Thomas Adesola Oyetayo & Ors. V. Ganiyu Lawal Mosojo & Ors. (1997)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OKUNOLA, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the judgment of Kolawole J. of the Oyo (now Osun) State High Court sitting in Oshogbo delivered on 22/3/90 in which the court entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff/1st respondent and against defendants/appellants.

The facts of this case briefly put are as follows: The 1st respondent herein as plaintiff sued the appellants herein as defendants claiming as per his amended Writ of Summons as follows:

(i) Declaration that the appointment and installation of Mr. Thomas Adesola Oyetayo (i.e. 1st defendant) by 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th defendants as the Obasinkin of Ila is contrary to the Native Law and Custom of Ila Orangun and is therefore null and void.

(ii) Perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from acting and or parading himself as the Obasinkin of Ila Orangun.

(iii) Perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th defendants from recognizing the 1st defendant as the Obasinkin of Ila Orangun.

(iv) An order of the Court selling aside the Chieftaincy declaration in Ila as affecting the Obasinkin Chieftaincy in Ila Orangun and to declare the same as being contrary to native law and custom of Ila Oragun and therefore null and void.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged and the parties led evidence thereon. The plaintiff is a member of the Obasinkin Logun Kando’s family of Ila Orangun from which all the previous Obasinkins have come. The plaintiff took the action in representative capacity. It was the plaintiff’s claim that the Chieftaincy title of Obasinkin was exclusive to his family (i.e. that only members of Logun Kando family can aspire to become Obasinkin of Ila). According to him, his family was not aware of the 1960 Obasinkin Chieftaincy Declaration which added the family of the 1st defendant as another Ruling House in respect of the Chieftaincy. He claimed that even though Obasinkin Jekayinfa who was from his family attended the enquiry set up to find out how many ruling houses were entitled to the Chieftaincy of Obasinkin before the said declaration was made, registered and approved by the government his family was not aware of it. It was his case that Obasinkin Jekayinfa attended all the meetings but did not take part in the proceedings hence he contended that the addition of another ruling house to that of the plaintiff is not declaratory of the custom of Ila Orangun respecting the succession of the Obasinkin Chieftaincy. The plaintiff further on tended that, as the Obasinkin Chieftaincy was relegated to a minor Chieftaincy, it was no longer subject to the provisions of part 2 of the chiefs Law Cap 21 of the Western State.

The 1st defendant claimed that the plaintiff’s family was represented at the enquiry and put up their case and that 11 previous Obasinkins were from their family. The defendant’s case was that two members of his family were former Obasinkins. He further contended that Obasinkin Ajayi Jekayinfa from the plaintiff’s part attended and took active part among other interested parties in the proceedings leading to the declaration. He contended that since the late Obasinkin came from the plaintiff’s family, it was the turn of his family to present a candidate for the vacant stool in accordance with the 1960 Obasinkin Chieftaincy Declaration which is valid and applicable and hence his appointment was valid, lawful and in order. After the parties have led evidence as per their pleadings supra, learned counsel for the parties addressed the lower court. In the end, learned trial Judge found for the plaintiff.

Dissatisfied with this judgment, the defendants have appealed to this Court on 3 Original grounds of appeal and with leave of this Court added 5 additional grounds. From the eight grounds of appeal the defendants/appellants (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) have formulated the following four issues for determination in this appeal viz:

(1) Whether the learned trial Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the suit

(ii) Whether the learned trial Judge was right when having held that the Chief Ajayi Jekayinfa was present when the chieftaincy declaration was being considered but did not take part in the making of the said Chieftaincy Declaration in relation to Obasinkin Chieftaincy title.

(iii) Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he refused to accept the uncontradicted, unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence of the Secretary of Ila Local Government who testified as P.W.5 and D.W.6.

(iv) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in depriving the 1st defendant’s family their right to the Chieftaincy title which vested in the family so soon as Late Ajayi Jekayinfa the incumbent died.