Alhaji Lawani Atoyebi & Anor V. The Governor Of Oyo State & Ors (1994) Alhaji Lawani Atoyebi & Anor V. The Governor Of Oyo State & Ors (1994)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BELGORE, J.S.C. 

The appellants were the plaintiffs at trial High Court and also the appellants at the Court of Appeal. They concluded their statement of claim as follows:-

“WHEREOF the plaintiffs claim as follows:-

1. Declaration that the first defendant’s letter purporting to designate the Alepata as the Senior Traditional Ruler in Igboho is against the ancient traditions, history, customs and usages of Igboho and is therefore unjust, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.
2. Declaration that the Onigboho is the only traditional ruler in Igboho.
3. Declaration that the Alepata is only a quarter chief in Oba Ago quarters in Igboho and not a traditional ruler.
4. Order restraining the first defendant, his servants, agents privies or those lawfully taking orders from him from further giving formal or any recognition to the Alepata as the senior traditional ruler in Igboho and/or in the alternative.
5. Order restraining the Alepata from parading himself as the most senior traditional ruler or a traditional ruler of Igboho.”

The town called Igboho is one of the ancient Oyo towns, it shared perhaps in the upheavals of last century leading to sack of Oyo Ile (or old Oyo) but managed somehow to remain in one place. The plaintiffs come from a family that always produce Onigboho of Igboho. By the evidence in court there are two versions of the hierarchy of rulership in the town – that of the plaintiffs and that of the 3rd defendant now 3rd respondent in this court as he was in the Court of Appeal. Trial Judge, Yekini Adio J. (as he then was) narrated in his judgment the entire evidence before him. It is however useful for a full understanding of this case to summarise the evidence, mostly based on the pleadings.

The plaintiffs/appellants claim to represent the two ruling houses that in rotation present Onigboho of Igboho. Unfortunately evidence of this rotation was not presented to court and Exhibit 12, the report of Mr. C.E.B.B Simpson’s Report on his enquiry under Section 37(3) Chieftaincy Law held on 10th June, 1957 said so much. However, the plaintiffs claim to be descendants of one Tondi, a hunter from Eruwa who actually, according to them founded Igboho. As against this claim the 3rd defendant’s assertion is that Oyo was at one time deserted and one Eguguoju, an Alafin settled at Igboho having founded the place.

What is not in dispute however is that Igboho at all material period up to and after Eguguoju was under the Oyo Empire and whether Alafin founded Igboho or not he was the undisputed overlord. Igboho is to the West-South- West of the ruins of old Oyo and is a fair sized town in the present Oyo North. The plaintiffs claim the present Onigboho is about the seventeenth in succession but by 1957 they could only indicate four generations of Onigbohos and name of Tondi was never mentioned. As the aborigines they claim superiority over whoever is Alepata of Igboho who they regard as mere ward head at Igboho.

The trial Judge, after reviewing all the evidence of 3rd defendant and his witnesses and recent situation whereby he regarded Alepata as the superior ruler of Igboho and that Onigboho was under him. Trial Judge never relied on traditional history alone but found that the recent situation dating for several years convinced him that the Alepata must be the overlord of Onigboho and not the other way round. He relied on the inquiry held in 1957 (Exh.12) and that of 1982 resulting in the government of former Western Region of Nigeria recognising Alepata as the superior chief of Igboho.

The surprising element in this matter is that the witnesses for the plaintiffs even could not agree on geneology of Onigboho. Whereas in the petition to Ministry of Chieftaincy Affairs (Exhibit 11) they named nine previous Onigbohos, the one on the date of the petition being the tenth. There has been evidence of more than this number. The enquiry under Chieftaincy Law Section 37(3) in operation in 1957 by the Local Government Adviser, Mr. Simpson, dated 10th June, 1957, whose Report is Exhibit 12 at trial court recommend as follows:-

“1. I recommend that Jeremiah Afolabi is recognised as Onigboho of Igboho.

2. I recommend that Government makes it clear that the Alepata is recognised as head chief in Igboho.
3. I recommend that when the Chieftaincy declarations for Igboho are made that one unified set of kingmakers for all titles be included so as to stop any split in the town, and that …………the council should be instructed to (have one unified set of kingmakers) (Brackets are mine).”

The remarkable aspect of this report is that both parties vying for Onigboho’s stool in 1957 never mentioned Tondi as the founder or first settler at Igboho. The name of Tondi as the ancestor came up for the first time in a land dispute No. HOY/ 20/72 where Adenekan Ademola J. (as he then was) totally disbelieved the story that Tondi was the founder of Igboho; a far reaching finding not appealed against up to now. Even though it was a land matter but traditional history of who first settled and who owned the land came to play prominently. Trial court had no difficulty in finally rejecting the present plaintiffs’ case and dismissing it. Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court.

On appeal to this court the following issues are formulated for determination.

“The issues for determination ill this appeal:

2.01. The first issue for determination in this appeal is whether Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in which Onigboho was recognised in 1932 as the Village Head of Igboho with a salary of 24.00pounds (Twenty four pounds) per annum whilst the Alepata was merely referred to in Exhibit 1 as a Chief of Igboho without stating that he was paid any salary and the traditional evidence of the plaintiffs/appellants established that the Onigboho is the only traditional ruler of Igboho and that he is senior and superior in status to the Alepata who is a minor chief in Igboho.

2.02. The second issue for determination is whether the Alaafin of Oyo or the Governor of Oyo State of Nigeria can unilaterally make the third defendant/respondent, Chief Solomon Oyediran, who is of the minor chieftaincy of Alepata of Igboho and not of a royal blood as he is not a member of any royal family in Yoruba land, the Oba of Igboho contrary to the Native Law and Custom and Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 tendered at the trial of the appellants’ case.

2.03. The third issue for determination is whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal should have allowed the plaintiffs’ appeal by setting aside the judgment of the learned trial Judge on the ground that the learned trial Judge wrongly made findings of fact.

2.04. The fourth issue for determination is whether this honourable Final Appellate Court should interfere with the two concurrent findings of fact of the learned trial Judge and the Honourable Court of Appeal.

2.05. The fifth issue for determination is whether this Honourable Appellate Court should allow the plaintiffs’ appeal by considering the facts as established from the record of appeal instead of sending the case back to the court of first instance for trial de novo.”

Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are nothing but letters exchanged between the District Officer Oyo and the resident Oyo Province which were written in 1932 between 3rd, May, 1932 and 20th December, 1932 (for Exhibits 1-3) and 13th February, 1936 and 22nd December, 1936 (for Exhibits 4 and 5). Only Exhibit 1 referred to Alepata, and to that office alone in respect of succession of one Mustafa to the late incumbent, Igbaroola. Exhibits 2 to 5 exclusively concern the succession to the office of Onigboho. None of these exhibits refers to hierarchy or seniority or superiority between Alepata and Onigboho. It must be observed that the plaintiffs who look the trouble of procuring these exhibits from National Archives never tendered the Memorandum No. 2/1930/179 of 29th April, 1932 which Exhibit 1 was a reply to. Is it in support or against their case (S.148(d) Evidence Act refers).

As for the second issue for determination, it must be pointed out that this is a matter of law. Chiefs Law (Oyo State Laws 1978 Cap. 21) in S.3 provides:-

“3. The Commissioner may by order:-

(a) apply the provisions of part 2 to a chieftaincy:

(b) designate a Local Government Council as competent council in respect of that chieftaincy:”

In accordance with that section the Military Governor of Oyo State (who at the material period was Commissioner for Local Government) made the Recognised Chieftaincies (Revocation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1978 (Oy. S.L.N 18 of 1978) now in Cap. 21 Laws of Oyo State 1978, Vol. 1 page 295, and at 296. In the schedule to the Order for Irepo Local Government the following chieftaincies are recognised:-

1. Iba of Kishi.
2. Alepata of Ighoho.
3. Bale of Igbetti.

Similarly by virtue of powers conferred upon the Governor in Council by S.26(1) and (2) Chiefs Law the prescribed authority for “area traditionally associated with Igboho” is Alepata of Igboho. Looking back through government reaction from old Western Region, in the “instrument establishing the Irepo District Council” by virtue of S.3 of the Western Region, in the Region local Government Law 1952 (No.1 of 1953): (WRN 146 of 1954), it was provided that the President of Irepo District Council should rotate with each office holder in office for three years. The presidents were listed as:-

1. Akpata of Igboho.
2. Iba of Kishi .
3. Bale of Igbetti.

This clearly shows that right from 1952 the Alepata of Igboho was regarded a superior to any other chief at Igboho. Apart from council President, there were nine traditional members who as ex -officio members were permanent members. In section 9 of the instrument they were listed as:-

(a) Alepata of Igboho.

