T. O. Owoseni V. Joshua Ibiowotisi Faloye (2005)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

DAHIRU MUSDAPHER, JSC

In the High Court of Justice for Ondo State of Nigeria, in the Akure Judicial Division and in suit No AK/143/90, the appellant herein and one other now deceased on behalf of themselves and the ONISERI family of IJU claimed against the respondents herein as the defendants as follows:-

“1. Declaration that the first defendant is not entitled to be appointed as CHIEF ONISERI of ISERI Quarter of Iju in Akure Local Government of Ondo State;

Declaration that the purported appointment and installation of the said first defendant as the Chief of Iseri Quarter of Iju in Akure Local Government of Ondo State by the second defendant is most irregular, illegal, void and of no legal effect;

Declaration that the second defendant acted ultra vires and was in fundamental breach of his traditional role as the OKITI of IJU by taking active part in the nomination and appointment of the first defendant as the ONISERI of ISERI Quarter of Iju in Akure Local Government of Ondo State;

An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from parading himself as Chief Oniseri Chieftaincy of Iju in Akure Local Government of Ondo State.”

After the delivery and the exchange of pleadings, the parties led evidence in support of the positions they took in the matter. After the address of counsel, in his judgment delivered the 16th day of February, 1995, the learned trial judge allowed, the 2nd 3rd and 4th reliefs recited above. The learned trial judge, however dismissed, the first relief. Both parties, the defendants and the plaintiffs felt unhappy with part of the decision of the trial court and respectively appealed and cross-appealed to the Court of Appeal. In its judgment delivered on the 13th day of July, 2000, the Court of Appeal per Ibiyeye JCA who read the lead judgment which was concurred to by Akintan JCA (as he then was) and Akaahs JCA, said at page 299 of the record thus;-

“The main issue for consideration in issue No 1. whether or not the respondent complied with the relevant statute on the resolution of disputes in minor chieftaincy tussles in Ondo State. It is common ground that there was a dispute between the parties on the rightful successor to the vacant stool of Oniseri of Iseri Quarter of Iju. It is the bounden duty of the trial court to resolve the issue in accordance with the prescribed legislation which is the Chiefs’ Edict 1984.”

The learned justice referred to Section 13(4) to (7) of the Chiefs Edict 1984 and after due consideration of the relevant provisions, came to this conclusion at page 303 in the aforesaid records:-

“He, in effect, (the plaintiff) failed to exhaust all the remedies provided by the statute in his attempt to seek redress against the decision of the 2nd appellant. Thus it is crystal clear that he did not make a representation to the Hon. Commissioner for Chieftaincy Affairs in Ondo State, In retrospect, I hold that since Section 1-3 of the Chiefs’ Edict 1984 has prescribed a particular remedy in dealing with minor Chieftaincy disputes, and such remedy has not been exhausted by the respondent, it was hasty on his part to recourse to the High Court to seek declara-tions of which to some extent have been made by the 2nd appellant (the prescribed authority). The action of the respondent in the lower court was premature and it did not give rise to a cognisable cause of action, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”

The Court of Appeal was in the main of the view, that having resolved this issue against the appellant herein, it has comprehensively and completely disposed of all the other issues submitted to the court for the determination of the main appeal. With respect to the cross-appeal, the learned justice at page 304 of the printed record stated:-

“The only issue raised by the cross-appellant in the cross-appeal reads:-

“Whether there are sufficient evidence before the learned trial judge to establish the fact, that defendant/appellant is not a member of Oniseri family of Iseri Quarter Iju in Akure Local Government of Ondo State.”

“It will be recalled that the main appeal was decided on the ground of jurisdiction in the court of trial. It is therefore not necessary to consider and determine the only issue identified by the cross-appellant as that issue concerns the merit of the claim before the lower court”.