Oba Moshood Osuolale Adeyeri Ii & Ors V. Aderibigbe Atanda & Ors (1995)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

ADIO, J.S.C.

In the High Court of Justice, Oyo Judicial Division, Oyo State of Nigeria, the respondents instituted an action against the appellants. The reliefs claimed by the respondents, as stated in paragraph 30 of their Amended Statement of Claim were as follows:-

“(a) Declaration that under native law and custom of Iseyin, Oyo State, the only person duly appointed by the 1st plaintiff and other compound heads of Malete, Iseyin, and presented to the 1st defendant, as the prescribed authority for approval, by the Baale Koso, Iseyin, is the only person duly appointed as Baale Malete, Iseyin;

(b) Declaration that the purported appointment of the 3rd defendant as Baale Malete without the consent and permission of the 1st plaintiff and other compound heads of Malete, Iseyin in 1983 is against the custom and tradition of Malete people and as such is null and void;

(c) Declaration that the purported approval of the appointment of the 3rd defendant by the 1st defendant as Baale of Malete, Iseyin is against native law and custom of Malete, Iseyin and as such is null and void;

(d) Declaration that the purported recognition of the 3rd defendant as Baale Malete, Iseyin by the 2nd defendant is null and void;

(e) Perpetual injunction against:

(i) the 1st and 2nd defendant respectively restraining them from approving and recognising respectively, the 3rd defendant as Baale Malete, Iseyin;

(ii) the 3rd defendant restraining him from parading himself as Baale of Malete, and/or performing the rites, duties and functions of Baale Malete, Iseyin;

(f) Declaration that the 5th plaintiff is the person duly appointed as Baale Malete, Iseyin by the 1st plaintiff and other compound beads of Malete Iseyin and presented to the 1st defendant through the Baale Koso for approval in 1983.”

Pleadings were duly filed, amended and duly exchanged. The evidence led by the respondents was that there were three ruling houses entitled to provide or present a candidate to fill a vacancy in Baale of Malete, chieftaincy in turn or rotation. The usual procedure whenever there was a vacancy in the chieftaincy was that the compound heads, other than the compound heads of the three ruling houses, would nominate a candidate from the ruling house whose turn it was to present a candidate and present him to the Aseyin of Iseyin through the Baale Koso for approval of his appointment.

The purported appointment of the 3rd defendant as Baale of Malete which the Aseyin of Iseyin purported to approve or recognize was not done according to the aforesaid procedure and the purported appointment and recognition were null and void. Evidence was also led by the respondents that the appointment of the 5th respondent of Baale Malete, Iseyin was in accordance with the aforesaid native law and custom but the Aseyin of Iseyin (1st appellant) refused to approve or grant recognition to the appointment when the appointment of the 5th respondent was submitted through the Baale Koso to the 1st appellant for approval or recognition. Instead of doing the correct thing, the 1st appellant granted his approval or recognition to the purported appointment of the 3rd appellant. It was not the turn of the ruling house of the 3rd appellant to provide a candidate.

On the other hand, the appellants’ case, as presented, was that there were only two ruling houses capable of providing or presenting a candidate for the purpose of filling a vacancy in the Baale of Malete chieftaincy. It was the turn of the family of the 3rd appellant to provide a candidate for the purpose of filling the vacancy.

It was also contended that it was not necessary to obtain the consent of all compound heads before the vacancy could be filled.