PRINCE SIKIRU ADENIYI EGBEYEMI V. PRINCE AKINFEMI AKINLEYE OYEBAMIJI & ORS

CORAM

Gabriel Omoniyi Kolawole Justice of the Court of Appeal

Binta Fatima Zubairu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Uwabunkeonye Onwosi Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

PRINCE SIKIRU ADENIYI EGBEYEMI

APPELLANTS 

1. PRINCE AKINFEMI AKINLEYE OYEBAMIJI (The Onimia of Imia)

2. CHIEF SAMUEL ADENIJI (Agoro of Imia)

3. CHIEF SAMUEL OKEBIYI (Maye of Imia)

4. KAJOLA LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Traditional Council)

5. THE CHIEFTANCY COMMITTEE OF THE KAJOLA LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL

6. KAJOLA LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CHIEFTAINCY LAW, CUSTOMARY LAW, EVIDENCE, TRADITIONAL HISTORY, LOCUS STANDI, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case revolves around the dispute for the appointment to fill the vacant stool of Onimia of Imia. Upon the demise of the immediate past Onimia of Imia, Gbadamosi Adepeju Ariwajoye in 2006, a vacancy occurred in the chieftaincy stool. The Ajetunmobi Ruling House, whose turn it was to produce the next Onimia of Imia, held preliminary meetings in June 2006, and a nomination meeting on 7th March, 2008, chaired by Pa Fasasi Bolatiri as head of the Ruling House. At this meeting, the Appellant emerged as the nominated candidate from the Ajetunmobi Ruling House. However, when presented to the council of chiefs within Imia Community, they refused to accept the Appellant’s candidature on account of one James Olaniyi Akinleye who was not from Ajetunmobi Ruling House.

The 1st-3rd Respondents, dissatisfied with the resolution by the Alaafin of Oyo (who had resolved the dispute in favor of the Appellant), initiated an action at the High Court of Justice, Oyo State, in Saki Judicial Division via Amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed on March 23, 2010. The Respondents sought declarations that the Appellant was not a member of the Onimia of Imia Chieftaincy family, not entitled to be nominated and appointed as the Onimia of Imia, and that the 1st Respondent having been nominated by the Onimia of Imia Chieftaincy family was entitled to approval of appointment. They also sought injunctive reliefs against the Appellant from parading himself as the Onimia of Imia.

The trial Court granted all the claims of the Respondents and dismissed the Appellant’s counter-claims. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The judgment of the High Court of Justice, Oyo State, Saki Judicial Division, delivered by HON. JUSTICE M. O. OLAGUNJU in Suit No: HSK/39/2008, was affirmed.

3. The Court held that the Appellant failed to establish any linkage to the Onimia Chieftaincy family and did not prove whether he had royal blood.

4. The Court found that the Respondents adduced evidence of native law and custom through traditional Chiefs and Kingmakers whose testimonies were not discredited under cross-examination.

5. The Court determined that the Appellant lacked locus standi as he failed to establish his personal interest in the chieftaincy stool.

ISSUES

1. Whether the lower Court properly considered and evaluated the evidence of the parties placed before coming to its judgment.

2. Whether upon a painstaking consideration of the case of the parties presented before the lower Court, the learned trial judge of the lower Court properly dismissed the counter-claim of the appellant.

3. Whether in view of the facts of the case, the evidence led and the exhibits admitted, the appellant lacks the standing to sue.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ADMISSIBILITY OF TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE – HEARSAY RULE NOT APPLICABLE TO EVIDENCE RELATING TO TRADITION OR BYGONE DAYS

On the contention of the 1st and 3rd Respondents that the evidence of the PW1 to PW3 are hearsay pieces of evidence, therefore inadmissible, the immediate reaction of this Court is that by Section 66 of the Evidence Act, 2011 hearsay evidence is admissible when it relates to traditional evidence or evidence relating to bygone days. The settled position of the law is that Courts have recognized the obvious fact that the witnesses, who are called upon to give traditional evidence, would not necessarily be in a position to give eye-witness accounts and that such witnesses cannot speak from personal knowledge as they merely repeat the story, which their ancestors had told them. The law is that the law, in its wisdom allows such evidence, most probably, in view of the fact that much of our past is practically unrecorded. – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

PROOF OF CUSTOM – BURDEN OF PROOF IN CUSTOMARY LAW

By Section 14 of the Evidence Act, a custom which is not noticed judicially must be proved by evidence in Court, and the burden of proof lies upon the person alleging its existence. – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

EVIDENCE OF NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM – WHO CAN ADDUCE EVIDENCE OF NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM

The Respondents adduced evidence of native law and custom through the Agoro of Imia and the Maye of Imia the 2nd and 3rd Respondents who are the traditional Chiefs and Kingmakers for the filling of the Onimia of Imia Chieftaincy stool. And the testimonies of these witnesses were not discredited under cross-examination. – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

BURDEN OF PROOF – RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE ASSERTIONS

It is elementary principle of law that he who asserts must prove. Section 131 of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides that whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that those facts exist. – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

COUNTER-CLAIM – NATURE AND BURDEN OF PROOF IN COUNTER-CLAIMS

On the counter-claim, generally, a counter-claim is a claim for relief asserted against an opposing party after an original claim has been made; that is a defendant’s claim in opposition to or as a set-off against the plaintiff’s claim. In other words, a counter-claim is a claim by the defendant against the plaintiff in the same proceedings. It is regarded as an independent and separate action in which the defendant/counter-claimant is in the position of the plaintiff and therefore has the burden of proving the counter-claim to be entitled to judgment thereon. – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

COUNTER-CLAIM – ESSENTIAL QUALITIES OF A COUNTER-CLAIM

A counter-claim must be positive, direct, and unequivocal. It cannot be by way of implication. And as declaratory reliefs, the counter-claimants must succeed on the strength of their case and not the weakness of the defence, if any. – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

LOCUS STANDI IN CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS – REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING PERSONAL INTEREST

“Having established that a party claiming his own personal right to the chieftaincy stool must show his personal interest in the stool to succeed his claims, the next question is how can a party prove or show his personal interest? This question has been answered in ADEWUMI & ANOR V. AG OF EKITI STATE & ORS (2002) LPELR-3160(SC), as follows: ‘The plaintiff in such a case has the duty to show the Court that he has locus standi in a claim relating to the filling of a vacancy in the chieftaincy. In particular, in a Ruling House chieftaincy…, he must do more than relying on his membership to the chieftaincy, to wit: 1. He belongs to a Ruling House; 2. That it is the turn of that Ruling House to provide a candidate or candidates to fill the vacancy; 3. That there is or ought to be a vacancy on the throne; 4. That he is or was interested as an eligible candidate in the throne and; 5. That he had taken part as a candidate for the throne.’– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

BASIS OF LOCUS STANDI IN CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS – DUAL BASIS FOR DERIVING LOCUS

A party may derive locus in a chieftaincy matter on either of two bases namely as a contestant and as a Chieftaincy family. Generally, this is the correct portion of the law. The statement of claim is to be considered in determining whether or not a plaintiff has standing to sue. – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

ESTABLISHING LOCUS STANDI IN CHIEFTAINCY DISPUTES – NEED TO ESTABLISH INTEREST

In a chieftaincy matter, the plaintiff must establish not only that he belongs to one of the disputant family, he must state his interest in the chieftaincy and how it arose. – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

STANDARD OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES – BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES

In this case before us, the Respondents at the trial Court called four witnesses who adopted their written statement on oaths respectively and tendered seven (7) Exhibits. Among the four witnesses were, 1st Respondent himself, two chiefs within the Imia town and one Baale of Ipaa village, though a village outside Imia town. They all testified as to the history of the stool of Onimia of Imia.– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

DECLARATORY RELIEFS – BURDEN OF PROOF IN CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY RELIEFS

I equally wish to emphasis here that the Appellant as a Counter-Claimant must rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the opponent party as it was held by the Apex Court in the case of EDOSA & ANOR VS OGIEMWANRE (2018) LPELR-46341 (SC): ‘It is equally well settled that in order to succeed in a claim for declaratory reliefs, the claimant must rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence, if any.’ – Per BINTA FATIMA ZUBAIRU, J.C.A.

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE BY TRIAL COURT – LIMITED FUNCTION OF APPELLATE COURT

It is the primary function of the trial Court to evaluate the evidence before it, and ascribe probative value to such evidence having seen, heard and assessed them as they testified. The appellate Court has a very limited function in this regard. An Appellate Court can only properly evaluate the evidence at the trial in so far as such exercise will not involve ascribing credibility to witnesses as a result of their demeanor or the impression of them depending how actually they performed, reacted to questions or comported themselves in the witness box.– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE BY TRIAL COURT – METHOD OF EVALUATION

In evaluating any piece of evidence placed before it by parties, a Court of law is duty bound to consider the totality of the evidence led by each of the parties. It shall then place them on the imaginary scale of justice to see which of the two sides weighs more creditably than the other.– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Evidence Act, 2011

2. Chiefs Law of Oyo State

3. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT