PRINCE KILANI ADEKEYE & ORS VS PRINCE SUMMMONU ADESINA & ORS

CORAM

CHARLES OLUSOJI MADARIKAN

KABIRI-WHYTEJUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

PRINCE KILANI ADEKEYE,CHIEF Y.S SABEREDOWO,CHIEF JOHN AYODELE,CHIEF TIAMIYU ADEKANYE

PRINCE SUMMMONU ADESINA,CHIEF MICHEAL OYEWALE,THE GOVERNOR OF OSUN STATE,ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF OSUN STATE ODO-OTIN LOCAL GOVERNMENT,OKUKU,PRINCE KILANI ADEKEYE,CHIEF Y.S SABEREDOWO,CHIEF JOHN AYODELE,CHIEF TIAMIYU ADEKANYE,THE GOVERNOR OF OSUN STATE,ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF OSUN STATE,PRINCE SUMMMONU ADESINA(For himself and on behalf of Olarinoye lineage, Oyan),CHIEF MICHEAL OYEWALE,ODO-OTIN LOCAL GOVERNMENT,OKUKU,PRINCE KILANI ADEKEYE,CHIEF Y.S SABEREDOWO,CHIEF JOHN AYODELE,CHIEF TIAMIYU ADEKANYE,THE GOVERNOR OF OSUN STATE,ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF OSUN STATE,ODO-OTIN LOCAL GOVERNMENT,OKUKU,PRINCE SUMMMONU ADESINA(For himself and on behalf of Olarinoye lineage, Oyan),CHIEF MICHEAL OYEWALE

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

CHIEFTANCY MATTERS / EVIDENCE
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

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

Not Available.|

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT