Prince Eyinade Ojo & Ors. V. The Attorney-general Of Oyo State & Ors (2008)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MAHMUD MOHAMMED, J.S.C.

At the hearing of this appeal on 29th April, 2008, a notification of the death of Olayiwola Olawore and Chief Dr. A. O. Odeleye who were the 1st and 6th respondents respectively in this appeal, was received from their Counsel Mr. H. withdrew the appeal against them and consequently their names were struck out from the list of respondents accordingly. This left the 2nd , 3rd , 4th and 5th respondents as the respondents to the appeal.

This appeal has a chequered history. It originated from suit No. HOY/3/82 filed by the 1st Appellant along with three others as Plaintiffs in 1982 at the Oyo State High Court against the Governor of Oyo State and three other Defendants including the 2nd Respondent and claimed as follows –

“1. Declaration that the 1956 Baale of IIora Chieftaincy Declaration is the only valid Declaration in respect of the Baale of IIora Chieftaincy and that the present Kingmakers are the only persons entitled to select a Baale of Ilora elect;

2. Declaration that the Secretary of Oyo South Local Government’s circular letter reference No. OYLGSG535/VOL.11/394 of 11th January, 1982 appointing warrant kingmakers and inviting such appointees to consider a list of candidates for the purpose of filling the vacancy in the Baale of Ilora Chieftaincy is improper, invalid and of no effect;
3. Declaration that the purported meeting of the warrant kingmakers held at Jobele on Wednesday, 13th January, 1982 and the selection of a candidate for filling of the Baale of IIora Chieftaincy is unconstitutional, invalid, improper and of no effect;
4. Declaration that the 1st plaintiff is the only candidate validly elected as Baale of Ilora elect;
5. Injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from further participation in the processes (as Baale elect) appointment and installation of the Baale of IIora and from parading himself as Baale elect of IIora.
6. Injunction restraining the 1st defendant from approving the 3rd defendant or any candidate that the 4th Defendant may submit to him as Baale elect of Ilora and subsequently, installing any

such candidate as Baale of Dora.

7. Injunction restraining the 4th Defendant from further participation in any exercise connected with the processes of the approval and installation of the Defendant as Baale elect of IIora.”

At the end of the hearing of these claims, the trial court dismissed the appellants’ action and their appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgment of the trial court was also dismissed. However, the Appellants’ further appeal to this Court was successful as their appeal in SC.218/1985, was allowed on 13th January, 1989 and the following reliefs were granted to them by this Court, namely –

1. Baale of not a Chieftaincy Declaration is the only valid declaration in respect of the Baale of IIora Chieftaincy and that the present Kingmakers are the only persons entitled to select a Baale of IIora elect.
2. A Declaration that the Secretary of Oyo South Local Government’s circular letter reference No.

OYLSG535/VOL. 11/394 of 11tb January, 1982 appointing warrant Kingmakers and inviting such appointees to consider list of candidates for the purpose of filling the vacancy in the Baale of

IIora Chieftaincy is improper, invalid and of no effect.

3. The purported selection of the 3rd Defendant/Respondent by the warrant kingmakers on 13th January, 1982 as the Baale elect of IIora is null and void and of no effect.
4. The purported appointment of the 3rd Defendant/Respondent as the Baale of IIora by the Oyo State Government as per the letter reference No. C.BI41/38/18/VOL.11/644 of 11th February, 1982 is null and void and of no effect.
5. Injunction restraining the 3rd Defendant/Respondent from further participation in any processes for installation as the himself as the (a little omission ) himself as the Baale of IIora.
6. The Oyo State Government as a matter of extreme urgency is to set in motion the processes for

the selection, appointment and installation of a new Baale of IIora.”

Thus the appellants who were the Plaintiffs at the trial court were the successful parties in this Court in their appeal. However, before the Oyo State Government could take appropriate steps to comply with the directive of this Court regarding the appointment and installation of a new Baale of Ilora, the 1st Appellant in the present appeal, who was also the 1st Appellant in the Appeal NO.SC/218/1985, along with .others went back to the trial Oyo State High Court and instituted a fresh action an the same Baale of Ilora Chieftaincy dispute seeking the following reliefs –

“1. Declaration that the 1st Plaintiff has been validly elected as the Baale of IIora.

2. Declaration that the 1st Defendant does not qualify as a candidate for election as Baale of IIora on the platform of Okunla Ruling House.
3. Order restraining the Defendants or anyone lawfully taking orders from them from setting in motion any other process for the selection and election of any other candidate than the 1st Plaintiff as Baale of IIora.
4. ( a little omission Page 5) presenting himself to the kingmakers or anyone else for appointment or installation as candidate for the vacant stool of Baale of Dora.
5. An injunction restraining the 4th, 5th and 6th defendants from intermeddling in the processes of the appointment and installation of Baale of IIora.”

At the hearing of their new case, the appellants as plaintiffs at the trial court called two witnesses in support of their claims while the respondents who were the defendants in the action also called two witnesses in their defence. In the course of the hearing, the record of proceedings in the first action instituted in 1982, suit No. HOY/3/82 by the Appellants which went through to the Court of Appeal and ultimately to the Supreme Court in Appeal No. SC/218/1985 in which judgment was delivered on 13th January, 1989 in favour of the appellants, were admitted in evidence as exhibits ‘A’ and ‘C’ respectively. At the conclusion of the hearing, the learned trial judge came to the conclusion that the appellants’ action was an attempt to frustrate the judgment of this Court in SC/218/1985 between the same parties which that Court has a duty under the Constitution to enforce and therefore dismissed the action in its entirety. The appellants’ appeal to the Court of Appeal against the dismissal of their action by trial court was also dismissed by the Court of Appeal in its judgment delivered on 2nd December, 1999., describing the appellants’ action as an abuse of the process of Court. The present appeal by the of the trial court.

From the 7 grounds of appeal filed by the appellants to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeal, two issues were formulated in the appellants’ brief of argument as follows –

“1. Whether or not the appeal of the appellants received the treatment it deserved from the Court of Appeal. The issue covers grounds 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the amended grounds of appeal.