ALHAJI A. ALIYU VS DR. JOHN ADEWUNMI SODIPO
July 9, 2025EREJUWA II THE OLU OF WARRI VS EGHAREGBEYIWA KPEREGBEYI
July 9, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1994) Legalpedia (SC) 71111
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 29, 1994
Suit Number: SC. 269/1990
CORAM
ANDREWS O. OBASEKI, USTICE, SUPREME COURT
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE (Presided), JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALL, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
UTHMAN MOHAMMED, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
ANTHONY IKECHUKWU IGUH, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
OTITOJU APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff in the Ondo State High Court, holden at Akure, sued the defendants claiming for a Declaration that Olomuo-Oke is the traditional and paramount ruler of Omuo-Oke Ekiti in Ondo State, Declaration that Omuo-Oke is a distinct town in Ondo State, Declaration that the findings and recommendations of Ojuolape Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the headship claim by the Olomuo-Oke of Omuo-Oke are contrary to the customary law of Omuo-Oke community and are therefore illegal and void and of no effect whatsoever, Declaration that the Ondo State Government’s views and comments on the said commission’s recommendations as contained in Ondo State of Nigeria White Paper on Ojuolape Judicial Commission of Inquiry are illegal, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever, an Injunction restraining the Government of Ondo State, its servants, agents, privies and officers from acting on, executing, giving effect to or otherwise dealing with (to the detriment of the plaintiff) the said findings, recommendations, views and comments as contained in the Ondo State of Nigeria White Paper on Ojuolape Judicial Commission of Inquiry.
HELD
APPEAL DISMISSED
ISSUES
Whether the Olomuo-Oke is a traditional and paramount ruler of Omuo-Oke in Ondo State by virtue of Exhibits A & B and on the strength of the traditional history led by the appellant at the trial.Whether the Legal Notice of 1976 and 1979 with their commencement dates as 5th February, 1976 effectively repealed Exhibits A & B.Whether the provision of section 37 of the 1979 Constitution applies only to individual and not the group rights of a quarters or town
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 37 OF THE 1979 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO AN INDIVIDUAL
“It is clear at once that it is nowhere stated in the passage above that section 37 of the Constitution applies only to individuals and not to the group rights of a quarter or town. There is nothing in the passage read as a whole which suggests that town/quarter/group rights would not be recognised if and when one is shown to exist. On the contrary the passage recognised the right of Omuo-Oke people as a quarter or group to associate or not to associate with the rest of Omuo. Individuals in Omuo-Oke may likewise do the same. But as rightly put by the learned Justice of Appeal, it is the right of individuals that is of primary concern. It is only when individuals join together or gang up to exercise their common rights together that one talks of group or quarter rights as such. But as rightly stated above the 1976/1979 notices do not in any way interfere with the freedom of association of Omuo-Oke people while the government reserves the right to treat them as part of Omuo for its own administrative purposes. That is how it should be. And I believe that is how it has been” PER KUTIGI, J.S.C
CASES CITED
None.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
SECTION 37 OF THE 1979
