AFOLAYAN V. OGUNRINDE

• Pages: 219-237

219



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1990] 1 N.S.C.C.

AFOLAYAN V. OGUNRINDE



5



CHIEF ADENIGBA AFOLAYAN



APPELLANT

V

1.

OBA JOSHUA OGUNRINDE



10

2.

CHIEF EMMANUEL AJIBOYE



RESPONDENTS

3.

CHIEF JOSHUA ABODUNRIN

4.

CHIEF JAMES AREMU

SUIT NO. SC.83/1987.

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA



15

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

KARIBI-WHYTE,



J.S.C.

AGBAJE,



J.S.C.



20

23rd February, 1990.

Evidence - Proof of Chieftaincy title - Inference from Family title and name - Propriety of

Constitutional Law - Locus standi - Right of party to sue - s. 236 of the 1979 Constitution

25

- Rights acquired under Customary Luw - Whether enforceable under the constitution

as legal rights.

Chieftaincy Matter - Institution of actions - Locus standi.

30

Practice & Procedure - Appeals - Concurrent findings of fact - Attitude of Supreme Court -

Parties to an action - Joinder of parties - Declaratory reliefs - When granted.

Words and Phrases - Cause of action - Meaning of and when it accrues.

35

ISSUES:

1.

When does a cause of action accrue?

2.

Whether every issue raised by a party to an action must be determined.

3.

Whether an appellate court can substitute its own views on the findings of facts

for those of the trial court when the decision of the trial court is based on the 40

credibility and demeanour of witnesses.

4.

What is the attitude of the Supreme Court to concurrent findings of facts by lower

courts?

5.

Whether or not Inishan is a ward in Oko village.

6.

Whether or not the action was properly constituted in view of the fact that Inishan

45

community was not joined as a party.

7.

Whether facts can be proved by reference to the meaning attached by a party to

a name or title.

FACTS:

The plaintiff sued the defendants at Kwara State High Court for a declaration,

inter

50

alia,

that the defendant being a ward head of Inishan within Oko village in Kwara

State is not entitled under Oko Native Law and Custom to wear a crown without the

consent and approval of the Oloko of Oko and his Chiefs: The defendant (who is

the Chief of Inishan-Oko), on the other hand, claims that his domain is a distinct and

separate village and not a Ward of Oko Village and that he was entitled to wear a

Crown.

AFOLAYAN V. OGUNRINDE



220

The trial Court having carefully reviewed and reflected on the evidence of both

parties gave judgment for the plaintiff. It held that Inishan is a Ward in Oko and that

under Oko native law and custom no sub-chief ever wears a crown. The defendant

then appealed to the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division, contending,

inter alia,

that

5



the plaintiff had no cause of action and that the action was not properly constituted

in view of the fact that Inishan Community was not made a party at the trial Court.

The Court of Appeal having found no merit in all the grounds of appeal dismissed

the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court con-

tending,

inter alia,

that the learned ,Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in not

10



setting aside the decision of the High Court which was to the effect that Inishan was

part of Oko Village when Inishan was not a party to the proceedings at the High

Court.

HELD:

1.

When facts establishing a civil right or obligation and facts establishing infraction

15



of or trespass on those rights and obligations exist side by side, a cause of action,

which is the factual situation which enables one person to obtain a remedy from

another in court with respect to an injury, is said to have accrued. In the instant

case, the plaintiffs have established not only the particular act on the part of the

defendant which gave them their cause of complaint against him, they have also

20





established every fact which was material to be proved by them in order to

succeed on their claims against the defendant.

2.

Once an issue is raised howsoever, either on the pleadings or in the grounds of

appeal, and it is a proper one for determination, it is the legal duty of the learned

trial judge or appeal justices to determine it. In the instant case, the contention

25





of the learned justices of the Court of Appeal that a claim for a declaratory

judgment need not disclose a cause of action where no ancilliary relief is claimed

is no answer, as that failure, in this regard, to answer the question gives the

impression that the pleadings, in particu lar the statement of claim, of the plaintiffs

were not examined.

30





3. It is trite law that appeal courts must not substitute their own views of the facts of

a case for the views of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing and

hearing the witnesses testify when the decision of the trial court is based on the

credibility and demeanour of the witnesses. It is only where the question does

not affect the issue of credibility of witnesses that an appeal court is in as good

35





a position as the trial court to evaluate the evidence given and come to a proper

decision which may or may not accord with that of the trial court. In the instant

case, the Court of Appeal correctly re-stated the law and adopted the correct

attitude by refraining from interfering with the findings made by the trial court.

4.

The Supreme Court will not interfere with or set aside and reverse concurrent

40





findings of facts which have not been proved to be perverse or arrived at in

violation of some principles of law or procedure. In the instant case, the appellant

has failed woefully to discharge the burden of proving that those findings were

perverse or arrived at in violation of some principles of law or procedure as

required by law so as to persuade the Supreme Court to interfere with those

15



concurrent findings.

5.

There is overwhelming evidence which established that Inishan Community is a

constituent part of Oko Community. In the instant case, the evidence of 2nd, 3rd

and 4th plaintiffs, and that of the 1st plaintiff's witness established the fact that

Inishan is a Ward in Oko Village.

>0





6. There is nothing to suggest that members of Inishan Community have breached

the native law and custom of Oko Village. In the instant case, the appellant's

defence that he inherited the Crown and was entitled to wear it as his fathers

before him cannot found a cause of action against Inishan Community. Thus,

there being no cause of action against the Inishan Community, the action is

properly constituted. It would have been wrong to have joined the Inishan

Community.