PRINCE EYINADE OJO & ORS VS GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE & ORS

CORAM

NNAMANI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

A. NNAMANI – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

AGBAJE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

PRINCE EYIMADE OJO

CHIEF AJIBADE ADESINA (THE ONSA OF ILORA)

CHIEF J.O. WOJUOLA (THE EJEMU OF ILORA)

CHIEF ADEDEWE ABAKE (THE IYALODE OF ILORA)

APPELLANTS

THE GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE RESPONDENT

THE ATTORNEY- GENERAL OF OYO STATE

PRINCE LAYIWOLA OLAWORE

S.A. LALUDE (THE SECRETARY, OYO SOUTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

DECLARATION OF CHIEFTAINCY TITLE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

In a suit which commenced in the High Court, the Plaintiffs claimed against the Defendants, declaration that the 1956 Baale of Ilora Chieftaincy Declaration is the only valid declaration in respect of the Baale of Ilora Chieftaincy and that the present Kingmakers are the only persons entitled to select a Baale of Ilora-elect, Injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from further participation in the processes (as Baale-Elect) appointment and installation of the Baale of Ilora and from parading himself as Baale Elect of Ilora, and an Injunction restraining the 4th defendant from further participation in any exercise connected with the processes of the approval and installation of the 3rd defendant as Baale Elect of Ilora. The trial judge delivered judgment and dismissed all the claims. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed and the appellants further appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

The appeal succeeded and was allowed.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Chieftaincy Declaration in this matter is the only one that should be used in the selection of Baale of Ilora in view of Section 9 of the Chiefs Law of Oyo State Cap. 21, 1978.

2. Whether the Governor of Oyo State or any one has an arbitrary right of taking away vested rights in a law without legislative approval or the repeal of such section.

3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in not allowing the appeal after they had held that a ground of appeal partially succeeds and did not state the extent and effect of such success on the appeal.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

SITUATIONS WHERE THE COURT OF APPEAL CAN INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT

“A Court of Appeal, as is now trite, will not interfere with the finding of fact of a lower court unless it is satisfied that such findings are perverse, or that the Judge did not utilize properly the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses.” Per A.Nnamani, JSC.