Legalpedia Citation: (2023-03) Legalpedia 00712 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Mar 31, 2023

Suit Number: SC.CV/612/2021

CORAM

Olukayode Ariwoola JSC

John Inyang Okoro JSC

Amina Adamu Augie JSC

Tijjani Abubakar JSC

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim JSC

PARTIES

PRINCE FEMI AGUNSOYE (Of Agunsoye Ruling House Of Ijebu-Jesa) (For Himself And On Behalf Of The Agunsoye Ruling House)

APPELLANTS

PRINCE JOSEPH BABALOLA AROJOJOYE (For Himself And On Behalf Of The Nibayo/Laguna Ruling House Of Ijebu-Ode) 2. PRINCE ADEBUSOYE OLAJIDE ADEWUMI (For Himself And On Behalf Of The Nibayo/Laguna Ruling House Of Ijebu-Jesa) 3. PRINCE (PROFESSOR) ABAYOMI ONI (For Himself And On Behalf Of The Ajigiteri Ruling House Of Ijebu-Jesa) 4. PRINCE (AIR VICE MARSHALL) SAMUEL OLUWARANTI ABOSEDE (For Himself And On Behalf Of The Amolese Ruling House Of Ijebu-Jesa) 5. OSUN STATE GOVERNMENT 6. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OSUN STATE 7. MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS, OSUN STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CUSTOMS, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1^st – 4^th Respondents were plaintiffs at the trial court where they claimed that when it concerns the Elegboro of Ijebu-Ijesa Chieftaincy Stool, it is the prerogative of the six (6) ruling houses to submit names to the Iwareas the traditional kingmakers for their consideration in the selection process to fill the vacant stool. Their grievance was that the selection of Prince Femi Agunsoye was null and void for being irregular and a violation of their customs and traditions.

The Appellant as defendant at the trial court raised Preliminary Objections but the learned trial judge after considering the submissions of Counsel dismissed the preliminary objection having found that the objection lacked merit.

The Appellant became aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, and therefore appealed to the Court of Appeal, Akure Division. The lower Court in its judgment delivered on the 26th day of March, 2021, dismissed the Appellant’s appeal and affirmed the ruling of the trial Court. The Appellant remained aggrieved hence the instant appeal.

HELD

 

Appeal dismissed

 

ISSUES

Ø Whether considering the failure of the 1st – 4th respondents to wait for the outcome of their petition does not constitute non-compliance with conditions precedent stipulated in Sections 20 and 35 of the Chiefs Law of Osun State?

Ø Whether the reliefs as endorsed on the writ of summons can be granted in the absence of the Oriade Local Government Authority, the appointing authority to the stool of Elegboro of Ijebu jesa?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

COURTS – DUTY OF COURTS TO DETERMINE THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS – RIGHTS OF CITIZENS TO HAVE ACCESS TO COURTS

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) vested the Courts with powers to determine any question as to the civil rights and obligations between government or authority and any person in Nigeria – See Section 6 (6) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). The section provides as follows:

“6 (6) The Judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section:

(b) Shall extend to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person.”

Therefore, where the determination of the civil rights and obligations of a person is in issue, any law which imposes conditions inconsistent with the free and unrestrained exercise of that right, is void to the extent of the inconsistency. See CAPTAIN E.C.C. AMADI v. NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (2000) LPELR-445 (SC), where this Court per my law Lord ADOLPHUS GODWIN KARIBI-WHYTE, JSC held as follows:

“… a legitimate regulation of access to Courts should not be directed at impeding ready access to the Courts. There is no provision in the Constitution for special privileges to any class or category of persons. Any statutory provision aimed at the protection of any class of persons from the exercise of the Court of its constitutional jurisdiction to determine the right of another citizen seems to me inconsistent with the provisions of Section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution…”

Any statutory provision aimed at the protection of any class of persons from the exercise by the Court of its constitutional jurisdiction to determine the right of another citizen is clearly inconsistent with the provisions of Section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution.

