Obala Of Otan-aiyegbaju & Ors. V. Chief Joseph Adesina & Ors. (1999)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED, J.S.C.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division. The issue in dispute is succession to the stool of Owa of Otan-Aiyegbaju. The claim of the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs, who are respondents in this appeal, is as follows:

“1. That pursuant to the Olota chieftaincy declaration of 1957, it is only the Olasuka ruling house that is entitled to present the next candidates to the Otan-Aiyegbaju kingmakers, for appointment as the next Owa of Otan-Aiyegbaju.

2. That the 2nd plaintiff being the only candidate, from Olasuka ruling house, that was presented to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th defendants as the kingmakers of Otan-Aiyegbaju is the lawful and legitimate Owa-elect of Otan-Aiyegbaju.
3. That the 9th defendant, being one of the sons of the immediate past Owa of Otan-Aiyegbaju, His Highness, Oba G.A. Oyejobi Adeniran, Owa Olamodi II, from the Olamodi ruling house, is not entitled to be appointed the Owa-elect or Otan-Aiyegbaju; therefore, his appointment and recommendation through the 2nd defendant to the 1st defendant for appointment as the next Owa of Otan-Aiyegbaju, by the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th & 8th defendants is ultra vires the 3rd to the 8th defendants, therefore, illegal, null and void and of no effect.
4. An injunction restraining the 1st defendant, his agents and privies from approving the appointment of the 9th defendant as the next Owa of Otan-Aiyegbaju.
5. An injunction restraining the 2nd to the 8th defendants, their servants, agents or privies from parading the 9th defendant as the Owa-elect of Otan-Aiyegbaju.
6. An injunction restraining the 9th defendant from parading himself as the Owa-elect of Otan-Aiyegbaju’”

The dispute in the chieftaincy of Otan-Aiyegbaju started after the demise of Oba G.A. Oyejobi Adeniran Olamodi II on 14/8/82. Pursuant to a letter written by the Secretary to Oyo State Government to the Secretary to Ila Local Government the latter wrote a letter to the kingmakers of Otan-Aiyegbaju chieftaincy to select a candidate from Olasuka ruling house. Under the Owa of Otan-Aiyegbaju 1957 chieftaincy declaration there are four ruling houses namely, Olamodi, Olasuka, Olatanka and Olaruka. Whenever a vacancy arises the kingmakers will select a person from the ruling house whose turn under the rotation order is to produce a candidate to fill the vacant stool. Since the deceased Oba G.A. Oyejobi Adeniran Olamodi II was from Olamodi ruling house, the next candidate for the succession to the stool of Owa of Otan-Aiyegbaju under the order or rotation shall come from Olasuka ruling house.

The Olasuka ruling house met and nominated the 2nd respondent as their candidate for the vacant stool of Owa of Otan-Aiyegbaju chieftaincy. The nomination was duly conveyed to the kingmakers for their deliberations. The kingmakers did not act in time. After some days the Secretary to Ila Local Government wrote another letter directing the kingmakers to select a candidate from Olasuka ruling house for the appointment. It was after the issuance of the second letter from the Secretary to the Local Government that the kingmakers met and appointed Edward A.A. Adeniran, the 3rd respondent in this appeal, to fill the stool left vacant following the demise of his father. The appointment was obviously contrary to the provisions of rotation in the 1957 chieftaincy declaration for the Owa of Otan-Aiyegbaju stool. Dissatisfied with the action of the kingmakers, the 1st and 2nd respondents went to court and claimed as per their writ of summons. Pleadings were called and delivered. The kingmakers and Edward A.A. Adeniran denied the claim. Edward A. A. Adeniran in addition to his denial filed a counter-claim against the plaintiffs as follows:

i Declaration that the declaration setting out the method of selection of a person to be Olotan of Otan made by the Ifelodun District Council and approved at lbadan on the 27th day of May, 1957 and registered on the 29th day of June. 1957 and also approved to remain unchanged by the Government of Oyo State following the recommendation of Ademola Chieftaincy Review Panel is null, void and of no effect as it recognises Olasuka, Olaruka and Olatanka as distinct ruling houses apart from Olamodi ruling house which is the only ruling house known and recognised in respect of Olotan of Otan chieftaincy title in accordance with the native law and custom of Otan-Aiyegbaju.

ii. Declaration that there is only one ruling house which has the right to provide candidate or candidates for the Olotan chieftaincy and its identity is Olamodi.”

The case was heard by Sijuwade J. (as he then was). At the close of the hearing where witnesses on both sides gave evidence the learned trial Judge dismissed the entire claim of the plaintiffs. For the reason given in his judgment the learned trial Judge granted the first prayer in the counter-claim filed by Edward A. A. Adeniran in the following words:

“On the other hand, the counter-claim of the 7th defendant in leg one succeeds. The chieftaincy declaration on Olotan of Otan-Aiyegbaju made in 1957 that is Exhibit ‘M’ or rather on Owa of Otan-Aiyegbaju (as it is now known) which is also referred to in Exhibit ‘L174’ to ‘L180′ in this case is declared for the reasons given above, null and void and of no effect, and it is accordingly set aside with costs which I shall now proceed to assess.”

Dissatisfied with this judgment, the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs (respondents in this appeal) went before the Court of Appeal on eleven grounds of appeal. In the appeal before this court, Chief Folake Solanke, SAN submitted issue 1, in the appellants’ brief, that grounds 1-10 filed by the respondents at the Court of Appeal were incompetent to sustain the plaintiffs’/respondents’ appeal. In view of this submission it is imperative to reproduce all the grounds of appeal filed by the plaintiffs/respondents before the Court of Appeal. The grounds cover 13 pages of this judgment, but one cannot appreciate the arguments of appellants’ counsel against the grounds if they are not reproduced in full. They are as follows:

“1. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he reasoned as follows:

a. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties and I have seen nowhere the plaintiffs have traced themselves as male descendants of Olamodi … The right to the ascension of the throne of Owa of Otan-Aiyegbaju as I said earlier in this judgment is commonly accepted by both parties as strictly hereditary and restricted to only male Omo Owa or their male descendants.

b. From the pleadings of the parties there are certain facts which I find undisputed by the parties and which I intend to restate here below as forming the historical background and development of the chieftaincy tussle within the family, and which also regard as findings of fact by this court as well.

c. That the succession to Owa of Otan-Aiyegbaju chieftaincy is hereditary and only male Omo Owa or their male descendants can contest the stool.