Oba Adebanjo Mafimisebi & Anor V. Prince Macaulay Ehuwa & Ors (2007)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUSDAPHER, J.S.C

In the High Court of Ondo State of Nigeria in the Okitipupa Judicial Division and in suit No. HOK/7/84, the plaintiffs who are the respondents and the cross-appellants herein commenced this action on the 14/6/1984. In their Further Amended Statement of Claim as per paragraph 36 thereof, they claimed against all the defendants therein, that is the appellants/cross-respondents and the respondents/cross-respondents herein the following declarations and reliefs:-“(i) Declaration that the Registered Declaration of Ugbo Chieftaincy are (sic) defective and inexhaustive of the customs and traditions of Ugbo chieftaincy and therefore null and void.

(ii) Declaration that under the traditions and customs of the Ugbo people regarding Ugbo chieftaincy the appointment of an Olugbo is by rotation between AGBEDUN/OJOGO and OYETAYO/ATARIOYE section of OJADELE ruling house since the demise of OJADELE.

(iii) Declaration that the Registered Declaration of the Ugbo Chieftaincy to the extent that it fails to provide for rotation between AGBEDUN/OJOGO and OYETAYO/ATARIOYE sections of OJADELE Ruling house is defective, inequitable, invalid, null and void.

(iv) Declaration that the findings and recommendations of Morgan Chieftaincy Review Commission of 1981 relating to the Olugbo of Ugbo Chieftaincy in Ondo State and the Government White Paper issued on it are invalid null and void on the following grounds:-

(a) That the findings and the recommendations of the said commission on which the 1st defendant

based its decision are contrary to law having disregarded vital evidence placed before it.

(b) That the findings and the recommendations of the said commission which the 1st defendant based its decision are contrary to law having taken into consideration extraneous matters.

(v) Declaration that under the customs and traditions of the Ugbo people, the head of the OJADELE ruling house must present candidates aspiring to the OLUGBO Stool physically for screening and selection before the kingmakers at the meeting where a candidate will be appointed.

(vi) Declaration that the 7th defendant is not a kingmaker of the Olugbo of Ugbo in Ilaje/Ese-Odo of Ondo State.

(vii) Declaration that the purported appointment and approval of the candidature of the 3rd defendant as the Olugbo by the 4th – 7th and 1st to 2nd defendant respectively is irregular, illogical, uncustomary, invalid, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(viii) An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 7th defendants by themselves or through their servants, agents or privies, or otherwise howsoever from taking any steps or actions in relation to or in furtherance of the purported appointment of the 3rd defendant as the Olugbo elect.

(ix) An Order setting aside the purported appointment of the 3rd defendant as the Olugbo elect.

An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from further presenting or parading himself or holding out himself or allowing himself to be held out as the Olugbo and from exercising any right or performing any functions ascribed to an Olugbo.”Pleadings were filed, exchanged and amended. At the trial the parties gave evidence, and called other witnesses and documentary evidence were tendered. At the conclusion of the trial, in his judgment delivered on the 7th day of June, 1990, the learned trial Judge dismissed in their entirety the declarations, reliefs and injunctions the plaintiffs claimed as reproduced above. The plaintiffs felt unhappy with the situation and appealed to the Court of Appeal on one original ground of appeal. With the leave of the Court of Appeal, 13 additional grounds were allowed to be canvassed on behalf of the plaintiffs.