The complaint of non-compliance with Sections 20 and 35 of the Chiefs Law by the Appellant is that the 1st to 4th Respondents ought to have waited until when the Commissioner or the Governor made their final decision, not that the 1st to 4thRespondents failed to lodge their complaint to the appropriate authorities at all. It is therefore clear that the 1st to 4th Respondents complied with the requirements of the law, they satisfied the condition precedent, it will be inequitable to regard such a situation as equivalent to absence of notice, the Respondents performed their part and the decision to be timeous in responding to the letter is the business of the appropriate authorities, they remain at liberty to take all the time they need before responding, it is their business, their omission to respond cannot in anyway infringe on the right of the Respondents to have access to Court. The Respondent acted right, and the concurrent findings of the trial and the intermediate Courts cannot be faulted. – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

PARTIES – DETERMING WHETHER A PERSON SHOULD BE JOINED AS A PARTY TO A SUIT

Whether or not a person should be joined as a party to a suit is a matter of distinction between what is desirable to do and what is necessary to do. This distinction was drawn by this Court in PEENOK INVESTMENTS LTD. V. HOTEL PRESIDENTIAL LTD. (1983) 4 NCLR 122 where this Court concluded that although it was desirable to join the Rivers State Government whose Edict Nos. 15 and 17 were under attack, it was not necessary to join the Government of Rivers State before the Court could decide on the claims of the parties before it. – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

 

DESIRABLE PARTY – MEANING OF DESIRABLE PARTY

A desirable party is one whose presence may not be compulsory in the determination of the issues in controversy between the contending parties.

The law is settled that a Judge may order that the name of any party who ought to have been joined or whose presence before the Court is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the proceedings be added… – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

LOCUS STANDI – MEANING OF LOCUS STANDI – CONDUCT OF COURT TO A QUESTION OF LOCUS STANDI

On the issue of locus standi, this Court in ENGINEER FRANK OKON DANIEL v. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & ORS (2015) LPELR-24566 (SC) (Pg. 47 paras. A) held as follows.

“LOCUS standi denotes the legal capacity to institute proceedings in Court. It is a threshold issue that goes to the root of the suit. On no account should the merits of the case be considered before locus standi is decided. Locus standi affects the jurisdiction of the Court. Consequently, if the plaintiff does not have locus standi to institute the suit, the Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Usually, it is the plaintiff that is questioned as to whether he has locus standi. See Nurses Association v. A.G. (1981) 11-12 SC p.1 Thomas v. Olufosoye (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) p.669 Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd v. MVD Dancing Sisters & Anor (2012) 1 SC (Pt. 1) p.75.”

There is a long line of authorities on locus standi and the general principle is that for a person to have locus standi either to institute an action or to prosecute an appeal he has to show that he has a special interest; that the interest is not vague, or intangible, supposed or speculative or that it is not an interest which he shares with other members of society. He also must show that such interest has been adversely affected by the act or omission which he seeks to challenge. – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

LOCUS STANDI – TESTS FOR DETERMINING LOCUS STANDI

My Lord and learned brother, OGUNWUMIJU, JSC, while elaborating on the issue of LOCUS Standi recently made this illuminating remark in ALLIANCE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. SAAM KOLO INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED (2022) LPELR-57984 (SC):

“In B.B APUGO & SONS LTD V. OHMB (2016) LPELR-40598(SC) Pages. 85-86, paras. B-A this Court per RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC held thus:

“In Pacers Multi Dynamics Ltd v. M. V. Dancing Sister (2012) 1 SC (Pt. 1) P.75. I explained locus standi as follows: I said: ‘A person has locus standi to sue in an action if he is able to show to the satisfaction of the Court that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. There are two tests for determining if a person has locus standi. They are:

The action must be justiciable, and There must be a dispute between the parties. In applying the test, a liberal attitude must be adopted. Senator Adesanya v. The President of Nigeria (1981) 5 SC P. 112 lays down the rule for locus standi in civil cases, while Fawehinmi v. Akilu 1987 12 SC P.99 lays down the far more liberal rule for locus standi in criminal cases… To have locus standi, the plaintiff’s statement of claim must disclose sufficient legal interest and show how such interest arose in the subject matter of the action.” – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

CHIEFTANCY DECLARATIONS – THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING CHIEFTANCY DECLARATIONS – THE ROLE OF THE COURT AS IT RELATES TO CHIEFTANCY DECLARATIONS

The position of the law is that the responsibility of making chieftaincy declarations lies with the executive arm of the relevant State government and is usually exercised by a chieftaincy Committee on behalf of the government of the State concerned. Where such chieftaincy declaration exists, the duty of the Court is to apply the provisions of the declarations to the facts of the case, as established by evidence before the Court.

