CORAM
KARIBI-WHYTE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
WAHABI AIGBOTOSHO SIJUOLA OLANREWAJU APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
There was a dispute as to the successor of the late Baale of Otu. The Kingmakers in their meeting, by a majority vote of 2:1, selected the 4th defendant as the new Baale of Otu. Following several petitions, the Governor of Oyo State set up a Commission of Inquiry into the validity or otherwise of the meeting of the Opo Ruling House. The Commission reported that the nomination made at the meeting was valid. The plaintiffs then claimed against the defendants jointly for a declaration that the purported nomination of the 4th defendant by the 5th and 6th defendants was unlawful, contrary to natural justice, and therefore null and void.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that the performance of the Kingmakers’ duty under the provisions of section 15(1) (f) (ii) of the Chiefs Law of Oyo State, Cap. 21 was in discharge of a public duty.
ISSUES
Whether or not the nomination, selection, approval and appointment of the 4th defendant/respondent as the Baale of Otu is in accordance with the Beale of Otu Chieftaincy Declaration of 1960, and the Chiefs law, Cap. 21, Volume 1, Laws of Oyo State of Nigeria, 1978
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EVIDENCE OF WHAT TRANSPIRED AT A MEETING
“Finally, there is no rule which make the recorded minute the only admissible evidence of what transpired at the meeting. On general principle, when the parties are ad idem as to the matter in dispute, the minutes of the meeting appears to me hardly relevant, and will not be a stronger evidence. Rather, the minute will be falsified by such evidence.” Per KARIBI-WHYTE, JSC
CASES CITED
Ahmed v. Kassim (supra), Lawal v. G. 8. Ollivant (1972)3 SC 124
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Chiefs Law, 1957