CASE TITLE: OBANOBI & ORS v. OLUSI & ORS (2025) LPELR-81999(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 4TH JULY, 2025
PRACTICE AREA: CHIEFTAINCY LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on chieftaincy matters.
FACTS:
The facts giving rise to this appeal are rooted in the chieftaincy succession of the Olukakumo of Ikakumo stool, which has been in existence for over 400 years. Under the 1960 Chieftaincy Declaration made pursuant to native stool law and custom, 4 (four) ruling houses (Ayanwa, Arepin, Aparius, and Ayindu) were recognised as entitled to the chieftaincy in rotational order. The 1st and 2nd Respondents, being dissatisfied with the said 1960 Declaration, petitioned the Ondo State Government, claiming that the Ayindu ruling house was the sole ruling house entitled to present candidates for the Olukakumo stool.
In response, the government constituted the Justice Morgan Chieftaincy Review Committee in 1978 to investigate the matter. At the conclusion of its inquiry, the Committee accepted the position of the Respondents and recommended that Ayindu be the only legitimate ruling house under native law and custom, and the Governor of Ondo State accepted the recommendation and issued a White Paper formalising the new position.
Aggrieved by the recommendation and the White Paper, the Appellants who were plaintiffs at the High Court of Ondo State, Ikare Akoko Judicial Division, instituted an action at the trial Court vide a Writ of Summons dated and filed on the 16th day of February, 1988, and sought various reliefs, including a declaration that according to the Customary Law dealing with the Olukakumo of Ikakumo Chieftaincy in the Akoko North East Local Government, Ondo State, the following four ruling houses have the right to provide candidates in relation to the Olukakumo of Ikakumo Chieftaincy. Namely, (1) Ayanwa Ruling House, (2) Aparisu Ruling House, (3) Arepin Ruling House and (4) Ayindu Ruling House, respectively.
While the suit was pending, the Ondo State Government proceeded to register the 1988 Chieftaincy Declaration pursuant to the White Paper. At the conclusion of the trial, the parties filed and adopted their respective final addresses, and the trial Court delivered its judgment and granted 7 (seven) out of the 8 (eight) reliefs sought by the Appellants.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Respondents appealed and also cross-appealed to the Court of Appeal. The judgment of the trial Court was set aside in its entirety.
Still dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Appellants further appealed to the Supreme Court by way of an Amended Notice of Appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court determined the appeal on the following issues:
1. Whether the decision of the lower Court that it was proper of the 3rd Respondent to register Exhibit d, that is, the 1988 chieftaincy declaration during the pendency of the action at the trial Court is justifiable and sustainable.
2. Whether the decision of the lower Court that the amendment of the Appellants’ statement of claim at the trial Court created a new cause of action has any basis in law.
3. Whether the failure to register the 1960 chieftaincy declaration under the Chiefs’ Law of Ondo State 1984 is not detrimental to the Appellants’ case.
4. Whether, considering the evidence adduced by the Appellants before the trial Court and a proper evaluation of same, the Ikakumodecision of the lower Court that the Appellants failed to prove that there are four ruling houses with regard to the Olukakumo of the Ikakumo chieftaincy stool is sustainable.
DECISION/HELD:
The Supreme Court, having resolved issues 1 and 3 in favour of the Respondents and issues 2 and 4 in favour of the Appellants, allowed the appeal in part.
RATIOS:
- ACTION- CAUSE(S) OF ACTION: Whether a Court of law can exercise jurisdiction where a cause of action has not arisen
- APPEAL- FRESH POINT(S) ON APPEAL: Whether a party can raise fresh issue(s) on appeal without leave of Court; effect of failure to obtain leave
- APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Duty of trial Court to evaluate evidence and ascribe probative value to same; when an Appellate Court will/will not interfere
- CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS- CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION: On whom lies the function/responsibility of making chieftaincy declarations
- CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS- CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION: Effect of a registered chieftaincy declaration
- CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS- DECLARATION OF CUSTOMARY LAW: Whether the Courts can make a finding as to what the custom/customary law is in a particular area with regards to the selection and appointment of a Chief
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- SEPARATION OF POWERS: What the principle of separation of powers under a constitutional structure entails
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
