CORAM

PARTIES

APPELLANTS

ALHAJI SAKA ADEYEMO & ORS RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF FACTS
In 2010, following the demise of the Olofa of Offa, the kingmakers got together to choose a new Olofa of Offa by nomination from the two Ruling Houses in Offa; the Olugbense Ruling House (male line) and the Anilelerin Ruling House (female line) and both houses complied. The Oracle of Offa went to work and the 8th Respondent, Alhaji Mofutau Mohammed Gbadamosi Esuwoye from the Anilelerin Ruling house was selected as the right person to be the new Olofa of Offa. This did not go down well with the Olugbense Ruling House, where after they (1st – 3rd Respondents as Claimants) instituted an action at the Kwara State High Court claiming inter alia, that the Olofa chieftaincy is rotational between the two Ruling Houses to wit: Olugbense and Anilelerin and it was the candidate of the Olugbense Ruling House to be the Olofa of Offa. The trial court held that succession to the Olofa stool was not rotational and that the 8th Respondent was validly nominated. Aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, the 1st – 3rd Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal where the decision of the trial court was set aside. Dissatisfied with the lower court’s decision, the Appellants have appealed to this Court, challenging the jurisdictional competence of the Courts below for entertaining the case of the Claimants, that by virtue of Section 3(3) of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law of Kwara State, the failure of the Claimants to approach the Governor to resolve their dispute before going to Court robbed the lower courts of jurisdiction to entertain the case.

HELD

Appeal Allowed.

ISSUES

Whether the proceedings and decisions of the courts below are not competently defective in the light of the provisions of section 3(3) of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law, Cap. C9, Laws of Kwara State, 2006? Whether the Court of Appeal was right in its conclusion that, based on exhibit A and J, the selection and appointment of Olofa of Offa is by rotation and whether the approval of the respondent as the Olofa of Offa was rightly set aside by the Court of Appeal? Whether contrary to the case of the parties, the Court of Appeal was right to have employed and relied on “its sense of justice” and principle of repugnancy test as basis for granting the reliefs of the 1st – 3rd respondents?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

Not Available

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law Cap. C9, Laws of Kwara State, 2006|Kwara State Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law of Kwara State|

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT