May 24, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2010) Legalpedia (SC) 11313 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Fri Dec 3, 2010 Suit Number: SC.216/2003 CORAM SULEIMANE GALADIMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT BELLO SHURUMO, […]
CORAM
SULEIMANE GALADIMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BELLO SHURUMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. PRINCE KILANI ADEKEYE
2. CHIEF Y.S SABEREDOWO
3. CHIEF JOHN AYODELE
4. CHIEF TIAMIYU ADEKANYE
APPELLANTS
PRINCE SUMMMONU ADESINA & ORS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 1st appellant was appointed and installed the Oloyan of Oyan. The 1st respondent contested the process of installment. The trial court granted part of the respondent’s claim as well as part of the appellant’s relief. On appeal and cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the respondent’s appeal but dismissed the appellant’s cross-appeal
HELD
Appeal allowed
ISSUES
1. Whether the court below was right to have upheld the decision of the trial court to the effect that the selection of an Oloyan from the Elemo Ruling House was based on the principle of rotation between the two lineages of the family and that it was the turn of he Olarinoye lineage to produce the next Oloyan when there was no pleadings nor evidence to support these crucial findings and when the 1st and 2nd respondents did not make out any case deserving of the crucial findings.
2. Whether the court below was right to have upturned the decision of the trial court that the right of the 1st respondent was caught up by abandonment and/or waiver moreover when the court below misconstrued the basis of the defence of abandonment and waiver as raised and agitated by the appellants.
3. Whether the court below was right to have agreed with the trial court that the Oloyan Chieftaincy Declaration, Exhibit G2 was scanty and in exhaustive and that it was right to resort to other evidence oral or documentary to fill in the perceived lacuna
RATIONES DECIDENDI
AMENDMENT OF REGISTERED CHIETAINCY DECLARATION.
Where there is the need to amend a Registered chieftaincy Declaration so as to bring it in line with the current trend in the customary law of the people, it is the duty of the executive arm of government to do so. Per ONNOGHEN JSC
REGISTERED DECLARATION ON RECOGNIZED CHIETAINCY.
Where a declaration in respect of a recognized chieftaincy is validly made and registered, the matter or custom or native law and custom therein stated shall be 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 or tradition. Per ONNOGHEN JSC
WHEN COURT CAN SET ASIDE CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION.
The court can set aside a chieftaincy declaration under certain circumstances such as where a registered declaration is proved to be contrary to the customs and traditions of the people. Per ONNOGHEN JSC
EVIDENCE ON FACTS NOT PLEADED.
Evidence on facts not pleaded goes to no issue as parties normally join issues on the facts pleaded and only need evidence – either oral or documentary – to establish the facts so pleaded. Per ONNOGHEN JSC
RELEVANT FACTS MUST BE PLEADED
For facts needed to establish a right to a relief to be relevant, it has to be pleaded by the party seeking to rely on same to establish his claim or right to relief. Per ONNOGHEN JSC
CASES CITED
1. Oladele vs Aromolaran 11(1996) 6 NWLR (Pt.453) 180.
2 Ikine vs Edjerode (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt.745) 446 at 478 – 479
3. Adigun vs A-G Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (pt 53) 678.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT