Quarters and not from Aro family in Aaye Quarters. It was his contention that there is no Aro family in Irorin Quarters and admitted that he had no authority to install chiefs in Aaye Quarters, which is outside his domain. He insisted he had installed chiefs in the past even though the certificates of installation pleaded by him were not tendered in evidence. A map of Ekiti South West Local Government showing Irorin as Quarters pleaded and tendered in evidence by the respondent was rejected as an Exhibit before the trial court.

At the close of trial, the learned trial judge dismissed the case of the appellants for failure to prove their case.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the appellants originally filed a Notice of Appeal on 18th August, 2008 with an omnibus ground of appeal, With the leave of this court granted on 22nd October, 2009, the appellants filed five (5) additional grounds of appeal. The Amended Notice of Appeal dated 27th October, 2009 was filed on 12th November, 2009 containing six (6) grounds of appeal from which the appellants formulated a sole issue for determination by this court thus:

“Whether from the pleadings and evidence adduced at the trial, the appellants’ claims ought not to have succeeded”.

In response, the respondent on his part adopted the sole issue as formulated by the appellants but, slightly modified. It reads thus:

“Whether from the pleadings and evidence adduced at the trial, the appellants’ claim ought to have succeeded”