Abraham Olabanji & Anor. V. Salami Adeoti Omokewu & Ors. (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

B. WALI, J.S.C. 

The plaintiffs as per their amended Statement of Claim ask for the following reliefs against the defendants:-

“(i) a declaration that the first plaintiff is the bona fide appointed AROMU OF OKORE

(ii) a declaration that the first defendant’s appointment as AROMU OF OKORE by the 4th defendant is null and void.

(iii) a perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from parading himself as AROMU OF OKORE.

(iv) an injunction restraining the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants from recognising the 1st defendant as AROMU OF OKORE.”

Pleadings were dully filed and exchanged. Evidence was adduced by both parties, and at the conclusion of the hearing, the learned trial Judge, Adeniyi J, delivered a well considered judgment on February 17th 1988 in favour of the plaintiffs and granted the reliefs sought.

The defendants were not satisfied with the judgment of the trial court and so they appealed to the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division. The Court of Appeal after hearing the appeal, allowed the appeal, reversed the decision of the trial court, stating that the plaintiffs on the preponderance of the evidence, have failed to o discharge the onus of proving their case and then concluded-

“There is no proof of a unanimous nomination of the 1st plaintiff/respondent by the Okore family, therefore his nomination was not valid.”

The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal have now appealed to this Court. Henceforth, both the plaintiffs and the defendants shall be referred to in this judgment, as appellants and respondents respectively.

Briefs of arguments were filed and exchanged. In the brief filed by the appellants two issues were identified for determination in this appeal and these are:

“(i) Whether unanimity of nomination was an issue which it was competent for the defendants to raise before the Court of Appeal.

(ii) Whether it was correct in law for the Court of Appeal to disturb the findings of fact made by the High Court in this case.”

The two issues formulated by the appellants were accepted and adopted by the respondents in their brief. ‘