CORAM

---

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT.

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT.

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT.

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT.

---

PARTIES

---

1.MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR [EKITI STATE]

2.THE A.G. AND COMM. OF JUSTICE [EKITI STATE]

3. THE SEC. EKITI SOUTH WEST LOCAL GOV.

4. EKITI SOUTH WEST LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHIEFTAINCY COMMITTEE

5. JOHN OYEDELE

6. EDWARD JAIYEOLA[For and on behalf of the Agungun Ruling House of Igbara-Odo Ekiti]

7. J. ADU [For and on behalf of the Odigede Ruling House of Igbara-Odo].

APPELLANT(S) / DEFENDANT(S) 

---

PRINCE BENJAMIN ADENIYI ALADEYELU

PLAINTIFFS / RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appeal is brought against the successful appeal by the respondent at the court of appeal. The crux of the matter has to do with chieftaincy. It was the custom that there existed one ruling house in respect of a chieftaincy in Igbara-Odo, Ekiti state. For some reasons, the government set up a commission to look into the matter; which culminated in the recommendation of an increase in the number of ruling house from 1 to 3. The recommendation was accepted by government but for some reasons, the recommendation was not registered as stipulated by Section 4(2) of the Chief’s Edict of 1984 until 1995 when the government sought to register same. Section 49(2) states thus:No declaration shall come in to effect until it is so registered.The respondent challenged the white paper as contrary to custom while the appellant contended that the respondents were statute barred since the recommendation was adopted in 1981. The Supreme Court in a unanimous decision dismissed the appeal and held that the cause of action accrued when the government sought to the register the white paper in 1995 and not 1981 when the recommendation was adopted by government.

---

HELD

---

The Supreme Court held that the action was not statute barred as the cause of action arose in 1995, when the government sought to register the recommendation of the commission, and not when the government issued the white paper approving the recommendation of the commission.

---

ISSUES

---

Whether or not the lower court was not in error when it held that the plaintiffs action was not caught by the statute of limitations.Whether or not the lower court was not in grave error to have held that the plaintiffs’ cause of action accrued on 19/9/1995.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CHIEFTANCY DECLARATION CANNOT AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF PERSON UNTIL REGISTERED

---

“From the language of subsection (2) a chieftaincy Declaration cannot affect the rights of persons subject to it unless and until it has been registered”. (Per Musdapher, JSC)

---

CASES CITED

---

NONE

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

The Chief’s Edict,1984.

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT