OTUNBA ABDUL LATEEF OWOYEMI V PRINCE YINUSA OLADELE ADEKOYA - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

OTUNBA ABDUL LATEEF OWOYEMI V PRINCE YINUSA OLADELE ADEKOYA

GODWIN SASI D. OGOLO & ORS V. CHIEF JOSEPH TUMINI OGOLO & ORS
June 13, 2025
FIRST AFRICAN TRUST BANK LTD V PARTNERSHIP INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED
June 13, 2025
GODWIN SASI D. OGOLO & ORS V. CHIEF JOSEPH TUMINI OGOLO & ORS
June 13, 2025
FIRST AFRICAN TRUST BANK LTD V PARTNERSHIP INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED
June 13, 2025
Show all

OTUNBA ABDUL LATEEF OWOYEMI V PRINCE YINUSA OLADELE ADEKOYA

Legalpedia Citation: (2003) Legalpedia (SC) 11217

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Dec 12, 2003

Suit Number: SC. 104/1998

CORAM


UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI


PARTIES


OTUNBA ABDUL LATEEF OWOYEMI APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

 The appellant seeks a court order that he be presented to the Awujale of Ijebu land for consent and approval as the Dagburewe instead of the 1st respondent who was elected over him by the kingmakers.


HELD


The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeal which sustains the decision of the trial court that the 1st respondent’s appointment remained valid.


ISSUES


 (i) Was the Court of Appeal right in sustaining the decision of the trial court rejecting the case of the appellant in respect of the making of an Odi and the lapsing of the chieftaincies of the chiefs who attended and voted at the kingmakers meeting?(ii)Was the Court of Appeal right in upholding the setting aside of the letter of 2nd and 3rd respondents (exhibit P) that cancelled the election of 1st respondent as Degburewe and called for fresh nominations and elections to fill the post?(iii)Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that a mere 15 days delay in delivering the judgment by the lower court was not inordinate and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.


RATIONES DECIDENDI


VALIDITY OF JUDGMENT GIVEN AFTER THREE MONTHS


It is quite clear from the amendment in question that failure by the courts of law concerned to deliver their judgments within 3 months from the conclusion of evidence and final addresses does not now ipso facto render such judgments automatically null and void and of no effect. Such a decision shall only be set aside or treated as a nullity by an appellate court or a court of review if it is satisfied that the party raising the compliant has suffered a miscarriage of justice by reason of the breach. Per Anthony I. Iguh, JSC


CASES CITED


1. Omoregie V. Edo (1971) 1 All NLR 282 at 289;2. Fashanu v Adekoya (1974) 1 All NLR 35 at 41;3. Okolo V. Uzoka (1978) 4 SC 77 at 86;4. Iyienagbor V. Bazuaye (1999) 9 NWLR (pt. 620) 552 at 559.5. Stitch V. A. G. Federation (1986) 5 NWLR (pt. 46) 1007 at 1025; (1986) 17 NSCC (pt. 11) 1389 at 1401.6. Egwu V. Egwu (1995) NLWR (pt. 396) 493 at 505,


STATUTES REFERRED TO


1. Registered Declaration of the Dagburewe Chieftaincy2. The constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 19793. Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Amendment Decree No. 17 of 19854. The constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 19995. Chiefs Law, Cap.20, Laws of Ogun State6. Evidence Act,


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.