Ademola II & Others V. Akinwande Thomas & Others (1947)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Native Law and Custom—Installation of Chiefs as. Oluwo and Balogun of Iporo, Abeokuta—Jurisdiction of Supreme Court—Supreme Court Ordinance, sections 12 and 42—Appointment and Deposition of Chiefs Ordinance—Representation of community by respondents—PrOcedure on installation of Chiefs and conditions precedent thereto—Powers of A lake of Abeokuta as paramount chief and as Native Authority—Native Authority Ordinance,. section 19—Limitation of actions—Public -Officers’ Protection Ordinance–Native Authority Ordinance, section 61—Rules of the Supreme Court, Order XXXII, rule 13;

Facts

The respondents claimed (i) a declaration that the installation by the first and second appellants of the third appellant as Oluwo of Iporo, Abeokuta, and of the fourth appellant as Balogun of Iporo was contrary to the local Native. Law and Custom, and (ii) an injunction restraining the third and fourth appellants from acting in the offices in which they had been installed.

The trial Judge made the declaration and granted the injunction.

Held

On appeal,

1. Although there was a Native Court which would have had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, section 12 of the Supreme Court Ordinance did not oust the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
2. Although the claim related in part to (inter alia) rents accruing to the third and fourth appellants by reason of their installation, this did not raise an issue as to the title to land, and therefore the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was not ousted by reason of the proviso to section 12 of the Supreme Court Ordinance.
3. Although the writ made no specific claim in respect of the property rights attaching to the chieftaincies in question, it would not be just to hold that the claim was in respect of a mere title to honour or dignity. Therefore, the Supreme Court should not have declined jurisdiction on the authority of Adanji v. Hunvoo (1).
4. As by Native law and custom, notice must be given to every chief of the holding of meetings to choose candidates for the two chieftaincies in question, and this had not been done, the installation of the third and fourth appellants as Oluwo and Balogun respectively was contrary to native law and custom. Further, that the first respondent had not been properly suspended, because the proper procedure as laid down by native law and custom had not been followed, and that while the Alake of Abeokuta could possibly ratify his absence of previous consent to the suspension by giving consent thereafter, this did not cure irregularities in procedure prior to the moment when the Alake’s consent should be given: the Alake of Abeokuta, qua Native Authority, had no power under section 19 of the Native Authority Ordinance to enforce a settlement of a dispute arising out of the irregular suspension of a chief : the proceedings leading to the purported suspension were a nullity and therefore no acceptance, implied or expressed, by the first respondent of that purported suspension was either effective or cured the irregularities in the proceedings.
5. The first appellant (the Alake of Abeokuta) was protected by the Public Officers’ Protection Ordinance and therefore no action lay against him in respect of the act alleged because the action was begun more than three months after the date of the act complained of.
6. By virtue of Order XXXII, rule 13 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, it is sufficient, in order to set up the special defence provided by the Public Officers’ Protection Ordinance, to plead the facts relied upon, and it is not necessary, as it is in England, to plead this defence specially.

Appeal dismissed and Judgement of the Court below varied.