Simeon Oladoye & Ors. V. The Administrator, Osun State & Ors. (1996)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGUNDARE, J.S.C.

By a writ of summons issued on 8th September, 1986, the plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of the Oladogba and Lala ruling houses of Ijimoba sued the defendants claiming:

“1. Declaration that Oladogba and Lala Ruling Houses are the only ruling houses entitled to the Baale of Ijimoba chieftaincy title.

2. Declaration that the directive of the Governor of Oyo State contained in letter reference No.CB. 141/32/50 of 28th May 1980, purporting to authorise an amendment of the Baale of Ijimoba Chieftaincy declaration of 1957 by the inclusion of Atoyebi as a third ruling house is ultra vires, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. Declaration that the purported amendment of the Baale of Ijimoba Chieftaincy declaration of 1957 by the Ejigbo Local Government Chieftaincy Committee sequel to the said Governor’s directive is invalid, against the rules of natural justice, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
4. Declaration that the Bale of Ijimoba Chieftaincy Declaration of 1957 is the only valid customary law regulating appointment to the Baale of Ijimoba chieftaincy.
5. Injunction restraining the defendants either by themselves or their agents, servants and privies from acting in pursuance of the purported amendment to the Bale of Ijimoba Chieftaincy declaration made by the Ejigbo Local Government Chieftaincy Committee.”

Pleadings were filed and exchanged. The case for the plaintiffs is that, according to the custom of Ijimoba, there are only two ruling, houses, that is, Oladogba and Lala from which the Baale of Ijimoba is appointed. This customary law, they claim, is reflected in the chieftaincy declaration made in 1957 in respect of the chieftaincy. Prior to 1976, the Baale of Ijimoba chieftaincy was a recognized title coming under Part II of the Chiefs Law of Oyo State. The title was in 1976 reduced in status to a minor chieftaincy with the Elejigbo of Ejigbo as the prescribed authority in respect thereof.

The defence, on the other hand, claims that there are three ruling houses, idest, Oladogba, Lala and Atoyebi and that to that extent, therefore, the chieftaincy declaration of 1957 is faulty.

Following the complaint of members of Atoyebi family of their exclusion from the 1957 declaration, the 3rd defendant, the Elejigbo, conducted an inquiry which found that there are three ruling houses. All the three families were informed of the findings of the inquiry and that the findings and recommendations would be forwarded to the State government. The government accepted the findings of the inquiry and ordered that steps be taken to amend the declaration to include Atoyebi ruling house after the vacancy occasioned by the death of Baale Akinloye in June 1978 might have been filled by a candidate from the Lala ruling house. Pursuant to the directive of the State Government, Chief Ashiru Jaiyeola from Lala ruling house was appointed and installed the Baale of Ijimoba in January 1981. The Chieftaincy declaration was subsequently amended to include the Atoyebi family and the plaintiffs being dissatisfied with the amendment, instituted the action leading to this appeal. At the trial of the action, evidence was led on both sides as to the number of ruling houses eligible to the Baale of Ijimoba Chieftaincy.

At the end of the trial and after addresses by learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge, in a reserved judgment, found that there were three ruling houses and in consequence dismissed the 1st and 4th claims of the plaintiffs but granted the orders sought in the 2nd and 3rd claims. On the 5th claim he found as follows:

“I have on the facts before me held that there are three ruling houses in Baale Ijimoba chieftaincy like the 3rd defendant incidentally concluded in Exhibits L to L6 – the report on his findings following the dispute that arose in 1978 after Baale Akinloye’s death. The said findings were the decision of the 3rd defendant as prescribed authority by virtue of Section 22(3) of the Chiefs Law. Having given the opposing parties the opportunities to be heard, it does not appear to me that the decision can be faulted. The decision, incidentally, like in this judgment, but not the amended declaration to which the Ejigbo Local Government Chieftaincy Committee was called in to make with the 3rd defendant out of an abundance of caution perhaps, is the binding customary law for the selection of a candidate to fill a vacancy in the Baale Ijimoba chieftaincy. As no declaration under the Chiefs Law can exist, I grant the injunction asked for in the fifth head of claim without prejudice to the orders I have made in this case and also the force and effect of the decision of the prescribed authority as stated in his report, Exhibits L to L6.”

The plaintiffs were unhappy with the judgment of the trial High Court and appealed to the Court of Appeal. Ogwuegbu J.C.A. (as he then was) in the lead judgment of that Court (with which Kutigi, J.C.A. (as he then was) and Sulu-Gambari J.C.A. agreed) affirmed the finding of the learned trial Judge that there are three ruling houses namely Oladogba, Lala and Atoyebi, that are entitled to the Baale of Ijimoba Chieftaincy. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs. It is against that judgment that the plaintiffs, with leave of the court below, have further appealed to this court upon seven grounds of appeal as contained in their amended notice of appeal filed on 14/11/94.

Pursuant to the rules of this court, written briefs of argument were filed and exchanged. In the plaintiffs amended appellants brief, the following questions are set down as calling for determination:

“1. Whether having regard to section 22(3) of the Chiefs Law Cap. 21 Laws of Oyo State of Nigeria, 1978, applicable in Osun State, it is not ultra vires a Prescribed Authority to determine a dispute involving conflicting claims by families aspiring to present candidates to the Chieftaincy as opposed to determining a dispute whether a person has been appointed in accordance with Customary Law applying to the Chieftaincy in dispute

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in declining to re-evaluate the evidence of the parties on the ground that the learned trial Judge had made a finding on the evidence when there was proof that the evaluation made by the learned trial Judge on conflicting traditional histories, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence led was wrong and when in any event the evidence was not one bothering on demeanour of witness
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the trial court on the issue of number of Ruling Houses in Ijimoba and/or question of common ancestry to or between the plaintiffs and the 4th respondent
4. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the learned trial judge in view of the inconsistency occasioned by the learned trial Judge’s grant of some of the reliefs sought and the refusal of others and
5. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the High Court reached without or in excess of jurisdiction by granting to the respondent a relief not claimed by them.”

The 1st-2nd respondents in their own brief of argument reframed the questions for determination as follows:

“1. Whether the Prescribed Authority in this case acted ultra vires in view of s. 22(3) of the Chiefs Law of Oyo State, applicable in Osun State

2. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in this case by declining to re-evaluate the evidence of the parties before the trial court
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the trial court on the issues of (a) common ancestry of the appellants and the 4th respondent and (b) the number of ruling houses traditionally entitled to the Baale of Ijimoba Chieftaincy having regard to the evidence led in this case
4. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the High Court even though the court granted some of the reliefs sought and refused others
5. Whether the High Court (as affirmed by the Court of Appeal) granted the 4th respondent’s relief not claimed by them and therefore acted in excess of/without jurisdiction in respect of those gratuitous reliefs, if any”

The 3rd and 4th respondents in their own brief adopted the five questions as formulated in the plaintiffs brief.