Festus Ibidapo Adesanoye & Ors V. Prince Francis Gbadebo Adewole (2006)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

TOBI, J.S.C.

The Osemawe of Ondo Chieftaincy Stool is the centre of this appeal. Sometimes in August 1991, the stool became vacant following the death of the occupant, His Royal Highness Oba Itiade Ade Kolurejo. The common Nigerian expression is that he has gone to join his ancestors, and so let me use that expression too, although I do not know where the ancestral home is. It looks to me like a bandwagon expression as in paragraph 5 of the amended statement of claim and so I join the bandwagon. Nobody wants to say that an Oba is dead, just like that. To some, it is a taboo to say that.

That brought about the litigation. It is a common occurrence in Nigeria, in contemporary times. We fight for chieftaincy stools, at times when we know as a matter of fact and tradition that we had not the fortune to be born into royalty. Nigerians have a way of pushing themselves to things that have some reputation and fame and these days one green area, if I may use that expression, for want of a better one, is the chieftaincy stool. This is one of such fights. It started in 1991, some fifteen years ago.

Let me tell the story surrounding this litigation. Following the vacancy, the secretary of Ondo Local Government wrote to the Leyo Ruling House which, the appellants claimed, was Ale Ruling House entitled to present a candidate to fill the vacant stool, to select candidates for presentation to the kingmakers who would appoint the next Osemawe. Three candidates were presented by the Leyo Ruling House. They were Festus Ibidapo Adesanoye, 1st appellant, Francis Gbadebo Adewole, 1st respondent and Eric Adewole, now deceased. The kingmakers at a special meeting convened for that purpose on 11th October, 1991, elected Festus Ibidapo Adesanoye, 1st appellant, out of the three nominees of the Leyo Ruling House and presented his name to the then Military Governor of Ondo State for approval.

Following the approval of the 1st appellant for appointment as the Osemawe of Ondo, the 1st respondent filed an action claiming two declaratory reliefs and one order restraining the 1st appellant as 1st defendant from parading himself as Osemawe elect.

The case put forward by the 1st respondent is that the 1st appellant was a great grandson/member of the Leyo Ruling House and that being so, he was not qualified to be appointed Osemawe and that his appointment was not in accordance with prevailing custom in respect of the chieftaincy and section 8(e) of the Chiefs Edict No. 11 of 1984.

The 1st appellant, on his part, contended that his appointment as Osemawe of Ondo was in accordance with the prevailing custom in respect of the Osemawe Chieftaincy, section 8(e) of the Chiefs Edict No. 11 of 1984 and the Osemawe of Ondo (Chieftaincy Declaration) Order, 1991.

The learned trial Judge, Obaremo, J., gave judgment against the 1st respondent as plaintiff. He dismissed the action. The learned trial Judge held that the Osemawe of Ondo (Chieftaincy Declaration) Order, 1991 had repealed the Osemawe of Ondo Chieftaincy Declaration of 1958 and that under the 1991 Declaration, the persons qualified to be proposed as candidates to fill a vacancy in the Osemawe Chieftaincy are members of the ruling house of the male line only.

Dissatisfied, the 1st respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. That court allowed the appeal, holding inter alia that the Osemawe of Ondo Chieftaincy Declaration, 1991 could not possibly repeal the 1958 Declaration. The appellants have appealed to this court.

The appellants formulated the following issues in their brief:

3.1 Whether the Court of Appeal was right in law in holding that the Osemawe of Ondo Chieftaincy Declaration, 1958 was still applicable to the appointment of the 1st appellant.

3.2 Whether assuming that the Osemawe of Ondo Chieftaincy Declaration, 1958 was applicable, the 1st respondent has any locus standi to take the point or file this action.

3.3 Whether the 1st respondent’s pleading relied on the 1958 Declaration as contemplated by the Court of Appeal or his right had become vested under the Declaration before the 1991 Declaration took effect”

The respondent formulated the following issues in his brief: