Wahabi Aigbotosho Sijuola Olanrewaju V. The Governor Of Oyo State & Ors. (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

B. KARIBI-WHYTE, J.S.C.

This is yet another of the recurring, litigations over Chieftaincy disputes in the southern part of this country. Several efforts have been made to control litigations on Chieftaincy by means of legislation and through administrative regulations. The jurisdiction of the courts have been ousted and restored; the categories of chiefs have been classified and defined. Chieftaincy declarations have been encouraged to prescribe the customary law on the matter. The problem remains hydra-headed, insoluble and unabating.

This appeal originated from the dispute to the successor of the late Baale of Out, Baale Tijani Awolola, from the Ayilola Ruling House till his demise on the 31st August, 1980 was the Baale of Otu. Otu is in Iseyin North Local Government Area of Oyo State. In accordance with the Chieftaincy Declaration, 1960, there are two Ruling Houses in Otu, entitled to present candidates to fill the vacancy. These are the Ayilola Ruling House and the Opo Ruling House. The order of rotation prescribed in the Baale of Otu Chieftaincy Declaration, made under section 4(2) of the Chiefs Law, 1957 – Exhibit K, is 1. Opo 2. Ayinlola, ruling house in that order. The Declaration Exhibit K also prescribes the qualification and preconditions for eligibility. It also stated the titles and number of the Kingmakers, and the method of nomination by each ruling house.

Since Baale Awolola was from the Ayilola Ruling House, it was now the turn of Opo Ruling House to produce the next Baale to fill the vacant office. For this purpose a joint meeting of all the seven branches of the Opo Ruling House was convened and held on the 19th March, 1981 to nominate a candidate or candidates for consideration by the Kingmakers. The meeting was presided by Pa Gbadamosi Banmeke, the Mogaji of the Ruling House. The Secretary of the Iseyin Local Government attended as an observer. He was accompanied by an official of the council.

The meeting nominated four candidates. These included the plaintiff and the 4th defendant. The names of all the candidates nominated were sent to the Kingmakers for consideration; and selection of any one of them as the Baale of Out.

The Kingmakers in their meeting of the 11th July, 1981, by a majority vote of 2:1, selected the 4th defendant as the new Baale of Otu. There was an organized protest against the decision of the Kingmakers.

Following several petitions, the Governor of Oyo State set up a commission of Inquiry into the validity or otherwise of the meeting of the Opo Ruling House of the 19th March, 1981. The Commission of Inquiry reported that the nomination made at the meeting of the Opo Ruling House on the 19th March, 1981 was valid.

On the 21st October, 1988, plaintiff issued a writ of summons against the defendants in the High Court at Shaki, Oyo State challenging the nomination, and claiming as follows:-

“The plaintiff’s claim against the defendants jointly and severally is for:-

1. A declaration that the purported nomination of the 4th defendant by the 5th and 6th defendants for the vacant stool of the Baale of Otu in Iseyin Local Government Area some time in May/June, 1981 is unlawful, contrary to natural justice, and therefore null and void.
2. A declaration that the 4th defendant is not eligible or entitled to be nominated and or installed as the Baale of Out in Iseyin North Local Government Area.

OR ALTERNATIVELY

A declaration that the plaintiff is better qualified and commands greater public support than the 4th defendant.

3. An injunction restraining the 1st and 3rd defendants and their servants and agents from taking any further steps towards approving, effecting or causing the installation of the 4th defendant as the Baale of Otu.”

Plaintiff immediately applied for interim injunction restraining the 1st-3rd defendants from approving-and recognizing the 4th defendant. The application was refused.

The case was tried on the pleadings of the parties. The issues in the High Court were:-

1. That the 4th defendant was not eligible to be nominated.
2. That plaintiff was eligible.
3. The nomination meeting of the Opo Ruling House of the 19/3/81 was invalid.
4. The Meeting of the Kingmakers of June 11, 1981 was invalid.
5. The 4th defendant did not enjoy popular support.

The learned trial Judge in his judgment delivered on the 10th July,1984, granted all the reliefs and resolved all the issues in favour of the plaintiff.