His Highness Oba L. B. Omoborinola Ii V. The Military Governor Of Ondo State & Ors. (1998)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

KUTIGI, J.S.C.

The plaintiff sued the defendant in the High Court of Justice of Ondo State holden at Akure. His claims against the defendants are contained in paragraph 60 of his amended statement of claim as follows:-

“1. Declaration that the Asin is the traditional Oba, head chief and paramount ruler of Oka in the Akoko South Local Government Area,

2. Declaration that the findings and recommendations of the Ogunleye Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the headship tussle between the Olubaka and the Asin of Oka are contradictory. against Oka native law, custom and tradition and are therefore against the rules of natural justice, illegal null and void.
3. Declaration that the Ondo Stale Government White Paper based on it is therefore illegal, null and void,
4. An injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and or agents from acting on the report, findings, recommendations and White Paper of any chieftaincy declaration based thereon in appointing and installing a new Olubaka of Oka.”

After the filing and exchange of pleadings the case proceeded for trial. The plaintiff gave evidence and called two other witnesses while five witnesses, including the 4th defendant personally, testified for the defendants. A number of documentary exhibits were also tendered in evidence from both sides.

At the conclusion of evidence counsel on both sides addressed the court. In a reserved judgment the learned trial Judge carefully considered the evidence before him and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in their entirety. Said he-

“The judgment of this court therefore, is that all the legs of claim in the amended writ of summons and amended statement of claim having failed, the whole claim fails and it is hereby dismissed.”

Not satisfied with the judgment of the High Court the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal holden at Benin City. The 4th defendant also cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal in a unanimous judgment delivered on the 23rd June 1995 dismissed both the plaintiffs appeal and the 4th defendant’s cross-appeal.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal the plaintiff has further appealed to this court. Parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument in accordance with the rules of court. These were adopted at the hearing during which time additional oral submissions were made by counsel.

In the plaintiffs brief six issues were formulated for determination as follows:-

“i. Whether or not the lower court was right in dismissing the appellant’s appeal and affirming the judgment of the trial High Court, having rightly held that the trial High Court was wrong to have invoked the rule in Kojo v. Bonsie- Ground 1.

ii. Considering the fact that the trial High Court never held that the appellant did not prove his case or that the evidence adduced by him was weak, whether the lower court was right in holding that appellant’s case ought to have been dismissed outrightly for his inability to prove same – Ground 3 & 4.

iii. Whether or not the lower court was right in construing the appellant’s case as that of a stolen paramountcy, necessitating it, like all criminal cases, to be proved or established beyond reasonable doubt – Ground 2.

iv. Having regard to the state of evidence on record, was the lower court right in holding that appellant did not provide independent witness or witnesses to the fact that the 4th defendant deceived the European District Officer by collecting the staff or office meant for him (appellant) – Grounds 5 & 6.

v. Were the findings of the Ogunleye Commission of Enquiry and the recommendations thereof contradictory and even if they were not, could the report be legally acted upon – Grounds 7 & 8