ISSAC GAJI V. EMMANUEL D. PAYE
June 16, 2025CAPPA AND D’ALBERTO LTD V. DEJI AKINTILO
June 16, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2003) Legalpedia (SC) 31788
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 25, 2003
Suit Number: SC. 190/1997
CORAM
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
FATAYI-WILLlAMS, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. PRINCE OLUFEMI FASADE2. CHIEF ADEGBITE3. CHIEF OGUNRINDE4. CHIEF ADESHINA5. CHIEF OLALEYE6. CHIEF FAYESE APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was duly appointed as the Owa of Igbajo, by the kingmakers and the respondent sought to declare such appointment null and void. The respondent as the plaintiff lost at the trial court and appealed to the Court of appeal where his claim was granted. The appellant here appeals to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant is entitled to be the Owa of Igbajo, the respondent having waived his rights to the said title.
ISSUES
1. Whether having resolved issue No. 3 against the respondent (consequent upon which grounds 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16 and 17 of their grounds of appeal were dismissed) the Court of Appeal was right in granting to the Respondents reliefs 2 and 3 based on those grounds and the said issue No. 3 and whether the three declaratory reliefs ought to have been granted? 2. Whether the Respondents were not estopped from instituting the action and whether having regard to the conduct of the 1st Plaintiff the declaration sought ought not to have been refused?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
FORCE OF LAW OF A REGISTERED CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION AND ITS AMENDMENT.
It cannot be argued to the contrary that where a declaration has been validly made in respect of a recognized chieftaincy and registered, it represents the applicable customary law regulating the selection and appointment of a candidate to a vacant chieftaincy; and the provisions of such a registered declaration should prevail until amended…The registered declaration is the admissible evidence of the customary law and is conclusive so long as it remains the subsisting declaration. Such a declaration having derived its existence from the relevant Chiefs Law has statutory force Per S.O UWAIFO JSC
FORCE OF LAW OF A REGISTERED CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION AND ITS AMENDMENT.
The amendment of Chieftaincy Declaration is not a judicial function. It is not within the jurisdiction of the court to make such a Declaration or to be involved in any way even to suggest amendment to it. Per S.O UWAIFO JSC
PRINCIPLE OF WAIVER
But ordinarily, where a defendant intends to establish waiver in a civil case, it goes without saying that he must, first plead the facts relied on for that defence. Second, the party against whom the doctrine is raised must not be under a legal disability that contradicts voluntary abandonment of a right or privilege in question. Third, the said party must have knowledge or be aware of the act or omission which constitutes the waiver. Fourth, he must have done some unequivocal act to adopt or recognize the act or omission. Fifth, the waiver must be in respect of a private right for the benefit of a particular person or party in contradistinction to a public right intended for the public good or affairs. Per S.O UWAIFO JSC
CASES CITED
1. Ogundare V. Ogunlowo(1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 509) 360 2. Adigun V. Attorney-General of Oyo State (1987) 3 S.C. 250 3. Oladele V. Aromolaran II (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 453) 1804. Ayoade V. Military Governor, Ogun State (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 309) 1115. Caribbean Trading & Fidelity Corp V. N.N.P.C. (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 252) 1616. Attorney-General of Bendel State V. Attorney-General of the Federation (1981) 10 S.C. 1 at 54 7. Ariori V. Elemo (1983) 1 SCNLR 1 at 13; (22003) 4 SCM, 1878. Afolabi V. Governor of Oyo State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 734 at 738
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Chiefs’ Law, 1978Chieftaincy Declaration of Aringbajo of Igbajo?