(b) Are of Igboho.

(c) Onigboho of Igboho.

(d) Onaonibode of Igooho.

(e) Iba of Kishi,

(f) Agoro of Kishi,

(g) Ajana of Kishi,

(h) The Bale Igbetti,

(i) Seriki of Igbetti.

(j) Elemosho of Igbetti.

So, it is not surprising that the Government of Oyo State, after a report of an Administrative Inquiry, had nothing new to change the order of seniority of Chiefs in Igboho when it wrote Exhibit 6A which reads inter alia as follows:-

“Headship Tussle among the Alepata, Onigboho and Ona-Onibode. I am directed to inform you that government has received the report of the Administrative Inquiry into the above subject-matter; and has after a careful consideration of the report approved that:-

(i) The Alepata should be confirmed as the most Senior Traditional Ruler in Igboho:

(ii) the Onigboho should be recognised as a Traditional Ruler in Igboho and as second in rank to the Alepata: and

(iii) the Ona Onibode has no right to assume the headship of Igboho but his position as a traditional ruler in lgboho had been reaffirmed.”

Upon the foregoing the government has all along found in favour of superiority of Alepata as the overall ruler of Igboho and that any other chief in that town including the Onigboho ranks after him. This conclusion is based on traditional history after various enquiries.

The concurrent findings of the courts below on facts as well as on law cannot be assailed in the absence of any wrong assessment of evidence, or miscarriage of justice or anything perverse. In the present instance I can find nothing perverse or illegal or irregular in the findings of facts by trial court as upheld by Court of Appeal. I have therefore no reason to interfere with those findings. (Kimdey v. Military Governor, Gongola (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.77) 445: Dosunmu v. Joto (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.65) 297; Akinsanya v. U.B.A Ltd. (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt.35) 273; Chukwugor v. Obuora (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.61) 454; Omibruchere v. Esegine (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.19) 799. I must state clearly that trial Judge went beyond the deplored habit of saying “believe” or “I disbelieve”. Rather he went very deep into the evidence of the contending parties meticulously and with the contradictions in the evidence proferred by the plaintiffs, it cannot be said that he never held an even balance.

He adverted not only to historical antecedents but also with what has been on the ground in recent memory (Kojo v. Bonsie (1957) 1 WLR 1223; Balogun v. Akanji (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.70) 301) All the parties agree that four Alafins live in Igboho and died and were buried there. They however differ on which Alafin first came and whether the first one actually founded the city. The preponderance of evidence is in support of an Alafin founding Igboho after the first sack of old Oyo called Oyo Ile. “The History of Yorubas” by Dr. O. Johnson with all authority attached to it lacked one important historical aspect and that is dating.

He listed the four Alafins at Igboho as Eguguoju, Orompoto, Ajiboyede and Abipa, Dr. Johnson’s account was about a pervious desertion of Oyo Ile Alafin having died. The son, had to abandon the city in face of the inevitable conquest by Nupes (Tapa) who had already laid a siege on the city. Ofinran, the son of Alafin Onigbogi, had to carry his people to Bariba country (Oyos called Borgus Baribas), and sought refuge of their king Eleduwe. In an attempt to go back to Oyo, he died. His son Eguguoju had to bury him at Igboho, he was thus regarded as Alafin. Three other Alafins reigned at Igboho and the last to be so buried was Ajiboyede.

His son Ibipa also known as Oba M’oro left Igboho for Oyo Ile and left Alepata to run Igboho. The blank in this story as it occurs in most of the book, is the approximate date of each event. Despite this, the trial court as well as the Court of Appeal had no difficulty in rejecting the traditional history of the plaintiffs, I also have no hesitation in rejecting the appellants’ version. The traditional history of the third defendant/respondent and the situation up to the recent times indicate clearly that Alepata rather than Onigboho is the overlord chief of Igboho.

My conclusion therefore is that this appeal, from the foregoing, has no merit and it ought to be dismissed. I therefore dismiss this appeal and uphold the decision of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

I award N1,000.00 costs to 3rd respondent, and the sum of N1,000.00 as costs to 1st and 2nd respondents jointly.

---

SC.294/1991