Legalpedia Citation: (2014-06) Legalpedia (SC) 61953
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jun 6, 2014
Suit Number: SC. 236/2006
CORAM
SULEMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
SIKIRU OLAIDE OKULEYE (for and on behalf of himself and other members of the Demoku/Aboki Ruling House of the Olisa Chieftaincy Family) APPELLANTS
ALHAJI RASHEED ADEOYE ADESANYA & ANOR
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The action arose when there was the urgent need to appoint an Olisa (traditional King)after the death of Olisa Henry Fawakan who was the Olisa . The appellants, case is that they are members of the Demoku/Aboki Ruling House and are entitled to present a candidate for the Olisa stool. They say that the 1st defendant is not a member of the said Ruling House and so not qualified to be nominated and appointed as the Olisa of Ijebu- Ode.Dismissing the appellants’ claim the learned trial judge held that the 1st defendant descended from the Demoku branch and therefore is a member of the Demoku/Aboki Ruling House. He was qualified to be appointed and was validly nominated and appointed from the Ruling House. This declaration must berefused and it therefore fails.Dissatisfied with the iudgment of the learned trial judge, the appellants lodged an appeal. The court of Appeal found that the trial court was correct. This appeal is against that judgment.
HELD
Appeal dismissed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the trial court preferring the evidence of traditional history given by DWI to that given by the plaintiff’s witnesses on the evolution of the Demoku/Aboki Ruling House of the Olisa Chieftaincy and whether the court is right in its conclusion that the 1st respondent is a member of the said Ruling House and therefore entitled to be nominated and appointed as the Olisa of Ijebu-Ode?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
TRIAL: THE ESSENCE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION
Cross-examination is to test the credibility of testimony given in evidence in chief.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
APPEAL: WHEN THE SUPREME COURT CAN UPSET CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF COURTS BELOW
This court would not upset concurrent findings of the two courts below unless the findings are perverse, or there is a miscarriage of justice, or improper exercise of judicial discretion has been established in the courts below.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
PROCEDURE: PROOF OF TRADITIONAL HISTORY
A party who relies on Traditional History to assert that he is a member of the Demoku/Aboki Ruling House of the Olisa Chieftaincy must plead the names of his ancestors, and link them to the said Ruling House so as to show to the satisfaction of the court, a continuous chain of devolution. That is to say they must plead genealogy. After this is done there must be tried and tested evidence to establish the traditional history pleaded. Both sides pleaded genealogy, but that is not enough.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
PROOF: WHAT APARTY WHO RELIES ON TRADITIONAL HISTORY MUST PROVE:
A party who relies on Traditional History to assert that he is a member of a Ruling House must plead the names of his ancestors and link them to the said Ruling House to disclose a continuous chain of devolution. He must plead genealogy. The pleadings must be supported by credible evidence to establish such traditional history.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
EVIDENCE: PARTIES TO LEAD EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CASE:
The appellants would have succeeded if they were able to lead credible evidence to support their pleadings on their genealogy. This case collapsed under cross examination. No matter how brilliant an address on their behalf may be the case can no longer by salvaged, and this is due to the fact that the only evidence from them ended up as very unreliable.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
PLEADINGS: PARTIES TO BE BOUND BY SAME
lf pleadings are to be of any use the parties must be held bound by them.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
PRACTICE: CLOSING SPEECH NOT TO TAKE PLACE OF EVIDENCE:
The closing speech by counsel no matter how brilliant, and alluring never takes the place of legal proof required. There can be no substitute for evidence.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
PLEADINGS: PLEADINGS TO BE PROVED BY ORAL EVIDENCE
The position of the law is that pleadings must be proved by oral evidence.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
TRIAL: RE-EXAMINATION
Re-examination is an opportunity for the witnesses to restore credibility to his testimony.”PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
EVIDENCE: COURT TO ACT ON EVIDENCE WHEN RELIABLE
Evidence is reliable and compelling and must be acted on when it goes through cross-examination and remains reliable.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
ACTION: NEED FOR PARTY TO BRING ACTION SAME TIMEOUSLY:
A delay of about six months raises grave doubts that the appellants are only trying to see if they have a chance. The courts are not set up for such antics.” PER BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
CASES CITED
Akande v. Adisa & anor (2012) 5SC (pt.i) p.1Ohochukwu v. A.G. Rivers State & 2 Ors (2012) 2SC (pt.ii) p.103R. Benkay Nig. Ltd v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd (2O12) 3SC (pt.iii) p.169Mil. Gov. of Lagps Sate & 4 ors. V. Adeyiga & 6 Ors . (2012) 2SC (pt t) p.68Arowolo v. Olowookere & 2ors. (2011) 11-12sc (pt ii) p 98AG Ekiti state v. Daramola (2OO3)10 NWLR Pt 827 p.1O4Chukwujekwu v. Olarere (1992) 2NWLR pt 221Bello v.NBN (1992) 6NWLR pt 246 pg 206Ishola v. Ajoboye ( 1998) 1NWLR pt 532 pg 74Ojibah V Ojibah (1990)1 NWLR (pt 191) 296Etowa Enang V Fidelis Ita Adu (1981)11- 12 SC 25NwadikeV Ibekwe (1987)4 NWLR (pt 67)EbolorV Osayande (1992) 7SCNJ 217
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Chiefs Law