Prince Oluwole Akinboni & Ors V. Prince John Akintope & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment delivered on the 29th November, 2013 in the High Court of Ondo State, Ore Judicial Division holden at Ondo wherein the Respondents were the plaintiffs and the Appellants were the Defendants.

The claim of the Respondents at the lower Court was for the following:?

1. Court declaration that the purported appointment and\or approval of appointment of the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant as the next Oloja of Otu-Costain, a minor Chieftaincy in Odigbo Local Government Area of Ondo State of Nigeria is wrongful, unlawful and runs contrary to the age long custom of the Akintope family in selecting a Baale now elevated to an Oloja in respect of the Otu-Costain minor chieftaincy and same should be set aside and declared null and void.?
2. Court declaration that by the age long custom of the Akintope family, it is the exclusive preserve of? the family to meet and select or elect a candidate amongst the three male stocks of the family i.e AKINTANTE, ADEMOYE OR KUMUYI to occupy the stool of Oloja of Otu-Costain anytime a vacancy

occurs in respect of the minor chieftaincy.

3. Court declaration that the Akintiope(sic) family having not met to select or elect the 1st defendant as the next Oloja of Otu-Costain in line with the age tong custom of the Akintope family, the 1st defendant is not eligible to be made or install (sic) the next Oloja of Otu-Costain by the 2nd defendant and the 2nd – 7th defendants cannot impose the 1st defendant as such on the plaintiffs.
4. Court declaration that any purported meeting held by the 1st defendant with any other person or persons appointing him as the next Oloja of Otu-Costain without the knowledge of the plaintiffs as the representatives of the Akintope family is wrongful, unlawful and runs contrary to the agelong custom of the family aforesaid and same should be set aside and declared null and void.
5. Court declaration that the 1st defendant as a civil servant on the payroll of the Ondo State Local Government Service Commission of Ondo State serving at the Odigbo Local Government Secretariat, Ore having not resigned his appointment as such at the time of his purported appointment and/or approval of appointment is not eligible to

con (sic) as the next Oloja of Otu-Costain which position also attracts payment of salaries from government.

6. Court declaration that the plaintiffs having met on 25th February 2011 and selected the 1st plaintiff as the next Oloja of Otu-Costain which decision was conveyed to the 2nd defendant for his approval vide the minutes of family meeting and covering letter dated 25th February and 26th February, 2011 respectively, the 1st plaintiff is the proper person to be made the Oloja of Otu-Costain in line with the age long custom of the Akintope family.
7. An order of Court on the 2nd defendant to approve the appointment of the 1st plaintiff and be instalted as the next Oloja of Otu-Costain as the prescribed authority over the minor chieftaincy aforesaid after presentation to Otu-Costain Community.
8. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd – 7th defendants, whether by themselves, their servants, agents and\or privies from installing the 1st defendant as the next Oloja of Otu-Costain.
9. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from parading himself or performing

the functions of the Oloja of

Otu-Costain aforesaid.

10. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 8th defendant whether by herself, her servants, agents and/or privies from treating and/or recognizing the 1st defendant in any manner whatsoever as the next Oloja of Otu-Costain.

The case of the Respondents briefly as contained in the evidence of the 1st Respondent (Pw2) is as follows: On 25th January, 2011, the family of Akintope held a meeting to discuss the burial of the late Oloja of Otu-Costain and select a new one. The 2nd Respondent was the Chairman of the meeting. At the meeting the PW4 nominated the 1st Respondent as the Oloja of Otu Costain. Members of three stocks of the Akintope family were present at the meeting.

The 1st Appellant did not attend the meeting even though he was invited. All members of the Akintope family who attended the meeting wrote down their names and signed. After the meeting, minutes of the meeting Exhibit A1 were sent to the 2nd Appellant. The 2nd Appellant told them to come back on the 28th May 2011 to identify by show of hands the person the family selected as Oloja. On the 24 May 2011 when they went to discuss a Land matter, the 2nd

Appellant said he would install the 1st Appellant Oloja of Otu Costain on the 28th May 2011.

On 25th May 2011, the Akintope family wrote a letter of protest Exhibit A2 to the Commissioner for chieftaincy Affairs about the decision of the 2nd appellant to install the 1st appellant as Oloja of Otu Costain.

According to the Pw2, it is not true that the 1st Appellant has been installed as Oloja of Otu Costain. It is not true that members of the Akintope family met at anytime to select the 1st Appellant as Oloja of Otu Costain. Rather his family met and selected him as Oloja of Otu-Contain.

He maintained that the family took a letter to the 2nd Appellant seeking for approval. What the 2nd Appellant ought to have done was to approve the selection of the PW2 by the family to be installed as Oloja of Otu-Costain. But the 2nd Appellant has not given the approval to date.

Letter dated 31st May 2011 to the 2nd Appellant was tendered through PW2, admitted and marked Exhibit A3. Another letter to the Commissioner for Chieftaincy Affairs was tendered through the PW2, admitted and marked Exhibit A4.