Yesufu Amuda V. Alhaji Abdulkadir Adelodun & Anor (1994)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADIO, J.S.C. 

The appellant, as plaintiff, instituted an action in the Kwara State High Court of Justice, Ilorin Judicial Division, against the respondents. His claim was as follows:-

“(i) A declaration that he is the rightful Oba Elesha of Oke-Ode having been so appointed by the Oke-Ode kingmakers under the native law and custom of Oke-Ode.

(ii) A declaration that the appointment of 1st defendant by the Military Governor of Kwara State as from 1st May, 1985, is null and void.

(iii) A perpetual injunction prohibiting the 1st defendant from acting, or parading himself as the Elesha of Oke-Ode and the 2nd defendant and other agents and/or servants of the Government of Kwara State from treating the 1st defendant as the Elesha of Oke-Ode.”

Pleadings were duly filed and exchanged. The learned trial judge, after giving due consideration to the evidence before him and the submissions made by the learned counsel for each of the parties, dismissed the appellant’s claim. The appellant, dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned trial Judge, appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal he has lodged a further appeal to this court. The grounds of appeal filed by the appellant are as follows:-

“1. The justices of the Court of Appeal erred and misdirected themselves in law in holding:

‘The record of proceeding of the appeal showed that the appointment of 1st defendant was done by the kingmakers of Iwereje. There …….of Oke Ode Chieftaincy……. The above report made it clear that the traditional council succeeded in bringing (sic) the split of kingmakers through the said ad-hoc committee.’

Particulars of error and misdirection in law:

(i) An appellate court has no jurisdiction and no competence in drawing conclusions not drawn by the trial court and in respect of which there has been no appeal.

(ii) Exhibits 1 and 2 showed that it was the appellant who was appointed by the council of Iwereje.

(iii) There was nobody called traditional Council of Oke-Ode chieftaincy.

(iv) There was no evidence that the traditional council succeeded to bridge the split of the kingmakers through the ad-hoc committee.

2. The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred and misdirected themselves in law in their view of the statutory duty of the Traditional Council.

Particulars of error and misdirection in law: