ADEFULU & ORS. V. OYESILE & ORS.
| Pages | 371-402 |
ADEFULU & ORS. V. OYESILE & ORS.
371
ADEFULU & ORS. V. OYESILE & ORS.
TIMOTHY ADEILO ADEFULU & ORS.
V
BELLO OYESILE & ORS.
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
OBASEKI,
J.S.C.
UWAIS,
J.S.C.
5
KAWU,
J.S.C.
AGBAJE,
J.S.C.
NNAEMAKA-AGU, J.S.C.
8th December, 1989
J
Chieftaincy Matter - Appointment of Chief
APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
SUIT NO. SC 5/1988
Practice and Procedure - Locus Standi - Chieftaincy proceedings - Representative Action
- Leave of court - Necessity of - Appeals - Leave of Court - Mixed law and fact - Varying
of judgment - Proper procedure.
5
Interpretation and Construction - Section 14(1) Chiefs Law Cap. 20 Laws of Ogun State.
"Nominate" S. 53(a) Interpretation Law Cap. 50 Laws of °gun State 1978- S.15( 1) (b)
(e) Chiefs law cap. 20 Laws of Ogun State 1978 - "Nomination vested in
'Wilber
of the
ruling house"
0
ISSUES:
1.
What is
"Locus standi"?
2.
How does one ascertain whether a person has
locus standi?
3.
What criteria is used to decide whether a party has the
locus stand!
to institute
,5
chieftaincy proceedings.
4.
At what point of the trial can the issue of the
Locus Standi
be raised?
5.
When can an action be brought in a representative capacity?
6.
Whether it is necessary to obtain a court order before one can sue in a
representative capacity.
7.
What is the normal procedure for a respondent who wishes to vary the judgment
appealed against?
8.
Whether an appeal which raises only issues of Facts or mixed facts and law can
be entertained without obtaining leave.
9.
What is the definition of "nominate" on the combined interpretation and
[5
construction of Section 14(1) Chiefs Law Cap. 20 Laws of Ogun State 1978 and
Section 53 (a) Interpretation Law Cap. 50 Laws of Ogun State?
10.
Does the declaration of customary law conflicts with section 15(1) (b) and (e)
Chiefs Law Cap. 20 Laws of Ogun State 1978 by stating that the power of
nomination is vested in the "ruling house" than in "members of the ruling house"
50
as stipulated by the latter.
FACTS:
On the death of the erstwhile Olotin of Ilishan, Remo, the secretary to Ijebu Remo
Local Government sent a letter to the Agaigi Ruling house of llishan, Remo informing
them of the vacant post and that it was their turn to nominate candidates for the
kingmakers to choose the new Olofin from.
372
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[198913 N.S.C.C.
At the meeting of the Ruling house attended by the secretary as an observer, 4
people were nominated by voting, 2 others were mentioned (amongst whom is the
1st defendant) but their nomination were defeated by votes. At the meeting of the
Kingmakers, 6 names were presented to them as the names approved by the Agaigi
Ruling House at their previous meeting. The Kingmakers selected the 1st defendant. 5
The plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of the Agaigi Ruling house of Ilishan
Remo, brought an action in the Otte High Court asking the court to nullify the
appointment and approval of the Olofin Ilishan Remo elects on the ground that he
was not amongst the person nominated at the meeting of the ruling house. The High
court ruled in favour of the defendant.
10
The plaintiff appealed and the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the trial
court and nullified the appointment and approval of the defendant as the Olofin elect.
The defendant therefore appealed to the Supreme Court contending that the plaintiff
has no
locus standi
to bring the action and that the defendant was lawfully nominated
and appointed.
15
The plaintiff on the other hand contended that since the action was brought on
behalf of the Ruling house, the Plaintiff had
locus stand!.
HELD:
1.
In law,
Locus Stand!
denotes the legal capacity to institute proceedings in a court
of law. It is in Nigeria a constitutional requirement in order to enable a person to 20
maintain an action and is limited to the prosecution of matters relating to the civil
rights and obligations of the plaintiff, be that plaintiff a person or persons, a group
of persons, a statutory body, a government, an authority or any other juristic
person.
2.
The statement of claim must disclose a cause of action vested in the plaintiff.
25
In this case the statement of claim did disclose a cause of action.
3.
It is not enough for a person to state that he is a member of the family. he has to
state further that he has an interest in the Chieftaincy title and furthermore state
in his statement of claim how his interest in the Chieftaincy title arose. In this
case, the issue of locus standi does not arise because the plaintiff brought the 30
action for themselves and on behalf of the Agaigi Ruling House.
4.
The issue of
locus-standi
can be raised at anytime in the course of trial or on
appeal. This is because it is an indirect questioning of court jurisdiction to
adjudicate on the matter. In this case, the issue of locus-standi was raised for the
1st time on appeal to the Supreme - court.
35
5.
The rules of court make provision for one or more persons to sue on behalf of
numerous persons who have the same interest in a cause or matter. It is essential
that the representative in the action must have the same interest as the persons
that he claims to represent. A representative action would be in order, provided
that the relief sought in the action is in its nature beneficial to those whom the 40
plaintiff represents. The plaintiffs are accredited representative and members of
the Agaigi Ruling House of Ilishan Remo and they are challenging the Olofin of
Ilishan elects who is supposed to have been nominated by the Agaigi Ruling
House.
4
-
6. No leave of the trial court is necessary before an action in a representative 45
capacity can be brought.
7.
The traditional role of a respondent to an appeal is to defend the judgment
appealed against. If he wants to depart from this role by attacking the said
judgment in any way, he is obliged by the rules to file a cross-appeal. In this case
the court disapproves of the act of the 5th and 6th respondent counsel, who 50
argued that the appeal should be allowed.
8.
An intending appellant can only appeal to this court as of right on grounds of law
without leave, any purported appeal on grounds of fact or mixed law and fact is
incompetent.
ADEFULU & ORS. V. OYESILE & ORS.
373
9. On the combined interpretation and construction of section 14(1) Chief laws cap.
20 Laws of Ogun State 1978 and Section 53 (a) interpretation law Cap. 50 laws
of Ogun State, nomination in this context means that after the name has been
mentioned by a member of the ruling house and seconded by another member
of the ruling house, then a vote must be taken in order to ascertain the popularity
of the candidature, amongst the members of the ruling house, of the person
named.
JO. That it is the Chiefs law in section II tiereof that provides that the members of the
ruling house acting in accordance with Declaration of Customary law that shall
submit name or names of a candidate or candidates to the kingmakers. The
members of the ruling house must act in accordance with Declaration of
Customary law and not contrary to it. The ruling house is not a human being and
therefore it cannot by itself nominates candidates. It is the members of the ruling
house who constitute the ruling house that are legally in a position to nomination.
So the Declaration of customary law is not inconsistent with section 15 (1) (b)
and (e) Chiefs law. Cap. 20 Laws of Ogun State 1978.
[As to
Locus Standi
see:
1.
Momoh & Anor. v. Olotu
(1970) N.S.C.C. vol. 6 99;
2.
Adedire & Ors. v. Caretaker Comm. of the Divisional Council & Anor.
(1963)
N.S.C.C. Vol. 3 39;
3.
Adesanya v. President of Nigeria & Anor.
(1981) N.S.C.C. Vol. 12 146.]
[As to
Whether the consent of a court is necessary for one to sue in a
5
representative action
see:
1.
Wiri
&
Ors. v. Wuche & Ors.
(1980) N.S.C.C. Vol. 12 1;
2.
Otapo & Ors. v. Sunmonu & Ors. (1987)
N.S.C.C. Vol. 18 pt. 11 677.]
[As to
When an action can be brought in a representative capacity
see:
1.
Nta & Ors. v. Anigbo & Anor.
(1972) N.S.C.C. Vol. 7 359;
2.
Melifonwu & Ors. v. Egbuji & Ors.
(1971) N.S.C.C. Vol. 7 421
[As to
The normal procedure for a party who wishes to vary the judgment
appealed against
see:
Oguma Associated Companies Nig. Ltd. v. I.B.W.A. Ltd.
15
(1988) N.S.C.C. Vol. 19 pt. 1 395.]
[As to
Whether an appeal which raises only issues of facts of mixed facts and
law can be entertained without obtaining leave.
See:
1.
Ogbechie & Ors. v. Onochie & Ors.
(1986) N.S.C.C. Vol. 17 pt.1 443;
tO
2.
Ajani v. Giwa
N.S.C.C. Vol. 17 pt. 11 874.]
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGEMENT.
1
Sokoya v. Oyesanya
No/HCS/33/80
2.
Oloriode v. Oyebi
1984 1 SCNLFI. 390
15
3.
Momoh V. 01011.11970
1 All N.L.R. 117
4.
Thomas v. Olufosoye
1986 1 N.W.L.R. 669
5.
Divisional Chief Gbolulu of Vakpo v. Head Chief of Anfoeja Akukome
7
W.A.C.A. 165.
6.
Ogamioba v. Oghere
1961 A.N.L.R. 59
30
7.
Oragbade v. Onitiju
1962 W.N.L R. 21
8.
Oredoyin v. Oragbola
1989 N.W.L.R. 172.
9.
Adeyeye v. Ajiboye
S.C. 201/1985.
10.
Lagos city Council v. Ajayi
1970 1 All N. L. R. 291
11.
Eliochin Ny Ltd. v. Mbadiwe
1986 1 N.W.L.R. 47
12.Adesanya v. President of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1981 1 All N.L.R. 1
To continue reading
Request your trial