Attorney General Of Ekiti State & Ors V. Prince Michael Daramola & Ors (2003)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

O. AYOOLA, J.S.C.

The appellants were the defendants in an action commenced in the High Court of the then Ondo State against them by the present respondents who were plaintiffs. For convenience the appellants are referred to as “the defendants” and the respondents as “the plaintiffs” in this judgment.

The plaintiffs’ claim in the High Court as contained in the further amended statement of claim was as follows:

“(a) a declaration that the Arojojoye Ruling House of the Ajero of Ijero-Ekiti Chieftancy consists of seven stocks: Odogun, Odo Idara, (Aminmin) Akere, Kumuyi, Akata, Adewa/Aderuku and Akutupu.

(b) a declaration that the plaintiffs are authentic members of the Akata stock of the said Arojojoye Ruling House,

(c) a declaration that the selection and presentation of third defendant by second defendant to the kingmakers and/or third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh defendants (as Warrant Chiefs) is against the history, native law and custom of Ijero-Ekiti and hence wrongful, illegal unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatsoever,

(d) a declaration that the purported appointment by the government of first defendant of fourth, fifth and sixth and seventh defendants as Warrant Chiefs to appoint a new Ajero of Ijero-Ekiti is illegal, wrongful, against the native law and custom and tradition of Ijero-Ekiti, unconstitutional null, void and of no effect whatsoever,

(e) a declaration that the purported appointment of third defendant as the new Ajero of Ijero-Ekiti by fourth, fifth, sixth and seven defendants is illegal, wrongful, against the native law, custom and tradition of Ijero-Ekiti, unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatsoever,

(f) a declaration that the purported approval of the appointment of third defendant as Ajero of Ijero-Ekiti by the government of first defendant is wrongful, illegal, unconstitutional, null void and of no effect whatsoever,

(g) an order nullifying the aforesaid appointment, the approval of appointment and installation of the third defendant as the Ajero of Ijero-Ekiti as same is against the history, native law and custom of Ijero-Ekiti and hence wrongful, illegal, null, void, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever,

(h) an order restraining third defendant from parading, calling, and styling himself as the Ajero of Ijero-Ekiti and from enjoying any salary, remuneration or perquisites appertaining to the title,

(i) an order restraining the government of first defendant from recognising the third defendant as the Ajero of Ijero-Ekiti in any manner whatsoever,

(j) a declaration that the appointment by the kingmakers of second plaintiff as the new Ajero on 9th May, 1991 is valid while the order of the government of first defendant nullifying same is wrongful, illegal, unconstitutional, null, void, and of no effect whatsoever,

(k) an order on the government of first defendant to consider the said appointment with a view to approving of same.”