This Court in OBA ADEBANJO MAFIMISEBI & ANOR v. PRINCE MACAULAY EHUWA & ORS (2007) LPELR- 1812(SC) held as follows:

“The duty of the Court in such a circumstance of a registered declaration is to apply the provisions of a chieftaincy declaration to the facts of the case as established by evidence particularly as the Court has no power to assume the functions of the chieftaincy committee as regards the making or amendment of customary law governing the selection and appointment of traditional chiefs in such relevant case but it is the business of the Court to make a finding of what the customary law and apply the law for the purpose of the claims for declaration. See Ikine v. Edjerode (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt.745) 446 at 478-479, Adigun v. A.-G. Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.53) 678.”

In the case of Afolabi v. Governor of Oyo State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.9) 734 at 738, this Court stated that:-

“Where such a chieftaincy declaration exists, the duty of the Court is to apply the provisions of the declaration to the facts of the case, as established by evidence, particularly as the Court has no power to assume the functions of the Chieftaincy Committee as regards the making or amendment of customary law governing the selection and appointment of traditional chiefs. Oladele v. Aromoloran II (1996) 6 NWLR (pt. 453) 180, Ikine v. Edjerode (2001) 18 NWLR (pt. 745) 446, Adigun v. A.G Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (pt. 53) 678.” – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

CONCURRENT FINDINGS – ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT TOWARDS CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BYTHE TRIAL AND INTERMEDIATE COURTS

Let me also add that the attitude of this Court to concurrent findings of facts by the trial and intermediate Courts is no longer in doubt. This Court will only interfere or disturb such concurrent findings if the Appellant can show that the concurrent findings of facts are either perverse or they occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the Appellant. See AHMED & ORS v. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF ARCHDIOCESE OF KADUNA OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (2019) LPELR-46414 (SC), NOMAYO v. STATE (2018) LPELR-44729 (SC), CAMEROON AIRLINES v. OTUTUIZU (2011) LPELR-827 (SC). – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

JURISDICTION – CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR A COURT TO BE CLOTHED WITH JURISDICTION

The conditions precedent which must be met before a Court is clothed with jurisdiction to entertain a matter have long been settled in the case of Madukolu Vs. Nkemdilim (1962) All NLR (Pt.3) 581 at 589, (1962) 2 SCNLR 241. Vahe Robert Bairamian, JSC listed the conditions as follows:

(1) – That the Court is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and

(2) – The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and

(3) – The case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.

See also Eleu-Habeeb & Anor Vs Attorney General, Federation & Ors (2012) LPELR-15515 (SC), Ugwuanyi Vs. NICON Insurance Plc (2013) LPELR-20092 (SC), Unilorin & Anor Vs. Oluwadare (2006) LPELR-3417 (SC). – Per J. I. Okoro, JSC

CONCURRENT FINDINGS – CONDUCT OF THE SUPREME COURT TOWARDS CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF THE TWO LOWER COURTS

…the Appellant, as he concluded, has not shown any cogent reason why concurrent findings of the two lower Courts should be disturbed by this Court. It is settled that such findings cannot be disturbed unless there is substantial error apparent on the record. This Court will only act to the contrary where the findings of the lower Courts have been shown to be perverse, or some miscarriage of justice or some material violation of some principle of law or of procedure is shown – Amadi V. Nwosu (1992) 6 SCNJ 59. – Per A. A. Augie, JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Chiefs Laws of Osun State
3. Osun State Local Government Law

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT