Circumstances in Which a Chieftaincy Declaration Can Be Set Aside

CASE TITLE: AINA & ANOR v. DADA & ANOR (2024) LPELR-62505(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 21ST JUNE, 2024

PRACTICE AREA: CIVIL PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on chieftaincy matters.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ekiti Judicial Division.

The 1st Respondent commenced the action that gave rise to this appeal at the High Court of Ekiti State sitting in Ido Ekiti against the Appellants and the 2nd Respondent as 1st -3rd defendants.

The 1st Respondent’s case at the trial was that he, as the title holder of Obajemu of Erinmope-Ekiti from Ijewu quarters, is the 4th in rank to the 1st Appellant (Obaleo, the Oba of Erinmope Ekiti) among the nine High Chiefs in Erinmope Ekiti, while the 2nd Appellant comes after him as the 5th in rank. This arrangement has been in existence since time immemorial and has been religiously followed by the people of Erinmope, Ekiti. The arrangement has been recognized by the government via Intelligence Report Exhibits P5, Western States Chieftaincy Declaration of 1957 Exhibit P10, as well as the Morgan Report and Government Views on It Exhibit P9.

In 1984, the 1st Appellant, as the King, transgressed, and a Panel of Enquiry was set up by the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs. The deposition of the 1st Appellant was recommended, but due to his efforts and those of other well-meaning members of the community, the 1st Appellant’s deposition was averted. But despite his efforts, the 1st Appellant still perceives him as the ringleader of those who wanted to depose him (the 1st Appellant), and since then, the 1st Appellant has started exhibiting pathological hatred towards him and the people of his Ijewu quarters.

In furtherance of his hatred towards him, on the 7th September, 1993 during the sharing of traditional meat for the High Chiefs in Erinmope Ekiti, the 2nd Appellant on the instigation of the 1st Appellant got up from his seat and took the portion of the meat shared to him (the 1st Respondent) as the 4th in rank in the hierarchy but he resisted the attempt by the 2nd Appellant to usurp his position, he was as a result manhandled and his cloth torn. The dispute could not be resolved. In further display of hostility towards him, he said that the 1st Appellant also colluded with the 2nd Respondent to place the 2nd Appellant above him by increasing the salary and emoluments of the 2nd Appellant above his own, thereby prompting him to institute the action that led to this appeal and praying for the reliefs aforesaid.

In defence, the Appellants denied all the allegations by the 1st Respondent, particularly, the assertion that the 1st Respondent is the 4th in rank to the Obaleao of Erinmope-Ekiti. According to the Appellants, the arrangement from time immemorial has always been that the 2nd Appellant is placed as the 4th while the 1st Respondent is placed as the 5th in rank to the Obaleo of Erinmope Ekiti. Appellants stated that the 2nd Appellant’s Edemorun title is the first High Chief in Erinmope Ekiti and the 1st Respondent’s Obajemu title appeared for the first time in the Western State Chieftaincy Declarations in 1957. The 1st Respondent’s Chieftaincy title of Obajemu is not recognized in the 1961 Chieftaincy Declarations as a Kingmaker to any High Chief while the 2nd Appellant is mentioned as a kingmaker to all other High Chiefs in Erinmope Ekiti. The Appellants alluded to several customary roles and practices such as ‘Orun sisu” which the holder of Edemorun Chieftaincy title performs but which the holder of Obajemu title does not perform. Further, Appellants stated that the 2nd Appellant’s Edemorun Chieftaincy title is the head of Ogbon-Arin one of the three zones in Erinmope-Ekiti but the 1st Respondent’s Obajemu title does not head any zone. Appellants denied that the 1st Appellant instigated the 2nd Appellant to do anything on the 7th September, 1993. It is the Appellants’ case that the contest for the 4th in rank between the Appellant’s Edemorun Chieftaincy title and the 1st Respondent’s Obajemu Chieftaincy title predated the reign of the 1st Appellant as the Obaleo of Erinmope Ekiti, rather it started in 1972 when the 1st Respondent attended the first meeting in the palace during the sharing of traditional meat at the palace of the then Obaleo of Erinmope Ekiti who hailed from the 1st Respondent’s Ijewu quarters. It was the then Obaleo who ordered Chief Eisinkin to give the next portion of meat meant for Chief Agbebi the then Edemorun to the 1st Respondent and upon the refusal of Chief Eisinkin to carry out the order because it was wrong and contrary to the custom, the then Obaleo ordered another chief to do his biding and it was done, that Chief Agbebi then walked out of the palace with the remark that because of his old age and infirmity he could not physically enforce his portion and that his successor in title would not brook such transgression in the future.

After the trial and addresses of counsel, the trial Court delivered a considered judgment on the 2nd day of December, 2014 in which it granted the 1st Respondent’s reliefs as prayed. The appeal to the Court of appeal against the judgment of the trial Court was dismissed and Appellants still dissatisfied, filed this further appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court distilled the following issues for the determination of the appeal:

1. Whether the lower court was right in not considering the points canvassed under issues two and three in the appellants brief before the lower court?

2. Whether having regards to the oral and documentary evidence on record and the entire circumstances of this case, the lower court was right in affirming the judgment of the trial court?

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- INVESTIGATION PANEL: Status of the recommendations/report of a committee or a body set up by government
• APPEAL- GROUND(S) OF APPEAL: Whether a ground of appeal can be against an obiter dictum
• APPEAL- REPLY BRIEF: Purpose/function of a reply brief
• CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS- CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION: Effect of a chieftaincy declaration approved by the appropriate authority as regulating a major chieftaincy title
• CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS- CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION: Circumstances in which chieftaincy declaration could be set aside
• COURT- DUTY OF COURT: Duty of Court to consider/pronounce on all issues raised before it and the exception thereof; effect of failure thereof
• COURT- POWER OF COURT: Instance where the Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act
• EQUITY- PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY: Whether equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent
• EVIDENCE- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Whether documentary evidence is the best evidence; whether it can be altered by oral evidence
• EVIDENCE- WRONGFUL ADMISSION/REJECTION OF EVIDENCE: Basis upon which a piece of evidence already admitted can be expunged at the stage of writing judgment/on appeal
• EVIDENCE- PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY: Whether official documents enjoy the presumption of regularity
• EVIDENCE- ORAL/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Whether oral evidence can be used to vary the content of a written agreement/document

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol