Legalpedia Citation: (2025-02) Legalpedia 09537 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Ibadan

Tue Feb 18, 2025

Suit Number: CA/IB/169/2020

CORAM

Yargata Byenchit Nimpar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Binta Fatima Zubairu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Uwabunkeonye Onwosi Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

1. PRINCE IDOWU OYEDIRAN
2. OLAWOYIN OLAKUNLE OJENYI (for themselves and on behalf of Adesola Ruling House of Sepeteri)

APPELLANTS

1. PRINCE OMIWOLE OYEWOLA MOJEED
2. PRINCE OMIWOLE OYELEKE MORUFF (For themselves and on behalf of Omiwole Oladosun Ruling House of Sepeteri)
3. THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE
4. THE HONOURABLE COMMISSIONER FOR
5. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS, OYO STATE
6. THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, OYO STATE
7. THE CHAIRMAN, SAKI EAST LOCAL GOVERNMENT
8. CHIEF (ALH.) GANIYU OLANIYAN The Agoro of Sepeteri (For himself and on behalf of all kingmakers of Obalufon of Sepeteri)
9. PRINCE OLALEYE OLAWOYIN 10. PRINCE OLALEYE BOLANLE AHMED (For themselves and on behalf of Olaleye family of Adesola Ruling House of Obalufon Sepeteri)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CHIEFTAINCY LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CUSTOMARY LAW, DECLARATORY RELIEFS, EVIDENCE, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, FAIR HEARING, JURISDICTION

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case revolves around the vacant stool of Baale Sepeteri, also known as Obalufon of Sepeteri, which became vacant upon the death of Oba Karimu Akanji Oyesiji on April 23, 2013. Following the vacancy, the 3rd to 5th Respondents, in accordance with the Chiefs Law of Oyo State, initiated the process for selecting another Obalufon by writing Exhibit L11 to the 6th Respondent with a copy of Exhibit L4 attached. Exhibit L4 was alleged by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to be the Sepeteri Chieftaincy Declaration regulating the selection and installation of the Obalufon of Sepeteri.

In compliance with the directive, the 6th Respondent wrote Exhibit L12 to Omiwole family, requesting them to present a candidate. However, Exhibit L12 was not delivered to the head of Omiwole family, late Prince Omiwole Oyinwole Imuraina. This non-delivery led to the institution of the action by the 1st and 2nd Respondents at the High Court of Oyo State.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents claimed that according to the Sepeteri Chieftaincy Declaration of 1959, Omiwole ruling house is the ruling house entitled to present a candidate to fill the vacant stool. The Appellants and other defendants challenged the existence, validity, and legality of Exhibit L4, contending that the throne of Obalufon of Sepeteri was governed by the customs and traditions of the Sepeteri people, with three recognized ruling houses: Adesola, Adeola, and Alatise, who ruled in rotation. They denied the existence of Omiwole as a separate ruling house, stating instead that Omiwole was one of the seven children of Adesola and part of the Adesola ruling house.

HELD

1. The appeal was allowed.
2. The Court held that the trial Court’s judgment was perverse, as it failed to properly evaluate the evidence before it and consider the defence of the Appellants and other defendants.
3. The Court also held that the trial Court’s reliance on Exhibit L4 was wrong, as the 1st and 2nd Respondents failed to properly establish its existence, validity, and legal status.
4. The Court found that the trial Court breached the principle of fair hearing by failing to consider the 3rd to 5th Respondents’ amended Statement of Defence after granting their application for amendment.
5. On the issue of jurisdiction, the Court held that the trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the matter did not fall under Section 22 of the Chieftaincy Law of Oyo State since no appointment had been made that was being challenged.
6. The decision of the High Court of Justice, Oyo State, sitting at Ibadan Judicial Division and delivered by Honourable Justice E.O. Ajayi on May 5, 2020, in Suit No. HSK/40/2013, was set aside.
7. Costs of N200,000.00 were awarded against the 1st and 2nd Respondents in favor of the Appellants

ISSUES

1. Whether the trial Judge was right and his decision was not perverse when he failed and neglected to consider the defence of the Appellant and other defendants which were properly raised in their respective statements of defence and when he failed to review, consider and ascribe proper probative value to the evidence before him in granting the declaratory reliefs of the 1st and 2nd Respondents?
2. Whether the trial Judge was right in relying on Exhibit L4, the purported Sepeteri Chieftaincy Declaration and by holding that the Appellant did not controvert the case of the 1st and 2nd Respondent when it was clear on the face of the Defence of the Appellants that the Appellants had controverted all the averments of the 1st and 2nd Respondents?
3. Whether the trial Judge acted in accordance with the law and the dictates of the principle of fair hearing when he failed to rely on the properly Amended statement of Defence of the 3rd to 5th Respondents without inviting them to comment on the said statement of defence, but going ahead to rely on the purported Amended statement of defence of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, when there was no leave to sanction the said amended 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Statement of Defence?
4. Whether the trial Judge was right and had the jurisdiction to entertain and grant the reliefs in favor of 1st and 2nd Respondents without meeting the mandatory conditions stipulated in Section 22 of the Chieftaincy Law of Oyo State?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DECLARATORY RELIEFS – BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIMANT SEEKING DECLARATORY RELIEFS

