Attorney-General Of Kwara State & Ors V. Raimi Olawale (1993)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.

These are further appeals by the 1st and 2nd defendants and by the 3rd defendant against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division, which had dismissed their appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Kwara State, holden at Omu-Aran. In the High Court, the plaintiff’s claim by a writ of summons, and later amended, was as follows:-

“1. A DECLARATION that Olokanle is the traditional head of Okanle and that Raimi Olawale having been so elected from the only ruling house in Okanle (Kosolu ruling house) in accordance with the tradition and custom of Okanle people.

2. A MANDATORY INJUNCTION against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants (now the 1st and 2nd defendants only) compelling them, their agents/servants to recognize the plaintiff as the Olokanle of Okanle.”

In his statement of claim, the plaintiff traced his genealogy from one Kosolu, the founder-of Okanle to Buraimoh Oyebode, and his own father, whom he said was the last Olokanle of Okanle until his death in 1981. After Buraimoh’s death, plaintiff succeeded him, having been unanimously selected and appointed by the Kingmakers. Because of the main issue that has arisen for determination in this appeal, I deem it necessary to quote in full paragraphs 16 to 21 and 23 of the statement of claim. They run thus-

“16. The plaintiff also says that Oyebode died 1981.

17. The plaintiff says that after the creation of lgbomina Ekiti Division in 1970 the then Igbomina Ekiti Central Administration of Igbomina Ekiti Division abrogated the title’ Alangua’ as being foreign to Igbomina Ekiti Division.
18. The plaintiff avers that the Igbomina Ekiti Division in its letter Reference CA/EST/l6/9 0f 4th October, 1971 written to the Alangua wrote to terminate Oyebode as Alangua. This letter is hereby pleaded.
19. In 1972 the same Local Government in its letter Reference DOlE/ S/l2/208 of 17th July, 1972 wrote another letter re-appointing Oyebode as head of Okanle but under the title ‘Baale’. This letter is pleaded.
20. The plaintiff’s family being dissatisfied with the new title wrote a protest letter and made series of representations to the Igbomina Ekiti Division Central Administration Local Government Authority in their letter dated t4th August, 1972 which letter is hereby pleaded asking to be restored to their traditional title of ‘Olokanle of OkanIe.’
21. The plaintiff says that after a thorough investigation conducted by the Caretaker Committee of the Irepodun Local Government Omu Aran, the Local Government wrote the then head of Okanle (Buraimoh Oyebode) confirming his traditional title of ‘Olokanle’ in its letter which is hereby pleaded, Reference IRPD/LG/CHI/ 1.1.314 of 23rd September, 1976.
22. The plaintiff says that aye bode thus reigned as Olokanle of Okanle until his death in 1981 when the plaintiff succeeded him”

Both sets of defendants filed their statements of defence. Both of them raised an issue as to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit because it raised a chieftaincy question, jurisdiction over which was ousted before the inception of the 1979 Constitution on the 1st of October, 1979. The 1st set of defendants admitted paragraphs 17 and 18 of the statement of claim but just barely denied inter alia, paragraphs 19, 20, and 21 of the statement of claim and put the plaintiff to strict proof. As for the 3rd defendant, who was then the 4th defendant, he pleaded in paragraph 3 of his statement of defence thus –

“3. The defendant says that he (the 4th defendant) had been appointed as the village head of Okanle with the title of ‘Baale’ since about 1971 or 1972 and the other defendants had since recognized him as such.”

I believe that apart from the issue of jurisdiction, the pleadings and evidence before the court of trial. the main issues for determination before the court of trial was somehow summarized by the learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff in paragraphs (a) – (f) at page 140 of Vol. 1 of the record, thus –

“(a) What is the proper title of the traditional head of Okanle i.e. is it Olokanle or Baale of Okanle.

(b) What is the procedure for appointing the Baale or Olokanle of Okanle.

(c) Is the plaintiff from Kosolu ruing house or is he entitled to the Olokanle Chieftaincy stool.

(d) Is the defendant (i.e 4th) from the Kosolu family ruling house

(e) Has the plaintiff been appointed the Olokanle in accordance with the native law and custom of Okanle people.

(f) Was the 4th defendant imposed on the people of Okanle as their Baale.”