TOPE ADESOYE V. THE STATE
March 3, 2025HAJIA UMMA MUKTAR AHMED MOHAMMED V NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
March 3, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2024-06) Legalpedia 44626 (CA)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jun 21, 2024
Suit Number: SC.971/2017
CORAM
Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Chidi Nwaoma Uwa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Stephen Jonah Adah Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Abubakar Sadiq Umar Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
1. OBA J.O. AINA
2. CHIEF MICHAEL AWOYEMI (The Edemorun of Erinmope-Ekiti)
APPELLANTS
1. CHIEF ISRAEL ADEBAYO DADA
2. MOBAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CHIEFTAINCY LAW, CUSTOMARY LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, FAIR HEARING, JUDICIAL PRECEDENT
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The case arose from a dispute over chieftaincy ranking in Erinmope-Ekiti between the 1st Respondent (Chief Israel Adebayo Dada) and the 2nd Appellant (Chief Michael Awoyemi). The 1st Respondent claimed he was the 4th in rank to the 1st Appellant (Obaleo, the Oba of Erinmope Ekiti) among the nine High Chiefs, while the 2nd Appellant comes after him as 5th in rank. This arrangement had allegedly existed from time immemorial and was recognized by government through various documents including Intelligence Reports and Chieftaincy Declarations.
The dispute came to a head on September 7, 1993, during the sharing of traditional meat for High Chiefs. The 2nd Appellant attempted to take the portion meant for the 1st Respondent, leading to a physical altercation where the 1st Respondent was manhandled and his clothes torn. The 1st Respondent also alleged that the 1st Appellant harbored hatred towards him due to a 1984 incident where he was perceived as leading those who wanted the 1st Appellant deposed.
The Appellants denied the 1st Respondent’s claims, contending that historically, the 2nd Appellant’s Edemorun title was placed 4th while the 1st Respondent’s Obajemu title was 5th in rank. They argued that the dispute over ranking predated the current Obaleo’s reign, starting in 1972.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed.
3. The Supreme Court held that Exhibits P9 and P10 (official documents placing Obajemu ahead of Edemorun) were binding and could not be contradicted by oral evidence.
4. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that issue one covers all other issues and it would determine the appeal on it.
2. Whether the failure of the Court of Appeal to consider the pleadings of the Appellants as it did those of the Respondent and its failure to consider their Reply Brief amount to a denial of fair hearing.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it applied the principle of law that the content of a document cannot be varied or altered by oral evidence to the Intelligence Report.
4. Whether the Court of Appeal was justified in holding that the evidence adduced by the Respondent preponderates that of the Appellants.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY – VALIDITY OF OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
“First, Exhibits P5, P9 and P10 are official documents endowed with presumption of regularity and validity pursuant to Section 168(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 which provides: (1) When any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with.” – Per Abubakar Sadiq Umar, J.S.C.
SUPREMACY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OVER ORAL TESTIMONY
“Therefore, until Exhibit P9 is amended or repealed by the relevant authority or set aside by an order of the Court, it remains in operation and binding on all.” – Per Abubakar Sadiq Umar, J.S.C.
EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
“It is elementary law that recommendations contained in a report of a committee or a body set up by government neither has the force of law nor can it confer a right or benefit on any person until the recommendation is accepted in a white paper or it is enacted into a law.” – Per Abubakar Sadiq Umar, J.S.C.
BINDING EFFECT OF REGISTERED CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATIONS
“The law is firmly settled that when a declaration is approved by the appropriate authority as regulating a major chieftaincy title, the document is not only presumed to be a correct declaration of the custom and practice on the chieftaincy matter it regulates to the exclusion of any other custom but also becomes a subsidiary legislation on the chieftaincy matter.” – Per Abubakar Sadiq Umar, J.S.C.
SUPREMACY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS
“The best form of evidence is documentary evidence and a document which is tendered in Court is the best proof of the contents of such document.” – Per Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, J.S.C.
LIMITATION ON ORAL EVIDENCE
“Oral evidence cannot be allowed to add to or subtract from or alter or contradict a written document.” – Per Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, J.S.C.
CREDIBILITY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
“This Court has variously upheld the credibility of documentary evidence over oral evidence which would require that the witness is put through oath and examinations for the Court to deduce the truth in his testimony. Contents of a document on the other hand speaks for itself.” – Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, J.S.C.
EFFECT OF HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
“It is legally recognized by the Courts that documentary evidence, particularly archival materials confer credibility to historical facts. Documentary evidence is the best form of evidence in proof of a case.” – Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, J.S.C.
DUTY OF APPELLATE COURT ON ISSUES
“As a general principle of law, every Court has an abiding duty to consider and make pronouncements on all issues validly raised and canvassed before it by the parties in a case/appeal otherwise omission, failure or refusal to do so would constitute or amount to a denial of the right to fair hearing.” – Per Abubakar Sadiq Umar, J.S.C.
EXCEPTIONS TO CONSIDERATION OF ALL ISSUES
“This general rule admits of some exceptions: (1) where the point canvased under one issue is or can be properly subsumed under another issue considered… (2) where the consideration of one or more issues in the case/appeal disposes off the case/appeal or renders the consideration of other issues otiose or academic… (3) where the issue is not crucial or relevant to the case/appeal.” – Per Abubakar Sadiq Umar, J.S.C.
PURPOSE OF REPLY BRIEF
“A reply brief is not one for repetition of the argument in the appellant’s brief. It is not a forum for emphasizing the averments in the appellant brief. On the contrary, a reply brief as the name implies replies to respondent’s brief in the exercise, an appellant need not repeat the issue joined either by emphasis or by exportation.” – Per Abubakar Sadiq Umar, J.S.C.
CHALLENGING CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATIONS
“No matter how compelling the case of the Appellants against Exhibits P5, P9 and P10 may be, the presumption of validity and regularity endowed on them continue to enure. Similarly, the right of 4th position of the 1st Respondent secured under the said Exhibits P5, P9 and P10, remains alive and kicking until the Appellants succeed in setting aside the said exhibits in a proceeding where the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked for that purpose and all necessary parties are before the Court.” – Per Abubakar Sadiq Umar, J.S.C.
VALIDITY OF INTELLIGENCE REPORTS
“The said document has been in existence since 1933 and has been used by the people of Otun District since then without any objection from any quarters because the document is presumed to represent unbiased information from a personality that has no attachment to any quarter, village or town in Otun District and same was based on vivid historical facts, custom and tradition of the people of Otun District.” – Per Abubakar Sadiq Umar, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
4. Chiefs Law of Western Region, 1957
5. Chiefs Law, Cap 19 of Western Region Legal Notice 22, 1959
