Position of the Law as Regards Locus Standi to Institute an Action in a Chieftaincy Dispute

CASE TITLE: OLATIDOYE v. OLADEPO & ORS (2025) LPELR-82168(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 9TH OCTOBER, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: PUBLIC SERVICE

LEAD JUDGMENT: OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the application of Public Officers Protection Law in chieftaincy matter.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Osun State, delivered by Hon. Justice Dr. A.A. Aderibigbe on the 20th day of January, 2022, wherein the Appellant’s suit was dismissed in its entirety on the grounds that it was statute-barred.

The dispute in this case arose from the succession to the stool of the Salu of Edunabon, a recognized chieftaincy under the Chiefs Law of Osun State and governed by the Salu of Edunabon Chieftaincy Declaration of 1957. Upon the demise of the former Salu, a vacancy arose which prompted various processes for the selection and appointment of a new traditional ruler.

The Appellant, who is the Olosi of Edunabon and the acknowledged head of the Edunabon Kingmakers, claimed to have overseen the traditional selection, installation, and presentation of one Prince Adebayo Nasiru Bolawole as the new Salu. According to him, the selection was based on consultations with the Ifa Oracle and conducted in accordance with the Chieftaincy Declaration. The said candidate was also presented to the Ooni of Ife, the prescribed authority in the domain, who consented to his appointment as required by law.

Meanwhile, on 9th November 2018, the Ife North West Local Council Development Area, acting through its Council Secretary and under the guidance of the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, conducted another selection process during which the 1st Respondent was selected as Salu of Edunabon. This process was said to have been witnessed by warrant chiefs, security personnel, and other relevant authorities but without the Appellant. Following this, the nomination of the 1st Respondent was submitted to the Governor of Osun State, who approved the appointment.

Over a year later, on 9th January 2020, the Appellant instituted an action before the High Court of Osun State challenging the nomination, selection, appointment, and approval of the 1st Respondent. He contended that due process, as prescribed by the Chiefs Law and Chieftaincy Declaration, had not been followed and that his role as head of the kingmakers was bypassed. In response, the 1st and 5th Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 20th January 2021, challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court on the ground that the action was statute-barred. The objection was supported by affidavits and a written address.

The High Court, without proceeding to hear the substantive issues, upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the suit in its entirety. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Appellant lodged this appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The issue considered by the Court was whether the trial Court acted rightly in dismissing the suit in its entirety when the suit was not heard on the merits, and also considering the fact that the reliefs sought against the 1st Respondent are different from the reliefs sought against the 2nd to 5th Respondents?

The Court considered the following jurisdictional issues in the resolution of the appeal:

1. Whether the Appellant’s continuation of the suit following the ruling delivered on 10th December 2020, without appealing that ruling, amounts to an abuse of Court process.

2. Whether the Appellant, not being a member of the ruling house entitled to fill the vacant stool of Salu of Edunabon, had the requisite locus standi to institute the suit.

DECISION/HELD:

The appeal was allowed.

RATIOS:

• ACTION- LOCUS STANDI: Position of the law as regards locus standi to institute an action in a Chieftaincy dispute
• ACTION- STATUTE BARRED ACTION: Effect of a statute barred action
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ABUSE OF COURT/JUDICIAL PROCESS(ES): Nature of the concept of abuse of Court/judicial process
• PUBLIC OFFICER- PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT/LAW: Purpose of the Public Officers Protection Act/ Law
• PUBLIC OFFICER- PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT/LAW: Duty of Court in determining the applicability of the Public Officers Protection Act/Law when raised

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