Legalpedia Citation: (2014-04) Legalpedia (SC) 19112
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 11, 2014
Suit Number: SC. 65/2001
CORAM
BODE RHODES -VIVOUR, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
PRINCE TAJUDEEN OLANREWAJU (Representing Aketula Ruling House of Ikire) APPELLANTS
SIKIRU OYESOMI & ORS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiffs/Respondents instituted a suit against the Appellant, the Aketula’s Ruling House of Ikire, seeking a declaration that the Appellant were not entitled to feature a candidate in the appointment of the new king of Ikire, because they were not the direct descendants of Kujelanyo (Kuje), the founder of Ikire. It was the case of the Plaintiffs/Respondents that, though the 1958 declaration of Akire recognized the Defendant/Appellant as one of the five Ruling Houses of Ikire, the other protesting four Ruling Houses claimed that the Appellant’s house was not part of the direct descendants of the founder of Ikire and thus unfit to produce an Akire. Thus, the Western Region Government set up a Commission of Inquiry to resolve the issue of Ruling Houses in Ikire, which committee struck out the name of Appellant-the Aketula’s house, from the Ruling Houses but did not amend the 1958 declaration to reflect the alteration as directed. The trial Court held that since the Appellant’s house did not produce any Akire, out of the 15 previous Akires , the inclusion of the Appellant’s house as one of the Ruling Houses for the appointment of Akire was an infraction of Section 4(4) of the Chiefs Law of Oyo State. Aggrieved by the trial Court’s decision, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which declared that the Appellant was a direct descendant of Kuje, the finding of the trial Court was equally partially affirmed. Not satisfied by the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
1. Does the holding by the lower court that Aketula is one of the five direct sons of Kuje qualify his family as one of the ruling houses of Akire of Ikire Chieftaincy so as to validate the 1958 declaration, exhibit “A” having regards to the provisions of section 4(4) of the Chiefs Law?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
SUCCESSION TO THE STOOL-HOW CONDUCTED WHERE THERE IS NO PATTERN OF ROTATION
“In a situation where there is no recognized pattern of rotation however, the contest is free for all qualified members of the ruling house or houses of the chieftaincy concerned. In such a situation, it is the principle of survival of the fittest that operates for a successful candidate to emerge”. PER ONNOGHEN, JSC
CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION-EFFECT OF
“The declaration is therefore in the eyes of the law, the tradition, customary law and usages pertaining to the selection and appointment to a particular chieftaincy stool which, of necessity, dispenses with the required need of proof by oral evidence of the relevant custom, tradition and usages each time the need arises to determine the matter/succession to the stool or throne or chieftaincy title. PER ONNOGHEN, JSC
REGISTERED CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION-INSTANCES WHERE THE COURT CAN INVALIDATE SAME
“The circumstances in which the court will invalidate a registered chieftaincy declaration include a situation where, in the process of the making of the declaration those who ought to be heard were not so heard or where the making of that declaration is in breach of the right to fair hearing or where it offends any Constitutional provision or Act of the National Assembly or Law of a State”. PER ONNOGHEN, JSC
FINDINGS OF FACTS BY A TRIAL COURT-WHEN CAN BE DISTURBED
“It is well settled now in a plethora of authorities that findings on facts, particularly those dependent on belief or non-belief of witnesses are matters peculiarly within the province of the trial court. Where such findings have been affirmed on appeal and there is sufficient evidence to support such concurrent findings of fact, it is the policy of this court not to disturb such findings. They can only be disturbed where they are perverse, or based on improper evaluation of evidence, or it is apparent that the trial court has not taken proper advantage of its seeing and hearing the witnesses, or otherwise, there is an apparent error on the record or, generally, some miscarriage of justice”. PER OKORO, JSC
WHITE PAPER-MEANING OF
“A White Paper is a public statement of Government policy”. PER RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
REGISTERED CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION-DUTY OF COURT THERETO
“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 chief”. PER ONNOGHEN, JSC
REGISTERED CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION-PURPOSE OF
“The purpose of a registered Chieftaincy Declaration is to embody in a legally binding written statement of fact, the customary law of the relevant area in which the method of regulating the nomination and selection of a candidate to fill a vacancy is clearly stated so as to avoid uncertainty”. PER ONNOGHEN, JSC
CLEAR AND UNAMBIGOUS WORDS OF A STATUTE-HOW INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS
“It is well settled that where the words used are clear and there is no ambiguity they should be interpreted as they are, given their plain meaning, thereby avoiding embellishments in whatever form”. PER RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
APPOINTMENT TO TRADITIONAL STOOL/THRONE-ISSUE OF QUALIFICATION ON ASCENSION TO A TRADITIONAL STOOL-WHETHER CAN BE DETERMINED BY NOTORIETY OF CUSTOMARY LAW
“It is settled law that the issue as to who is qualified to ascend any traditional throne or stool is subject to the customary law and traditions of the people concerned and that customary law is a question of fact to be proved by calling evidence unless frequent proof of same has made the customary law to attain the legal status of notoriety thereby rendering same judicially noticeable”. PER ONNOGHEN, JSC
CHIEFTAINCY STOOL- WHETHER NON-MEMBERS OF A RULING HOUSE CAN COMPETE FOR THE TITLE /STOOL
“It is settled law that only members of a ruling house for a particular chieftaincy or stool or throne can compete for the title or stool/throne whenever a vacancy exists. Where, however, succession to the stool is regulated by a recognized pattern of rotation, the contest for the title or stool is usually limited to candidates from the ruling house whose turn it is to occupy the stool/throne. It follows therefore, that no one can be a candidate for appointment/selection for a Chieftaincy title, stool or throne except he is a member of a ruling house whose turn it is to occupy the stool/throne, where succession to same is governed by rotation”. PER ONNOGHEN, JSC
CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION- MAKING OF-ON WHOM LIES THE DUTY -HOW EXERCISED
“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 ONNOGHEN, JSC
CASES CITED
Adigun vs A.-G, Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (pt. 53) 678Agbai vs Okogbue (1991) 7 NWLR (pt. 204) 391; Are V. Ipaye (1990) 3 Sc. (Pt. 11) 109,Enang V. Adu (1991) 11 – 12 Sc 25,Igwego V. Ezeugo (1992) 6 Nwlr (Pt. 249) 561,Ikine vs Edjerode (2001) 18 NWLR (pt. 745) 446;Mafimisebi vs Eluwa (2007) 2 NWLR (pt. 1018) 385Mainagge V.- Gwamma (2004) 14 Nwlr (Pt. 893) 323Mobil V. F.B.I.R. 1997 3SC P.53Obala of Ofan-Aiyegbaju vs Adesina (1999) 2 NWLR (pt. 590) 163;Ogunbiyi V. Adewunmi (1988) 5 Nwlr (Pt. 93) 215,Ojomu V. Ajao (1983) 2 Scnlr156Oladele vs Aromoloran II (1996) 6 NWLR (pt. 453) 180Olowu vs Olowu (1985) 3 NWLR (pt. 13) 372Toriola V. Williams 1982 7sc p.27,
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Oyo State Chief Law 1978 Cap. 21Chieftaincy Declaration of Akire, 1958