ADEYEYE AND ANOR. V. AJIBOYE & ORS.

• Pages: 1084-1100

1084



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1987] 2 N.S.C.C.

ADEYEYE AND ANOR. V. AJIBOYE & ORS.



5

1.

SALAWU OLAGUNJU ADEYEYE



DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

2.

OYUN TRADITIONAL COUNCIL

V



10

ALHAJI SHITTU

AJIBOYE & 4 ORS



PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 201/1985

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ESO,



J.S.C.



15

ANIAGOLU,



J.S.C.

NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

OPUTA,



J.S.C.

10th July, 1987



20

Appeals - Findings of fact - When should Appeal Court interfere with findings

of fact.

Chieftaincy - Effect of recognition as member of a Traditional Council - Ouster



25

of jurisdiction - S.78(b) of Constitution of Northern Nigeria and S.11(a) of

the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law of N.N. oust jurisdiction of

courts to entertain chieftaincy matters - Recognition of authority and control

by native community determines whether a person is

a

chief - Evidence -

Effect evidence of a witness called by

a

party which supports case of his



30

opponent.

Judgments - Writing of it - Proper approach for trial court.

Words and Phrases - Meaning of 'chief' under N.N. Interpretation Law.



35

ISSUES:

1.

Whether S.78(b) of the Constitution of Northern Nigeria, 1963 and S. 11(a) of

the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law of Northern Nigeria oust the

jurisdiction of courts to entertain chieftaincy matters.



40

2.

What considerations determine whether a person is a chief, in Kwara State?

3.

When would an appeal court interfere with findings of fact.

FACTS:

The respondents as kingmakers of ljagbo in Oyun Local Government Area of

Kwara State brought an action in the Ilorin High Court against the appellants claim-



45

ing a declaration that the 1st appellant's appointment as the Onijagbo of ljagbo by

the 2nd appellant is a nullity, and an injunction. The issue of the chieftaincy was

the subject mater of an earlier suit,

Akanbi v. Yakubu

in which the Supreme Court

found that the chieftaincy was not recognised in law and that the position of Oni-

jagbo of ljagbo was a mere title of honour. The trial Judge in the present case



50

struck out the respondent's suit for want of jurisidiction by virtue of s.78(b) of the

Northern Nigeria Constitution and s.11(a) of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposi-

tion) Law (Cap. 29 of Northern Nigeria as the case involved a chieftaincy matter.

The respondents successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal, where the trial

ADEYEYE AND ANOR. V. AJ1BOYE &

ORS.



1065

Judge's decision was set aside and the appointment of the 1st appellant was de-

clared null and void. Thereupon the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD:

1. The Onigbagbo of ljagbo Chieftaincy Title formerly attracting no Government

5



recognition as a chieftaincy title has since August 1979 been accorded such

recognition by the paramount ruler of the area - the Olofa of Offa, the Oyun

Traditional Council and the State Government; all this happpened after the

Supreme Court's decision in 1973 in

Akanbi v. Yakubu.

2. S.78(b) of the 1963 Constitution of N.N. ousts the jurisdiction of the courts in

10



chieftaincy matters. S.11(a) of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law

of Northern Nigeria, 1963, also makes similar provisions. The trial court

therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's claim.

3. The "authority and control" of the Onijagbo of ljagbo, are certainly recognised

by the native community of ljagbo, hence these protracted litigations. They are

15



not litigating over a worthless stool or dynasty.

4. The words used by the Olofa of Offa in the last sentence of his letter to the 1st

defendant, Exhibit 2D1, shows clearly that the Onijagbo has "authority and

control" over the ljagbo community when he wished him "God's guidance and

happy reign over your people (amen)."

20





5. The Onijagbo of ljagbo comes within the definition of "chief" as contemplated

in law.

Per

UWAIS, J.S.C.:

6.

The membership of the Traditional Council is by itself, a further evidence of the

recognition accorded, by the Government of Kwara State, to the office of

25



Onijagbo as that of a chief.



The functions of the councils are spelt out by

Section 78 of the Local Government Law, No. 8 of 1976



for a chief to be

given the foregoing responsibilities, he surely must have been accorded

recognition by the Government of Kwara State.



In 1973 when

William

Akanbi and •



Yakubu and Ors.

(1973) 12 S.C. 11; (1973) 1 All

N.L.R.

(Part

30



II) 327, was d:c .6.



e Supreme Court, the office of Onijagbo did not attain

such height nd recognition. Times have changed.

7.

The Court of Appeal violated the trite law principle that an appeal court will not

interfere with the findings of a lower court unless such findings are perverse or

would occasion miscarriage of justice -

Woluchem and Ors. v. Gudi and Ors.

35



(1981) 5 S.C. 291,

Enana v. Ade

(1981) 11 - 12 S.C. 25 and

Ebba v. Ogodo,

(1984) 1 S.C.

N.L.R.

17. Tfierp was both oral evidence (by the plaintiffs witness

- P.W.3) and documentary evidence (Exhibit 1

Dil

adduced by the plaintiff and

the 1st defendant respectively, to justify the finding of

the

trial court that the 1st

defendant was a chief recognised by the Government of Kwara State.

40

CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

1.

William Akanbi v. Yakubu

(1973) 12 S.C. 11.

2.

Woluchems & Ors v. Gudi & Ors

(1981) 5 S.C. 291.

3.

Enana v. Ade

(1981) 11 - 12 S.C. 25.

45



4.

Ebba v. Ogodo

(1984) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 37.

5.

Uwaifo v. Attorney-General Bendel State

(1982) S.C. 124, (1983) 4 N.C.L.R.

1

6.

Stephen v. The State

(1986) 5 N.W.L.R. 978 at p. 1005.

50

Professor S.A. Adesanya

(with him

A. Kalu, S.O. Sanni

and

L.O. Fagbemi)

for the

1st Appellant.

Mr. Kehinde Otta, Senior State Counsel I, Kwara State

for the 2nd Appellant.

Mr. 0. ljaodola

(with him

J.O. Tanimowo

and

I.A. Adewale)

for the Respondents.