CORAM

---

MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

1. OBA OLATUNDE FALABI ORISATOLA III THE AKIRE OF IKIRE2. ADEOYE DAIRO APPELLANTS

---

1. ALHAJI MUDASIRU ADESINA2. ALHAJI NASIRU AKANNI3. ALHAJI SUBERU BAMIDURO(For themselves and on behalf of Omomimi family) RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiffs/Respondents instituted an action at the trial Court seeking amongst other relief a declaration that the nomination of the 2nd Defendant/Appellant or any other candidate from Ademuyiwa ruling house to fill the vacant stool of Sooko of Ikire was contrary to the native law and custom regulating the appointment of Sooko of Ikire, that the Plaintiffs/Respondents were entitled to provide the candidate to fill the vacant stool of Sooko Chieftaincy and an injunction restraining the 1st Defendant  from taking any step or action towards the recognition and/or approval of the 2nd Defendant or any other candidate from Ademuyiwa ruling house to fill the vacant stool of Sooko of Ikire. The trial Court entered judgment for the Plaintiffs/Respondents. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the Defendants/Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal contending inter alia that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the ground that the cause of action arose during the existence of the 1963 constitution which precluded the Courts from entertaining chieftaincy matters.

---

HELD

---

---

ISSUES

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ACTION-APPLICABLE LAW THERETO

---

“It is trite that the applicable law in an action is that which is in operation when the cause of action arose”. PER ADEKEYE JCA

---

JURISDICTION OF COURT- WHEN CHALLENGED-DUTY OF COURT

---

“Once the jurisdiction of a competent court of record is challenged, it must be resolved first before taking any other step”. PER ADEKEYE JCA

---

CAUSE OF ACTION-DEFINITION OF- DISTINCTION BETWEEN A CAUSE OF ACTION AND A RIGHT OF ACTION

---

“Thus a cause of action may be defined also as a claim in a court of law or reason for seeking a review in a court of law, which reason, may be for a wrong denied or right denied. Thus, the reason to seek such a redress in a court of law may arise, but the right may not be immediately exercised. In consequence, the right to a cause of action denotes the existence of a right provided under the ground norm or the Constitution or the ordinary law of this country as well as the residual ability to exercise the right to seek a redress for the injury suffered in a court of law as provided by the law. Thus the distinction between the two phrases – a cause of action and a right to sue, is simply that the right may accrue, but it may not be immediately enforced”. PER OKUNOLA, JCA

---

CAUSE OF ACTION-DEFINITION OF

---

Cause of action had been judiciously defined by the Supreme Court in Alhaji W. Akibu & Ors. v. Alhaji M. Oduntan & Ors. (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt. 685) 446;(2000) 7 S.C (Pt. 11) 106; (2000) 7 SCNJ 189, as the fact or facts, which gives a person a right to judicial relief. In other words, the entire set of circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim. PER OKUNOLA, JCA

---

CASES CITED

---

Adisa v. Oxinwola (2000) 10 WRN 125; (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 674) page 116Akande v. Atagbe (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 690) page 353.Adesola v. Abidoye (1999) 14 NWLR (Pt. 637) page 28.Alhaji W. Akibu & Ors. v. Alhaji M. Oduntan & Ors. (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt. 685) 446;(2000) 7 S.C (Pt. 11) 106; (2000) 7 SCNJ 189,Alhaji Usman Dantata & Ors. v. Mouktar Mohammed (2000) 3 WRN 32; (2000) 5 SCNJ 16, A.G. of the Federation v. A.G. of Abia State (2001) 40 WRN 7; (2001) 7 SCNJ 1,Bronik Motors v. Wema Bank Ltd. (1983) 1 SCNLR 296.Edjerode v. Ikine (2002) 10 WRN 46;(2001) 12 SCNJ 184;(2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 746) 672,Govr., Oyo State v. Oba Olatunde Afolayan (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt. 413) 292;(1995) 9 SCNJ 50John Ebosede Emiator v. The Nigerian Army and Ors. (2000) 24 WRN 97 ;(1999) 12 NWLR (Pt. 631) 362;(1999) 9 SCNJ 52;Ibrahim v. Osim (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 82) 207.Jethwani v. Nigeria Wire Industrial Plc. (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 602) page 326,Rossek v. African Continental Bank Ltd. (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 312) page 382Ferguson v. Commissioner for Works and Planning, Lagos State (1999) 14 NWLR (Pt. 638) page 315Psychiatric Hospital Management Board v. E.O. Ejitagha (2000) 13 WRN 1; (2000) 6 S.C (Pt. 2) 1 page 16Savannah Bank (Nig.) Ltd. v. Pan Atlantic Shipping and Transportasuwe Ltd. (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) page 212 Uddoh Trading Co. Ltd. v. Sunday Abere (2001) 24 WRN 1;(2001) 5 SCNJ 274

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

The 1963 Constitution of the Federation.Chiefs Law of Western Nigeria, 1959Chiefs Law Cap. 21 Laws of Oyo State 1978The High Court of Oyo State (Civil Procedure) Rules applicable in Osun State

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---