Prince Tajudeen Olanrewaju V Sikiru Oyesomi & Ors (2014)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in appeal No. CA/I/56/901 delivered by the Ibadan Division of the Court on the 8th day of May, 2000 in which the Court dismissed the appeal of appellant against the judgment of the High Court of Oyo State, Holden at Ife Judicial Division in suit No. HIF/99/87 delivered on the 9th day of May, 1990 granting the claims of the then plaintiffs and the counter claim of the 3rd, 4th and 7th defendants.

This appeal arose from a Chieftaincy dispute involving the IKIRE Stool.

The facts of the case include the following: One Kujelanyo shortened to “KUJE” was the original founder of the stool. He had four children initially through four wives. The children were Disamu who was the eldest; Lambeloye; Ladekan and Onisokan; that in his old age Kuje was given a new wife who later begot another son named Aketula whose partenity is said to have been in dispute as some of the parties to the action claim that he was the son of Disamu – one of the direct sons of KUJE. The parties however, agreed that the mother of Aketula was Kuje’s wife and that Aketula was born in the life time of Kuje though the respondents contend that at the time of his birth, Kuje was too old to father a child. However, it is the four sons of Kuje that are said to constitute the ruling houses of Akire/Ikire Stool/Chieftaincy to the exclusion of Aketula and his descendants.

On the other hand, it is the case of appellant, who was the 6th defendant at the trial, that Aketula, his ancestor, was the direct son of Kuje.

In 1958, however, the Akire of Ikire Chieftaincy Declaration, exhibit “A” was made by the then Western Region government, which identified the ruling houses of Akire of Ikire Chieftaincy to be five to wit: Lambeloye; Ladekan; Disamu; Onisokan and Aketula resulting in the other four ruling houses protesting to the government against the recognition of Aketula: appellant’s ruling house. The government then set up a Commission of Inquiry known as Obasa Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the controversy. The Commission agreed with the four ruling houses that appellant’s ancestor Aketula was not a direct son of Kuje, the father of the ancestors of the four ruling houses but of Disamu and consequently recommended the four ruling houses for recognition as the ruling houses for the Akire of Ikire Chieftaincy.

The recommendation was accepted by the government which directed the Chieftaincy Committee of Iwo Local Government to amend the 1958 declaration. The directive was given in 1976 but no such amendment was made.

In 1987, the reigning Akire of Ikire joined his ancestors resulting in a tussle for the throne by the contesting ruling houses including Aketula, the appellant’s ruling house, which also resulted in the action giving rise to the appeal.

The plaintiffs at the trial court are the representatives of three of the four ruling houses of Akire of Ikire Chieftaincy namely Ladekan, Disamu and Onisokan while the 7th defendant is from the 4th ruling house of Lambeloye. The 3rd defendant represented the Akire of Ikire Chieftaincy Kingmakers. The 3rd, 4th and 7th defendants however counter claimed against the plaintiffs and the 6th defendant who is appellant in this Court.

The claims of the plaintiffs is as follows:

“(1) A declaration that the inclusion of Aketula House as a Ruling House in the Akire of Ikire Chieftaincy Declaration is erroneous in law and in breach of Ikire Customary Law and Tradition and therefore null and void and of no effect:

(2) A declaration that the Recommendation of Obasa Public Enquiry into Akire of Ikire Chieftaincy Title as regards:-

(a) The number and identity of ruling houses;

(b) The order of rotation;