It is settled that in an action for declaration of a right, the plaintiff must satisfy the Court by credible evidence that he is entitled to the rights claimed. It is not granted by the admission or weakness of the defendant’s case. A Claimant is bound to establish his entitlements to the relief sought to the satisfaction of the Court by cogent evidence. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

DECLARATORY RELIEFS – NATURE AND REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTING DECLARATORY RELIEFS

Declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission. The plaintiff who seeks such a relief must prove, and succeed on the strength of his case and not rely on the weakness of the defence. The burden of proof on the plaintiff in establishing a declaratory relief to the satisfaction of the Court is quite heavy in the sense that such declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the defendant where the plaintiff fails to establish his entitlement to the declaration by his own evidence. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

PERVERSE JUDGMENT – WHEN A JUDGMENT IS CONSIDERED PERVERSE

‘Perverse’ simply means persistent in error, different from what is reasonable or required, against weight of evidence. A decision is perverse where the trial Judge took into account matters which he ought not to have taken into account or where the Judge shut his eyes to the obvious. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – DUTY OF APPELLATE COURT TO RE-EVALUATE EVIDENCE

The law is settled that re-evaluation of evidence by an appellate Court is only done where the trial Court has erred in evaluating the facts found by it. This is where the appellate Court can re-evaluate the whole facts and come to an independent decision from the trial Court. The appellate Court is in a good position to embark on the exercise where for instance: (a) the trial Court’s evaluation of the evidence is clearly perverse; (b) the trial Court drew wrong inferences from the totality of the evidence adduced; and (c) the trial Court applied wrong principles of the law to accepted facts in the case.– Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

FAIR HEARING – EFFECT OF BREACH OF RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING

The right to fair hearing is a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed by constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and a breach of it particularly in trial vitiates such proceedings rending same null and void. – Per BINTA FATIMA ZUBAIRU, J.C.A.

FAIR HEARING – EFFECT OF IGNORING AMENDED PLEADINGS

When a party has been effectively fenced off or shunted from its rightful position of being able to present its case/defence, such a party is at liberty to proclaim that it has been treated unfairly and that its constitutionally guaranteed right to fair hearing has been breached. Such a party who seeks redress must be given due attention, a listening ear and accorded requisite relief. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

JURISDICTION – PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is therefore of paramount importance in the process of adjudication. Where there is no jurisdiction in a Court to handle or adjudicate on a matter before the Court, everything done or every step taken in the proceedings amounts to nothing. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

JURISDICTION – WHEN ISSUE OF JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED

The issue of jurisdiction can be raised for the first time in any Court and at any stage of the proceedings and in the supreme Court for the first time. Jurisdiction is a threshold issue and it is so fundamental in that where a Court has no jurisdiction to determine an issue, the entire proceedings and judgment will be an exercise in futility. Once the issue of jurisdiction is raised, the Court is bound to examine whether it is spurious or genuine ground… – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

JURISDICTION – DETERMINATION OF COURT’S JURISDICTION

The Jurisdiction of a Court is determined by the nature of the Claimant’s claim in relation to the Constitutional or Statutory provisions establishing the Court. It is the claimant’s claim as endorsed on the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim that the Court considers to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction to entertain suit brought before it. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

CUSTOMARY LAW – PROOF OF CUSTOMARY LAW

Except where a rule of customary law has received judicial recognition, such rule is treated for the purpose of proof as a matter of fact.– Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION – NATURE AND PURPOSE OF CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION

By Section 4(2) of the Chiefs Law. Cap. 21 Laws of Oyo State 1978, a Chieftaincy Declaration is a statement of the customary law relating to the appointment etc of a recognized Chief. It follows therefore, that any question relating to such a declaration is a chieftaincy question.– Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION – LEGAL STATUS AND FUNCTION OF CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION

It is also settled law that the duty/function/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 that government and where a declaration in respect of a recognized chieftaincy is validly made and registered, the matter therein stated is deemed to be the customary law regulating the selection of a person to be the holder of the recognized chieftaincy to the exclusion of any other customary usage or rule.” – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION – COURT’S POWER TO SET ASIDE CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION

I hold the view that the claims as couched – being declaratory in nature are within the jurisdiction or competence of the Court to grant if there are facts to support same. The Court is not being called upon to make a chieftaincy declaration for the people, neither is it to amend the existing declaration. I hold the considered view that just as the Court has the vires to declare or set aside a registered declaration found to be unconstitutional or contrary to the provisions of any Act or Law including the Chieftaincy Law under which it was made, the Court equally has the competence to declare same null and void when from the evidence, it is clear that the said declaration does not truly represent the customary law it professes to restate. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended 2023)
2. Chiefs Law of Oyo State, 2000
3. Chiefs Law, Cap. 21 Laws of Oyo State 1978
4. Chiefs Law of Western Region of Nigeria, 1957
5. Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended 2023)
6. Court of Appeal Act, 2004 (as amended)
7. Public Officers Protection Law of Oyo State
8. Limitation Law of Oyo State, 2000

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT