Status of a Registered Chieftaincy Declaration

CASE TITLE: OGIEFO v. HRH JAFARU & ORS (2024) LPELR-62942(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 19TH JULY, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS
LEAD JUDGMENT: EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Chieftaincy Matters.

FACTS:

This appeal emanated from the decision of the High Court of Edo State sitting at Ekpoma.

The 1st respondent herein as plaintiff claimed as follows:

a. A declaration that the plaintiff herein is the legitimate successor to His Royal Highness, Isesele Ojiefo ii, Onojie of Ewu who joined his ancestors on 6th August, 1997 and he is, therefore, entitled to the rights, benefits and privileges attached to his office as Onojie of Ewu.

b. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from further parading himself or allowing himself to be paraded in any manner whatsoever as the Onojie of Ewu.

c. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from further laying claim in any manner whatsoever and however to the throne of Onojie of Ewu.

The appellant herein, 2nd and 3rd respondent filed a statement of defence and along with 4th to 6th respondents herein, jointly counterclaimed for:

i. A declaration that the 1st defendant herein is the legitimate successor to H.R.H. Isesele Ogiefo (JP), the late Onogie of Ewu who joined his ancestors on 6th August, 1997 and he is therefore entitled to his office as the Onojie of Ewu.

ii. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff from further parading himself or allowing himself to be paraded in any manner whatsoever as the Onogie of Ewu.

iii. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff from further laying claim in any manner whatsoever to the throne of Onogie of Ewu.

iv. An order of this Court restraining the plaintiff from occupying the palace of the Onogie of Ewu or an order of this Court on the plaintiff to give up possession of the Royal Palace of the Onogie of Ewu to the 1st defendant.

After conclusion of evidence and address by all parties, the trial Court rendered its judgment granting the reliefs claimed for by the plaintiff in the writ of summons and statement of claim and dismissed the said counter-claim.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant herein, 2nd and 3rd respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Following the filing, exchange and adoption of briefs by the parties, the Court of Appeal rendered its judgment in Appeal No. CA/B/19/2006 dismissing the appeal by the appellant, 2nd and 3rd respondents herein and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court, allowed the cross-appeal of the 1st respondent herein and dismissed the cross appeal of the 4th, 5th and 6th respondents herein.

Dissatisfied with this judgment of the Court of Appeal, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. However, the 4th, 5th and 6th respondents cross appealed.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The following issues were adopted for the determination of the appeal thus:

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the stool of the Onogie of Ewu could, in the circumstances and facts of this case, be subject only to the rule of primogeniture and no other rule or route even where found to be in utter disregard for the customs and traditions of the Ewu people?

2. Whether the Court of Appeal Benin Division was right in affirming the decision of the Edo State High Court in this matter, particularly when it upheld the ‘inviolability’ of the Bendel State Legal Notice. No. 70 of 1979, made pursuant to the Traditional

Rulers and Chiefs Law 1979 and utilized same to deflect the overwhelming evidence of Ewu Native Law and Custom in the instant proceedings?

3. Whether the Court of Appeal Benin-City was right in affirming the judgment of the Edo State High Court that the 1st Respondent is the legitimate successor to the throne of Onogie of Ewu when traditional evidence on Ewu Native Law and Custom pointed otherwise in the direction of the Appellant and by so holding occasioned a grave miscarriage of Justice?

DECISION/HELD:

On the whole, the main appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 14-2-2014 in Appeal No. CA/B/19/2006 was affirmed.

The cross appeal was also dismissed for lacking in merit.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- UNAPPEALED FINDING(S)/DECISION(S): Effect of unappealed finding(s)/decision(s) of court
• APPEAL- UNAPPEALED FINDING(S)/DECISION(S): Effect of unappealed finding(s)/decision(s) of court
• APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH FINDING(S) OF FACT(S): Instance(s) when an appellate Court will not interfere with findings of fact of a lower Court
• CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS- CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION: Status of a registered declaration

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