Adu Jibrilu—The Olukare V. The Owa Ale Of Ikare (1950)
LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal
Claim to Chieftainship—Validity of appointment of another Chief challenged—Assertion of subsidiary claims also—precedence and privilege having a monetary value—Jurisdiction of Court to entertain action considered.
Facts
This was an appeal against- a declaratory judgment of Pollard, Ag. J., and an injunction against the defendant. By his writ of summons the plaintiff sought against the defendant a declaration that he was, by native customary law, the natural Oba and ruler of the whole of Ikare.
The question at issue was whether the Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the suit or whether he was precluded from doing so by section 2 of the Appointment and Depositions of Chiefs Ordinance (Cap. 12).
This section provides (inter alia) that the appointment of a chief is to be made by these persons entitled by native law and custom to appoint chiefs and, in the event of dispute, the Governor, after due enquiry, shall be the sole judge as to whether any appointment of a Chief has been duly made.
Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the question of the appointment was not in dispute, but only that of precedence. He further contended that the plaintiff was entitled to certain privileges having a monetary value and asserted that on these grounds the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
Held
The plaintiff’s claim was that he was the only rightful chief of Ikare by native law and custom, and that the defendant was not. In other words, he challenged the validity of the appointment of the defendant as not being in accordance with native law and custom and that is precisely the kind of dispute of which the Governor is made sole judge by section 2 (2) of the Appointment and Deposition of Chiefs Ordinance. In so far as the claim included a dispute as to precedence, the Court will not entertain an action to establish title to a Chieftancy only, where it is a mere dignity, or a position of honour or of primacy among a particular section of the community, unless it can be shown that definite material rights are also involved. The evidence of privilege having a monetary value was unsatisfactory and rejected. The Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the action.
Appeal allowed.
