Alhaji Ganiyu Amokomowo V. Alhaji Imam Gafaru Andu (1985)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

L. UWAIS, J.S.C. 

In an action brought in Lagos State High Court, Ikeja, by the respondent, as plaintiff, against the appellant, as defendant the following reliefs were sought by the plaintiff:

A declaration that the plaintiff, Alhaji Chief Imam Gafari Andu is the duty appointed Chief Imam of the Central Mosque, Ikorodu.

2. A declaration that the defendant, Alhaji Ganiyu Sanni Amokomowo is not the duly elected Chief Imam of the Central Mosque, Ikorodu.
3. An injunction restraining the defendant, his servants or agents or any person or persons from holding out the defendant as the Chief Imam of the Central Mosque, Ikorodu.

Pleading were settled, and later amended. In his amended statement of claim the plaintiff made the following averments in paragraphs 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 5, 6 and 9-

“2a. The plaintiff avers that before his appointment as the Chief Imam of Ikorodu Central Mosque and his turbanning on the 7th December, 1976, he was one of the Imam Ratibis officiating at Ikorodu Central Mosque.

2b. The plaintiff avers that the Moslem Chiefs and the Imam Ratibis of the Central Mosque Ikorodu held a meeting and decided to appoint the plaintiff as the next Chief Imam of the Central Mosque. The plaintiff will rely at the trial of this action on a letter dated the 12th day of October, 1976

2c. That after the meeting referred to above the decision of the meeting was communicated to the Oba and Chiefs of Ikorodu.”

“3. That following the death of the Late Chief Imam of the Central Mosque, Ikorodu, the plaintiff was installed as the Chief Imam of the Central Mosque by 11 (eleven) Moslem Chiefs and 9 Ratibis of Ikorodu and turbarned by Alhaji Rafi Alubarikaloju at Obun Ale on the 7th day of December, 1976. The plaintiff would rely on the photographs taken at the ceremony at the trial.”

“5. Since the said installation referred to in paragraph 3 above the plaintiff has been performing the duties of the Chief Imam of the Central Mosque, Ikorodu. The plaintiff would rely on the following documents – letters dated 14th September, 1978 and 13th June, 1978.

6. That the plaintiff at the trial of this action will rely on the fact that under Moslem Law and Practice, the installation and turbanning of the Chief Imam of a Central Mosque is done by the Moslem Chiefs and Ratibi Imams of the town and not by any Moslem leader or the Oba and his traditional Chiefs, and also prove at the trial that it is the convention of the Ikorodu Central Mosque that the appointment and installation (of) the Chief Imam is usually performed by the Muslim Chiefs and Imam Ratibis and Alfas of the Mosque.”
7. The plaintiff will contend at the trial that the approval of the defendant as Chief Imam of Ikorodu by the Ayangburen (of Ikorodu) is contrary to rules of Moslem Law and the Convention of the Ikorodu Central Mosque.”

In a lengthy amended statement of defence which contains 74 paragraphs, the defendant denied inler alia all the averments in the plaintiffs statement of claim quoted above and at the same time pleaded his case, which. in my view, appears to be presented especially in paragraphs 8,12 to 15, 23, 24 and 34 of the amended statement of defence. They read thus:

“8. With further reference to paragraphs 2b. 2c. 2d and 2e of the Amended Statement of Claim the defendant avers that neither the Moslem Chiefs and Imam Ratibis of the Ikorodu Central Mosque as such nor the alleged Royal Peace Committee appointed by the Oba of Ikorodu have the power to appoint a Chief Imam for the Central Mosque Ikorodu, but contends that the prerogative of appointing a Chief Imam for the Mosque according to the custom and practice of the Central Mosque rests exclusively on the principal officers of the Central Mosque, namely: (1) Balogun Adini (2) Saba Adini (3) Olori Alufa (or Olori Kewu or Olori Omo Kewu) (4) Asiwaju Adini and (5) Noibi Adini,”

“12. The defendant therefore contends that the purported appointment of the plaintiff as Chief Imam as pleaded in paragraphs 2a, 2b, 2c, 2c and 3 was null and void and inconsistent with the custom and practice of the Ikorodu Moslem Community and of the Ikorodu Central Mosque itself.

13. With further reference to paragraph 3 of the Amended Statement of Claim the defendant says that the 11 Moslem Chiefs and 9 Imam Ratibis of Ikorodu have no right to install the plaintiff and that Alhaji Aluharikaloju has no right to turban any Chief Imam.
14. With further reference to the said paragraphs 3 the defendant says that the Ikorodu Central Mosque Chiefs have no official function to perform with the Imam Ratibis in the government or administration of the affairs of the said Central Mosque but may only meet on purely social functions like naming ceremony, funeral obsequies and joint worship like the Eid Fitr festivals or Friday Jumat Service.
15. The defendant further says that the Imam Ratibis and their assistant officers are responsible for the government and administration of their own individual Area Mosque of which there are fourteen in Ikorodu township and which only go to Central Mosque for Friday Congregational worships.”

“23. With further reference to paragraph 6 of the Amended Statement of Claim the defendant contends as pleaded before that only the principal officers of the Central Mosque Ikorodu are by convention the sole authority to appoint or elect a Chief Imam for that mosque after seeing that the candidate for that is fit and otherwise qualified morally and educationally, according to the doctrine enshrined in the Holy Quran, the Hadith and other Islamic theological literature as a condition precedent to that appointment or nomination at all. (The defendant will at the trial rely on all these writings).

24. Contrary to paragraph 5 of the Amended Statement of Claim the defendant states that he was and he is still the only Chief Imam of Central Mosque Ikorodu, properly appointed and turbanned, and any other appointment or mode of appointment and turbanning of a Chief Imam is irregular and contrary to the tenents of Islamic religion.”
25. The defendant avers and contends that the plaintiff’s adoption of another person’s child is un-Islamic and this subjects the plaintiff to disability in his aspiration as vying for the office of Imamship in the religion of Islam.”

At the hearing of the case both parties testified and called witnesses to prove the assertions made in the pleadings. In a prolific judgment of some 59 pages, the learned trial judge identified the issues joined by the parties to be two fold, namely: