The Attorney-general Ekiti State V. H.R.H. Oba M. Bamiteko & Anor. (2007)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.
In the High Court of Ekiti State holden at Ido-Ekiti the plaintiffs/Respondents claimed as per their Amended Statement of claim dated the 4th November, 2005 for the following:-
- A declaration that the Onigogo of Igogo is not the sole person who should appoint the Edemo of Igogo-Ekiti.
- A declaration that by the Igogo-Ekiti native Law and Custom, it is the Idemo Community that selects the Edemo and presents him to the Onigogo to be appointed to the Edemo Chieftaincy stool.
- A Declaration that the appointment of Kolawole Adewunmi to the vacant stool of the Edemo of Igogo Chieftaincy stool is unconstitutional, against Igogo native Law and custom, wrongful and: therefore null and void.
- An order of the Court revoking the appointment of Kolawole Adewunmi, the second Defendant to the Edemo Chieftaincy stool of Igogo-Ekiti and that Kolawole Fakunle be appointed and installed the Edemo forthwith.
The 3rd Defendant/Appellant/Applicant was joined as a party by an order of the High Court dated 13th October, 2005 and having observed that the plaintiffs/Respondents did not exhaust the relevant statutory administrative remedies available under the Chiefs Edict No. 11 (as applicable to Ekiti State) before coming to Court, immediately filed a notice of preliminary objection on the following grounds:-
i. That the Lower Court had no original jurisdiction by way of declaration order to adjudicate on disputes relating to nomination, selection and appointment to the Chieftaincy stool of Edemo of Igoro-Ekiti or determine the rightful ruling house to Edemo of Igoro Stool or generally hear for determination Chieftaincy matters which is the first instance jurisdiction of the Executive given under the Chiefs Edict of 1984 (as Amended Applicable to Ekiti State) Except by way of review or supervision of matters done thereunder.
ii. That issues raised on the writs of summons, the pleadings of all parties herein and by the declaration sought are Chieftaincy disputes, the power to hear and resolve which are given to relevant statutory bodies under the said Chiefs Edict as a tribunal of first instance before calling on the Court’s jurisdiction.
iii. That plaintiff has no cause of action.
Upon hearing, the preliminary objection the Learned Honourable Justice M. A. Agbelusi dismissed same as lacking in merit. Dissatisfied with the Ruling of the Lower Court aforesaid, the 3rd Defendant/Applicant filed a notice of Appeal on the 9th of November, 2006 as well as an Application for stay of proceedings on the same date, pending the determination of the appeal.
The Lower Court again refused the application for stay in its Ruling dated 14th December, 2006 on the ground that the 3rd Defendant/Appellant Applicant did not obtain leave of the Lower Court before filing the Notice of Appeal.
This application which is predicated on the refusal of the lower Court to grant the stay of proceedings as prayed, now prays this Court for the following orders:-
(a) an order of this Honourable Court extending time” within which to bring application for a stay of proceedings;
(b) an order for a stay of proceedings of the substantive suit pending the determination of an appeal filed on the 9th of November, 2006 by the 3rd Defendant/Appellant/Applicant herein against the ruling of the Lower Court delivered on the 31st of October, 2006. AND for such further Order or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
In support of the application is an affidavit of twelve paragraphs deposed to by the litigation clerk in the chambers of the Appellant/Applicant’s Counsel – one Tope Ajayi, male, Christian of No. 20 Ijigbo Street, Ado Ekiti.
The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit some of which have been alluded to in the statement of the facts of the case are hereunder reproduced thus:-
“4. That SBJ Bamise Esq Counsel to the Defendant/Appellant/Applicant informed me and I verily believe him as follows:-
Leave a Reply