AKINYEDE & ORS. V. OPERE & ORS.

• Pages: 47-51

AKINYEDE & ORS. V. OPERE & ORS.



47

AKINYEDE & ORS. V. OPERE & ORS.

5

G.B.A. AKINYEDE

AND SIX OTHERS

10



V

YAYA MUSTAPHA OPERE

AND EIGHT OTHERS

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

15



ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

BRETT,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.C.

29th February, 1968.

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 216/1967

20



Customary Law - Intestacy - Yoruba custom of distribution - Idi Igi and Ori

Ojori - No rule against changing system when dispute arises.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a family head has a right under Yoruba Customary Law to decide which

25





system of distribution to adopt, where a dispute arises as to distribution of family

assets.

2.

Whether a family head can under Yoruba Customary Law change the system

of distribution of family assets when a dispute arises.

FACTS:

30





In the High Court of Lagos, judgment was given against the defendants as fol-

lows: that the purported division of the sum of compensation money and rents by

the first defendant on the basis of Idi-Igi, in favour of the second - seventh defend-

ant was invalid; an order directing that the amount be shared between the plain-

tiffs and the second - seventh defendant on the principle of Ori-Ojori; payment

35





over by the first defendant of the plaintiffs' share of the amount. The defendants

appealed to the Supreme Court against the judgment on fifteen grounds of ap-

peal.

HELD:

1.

Where a dispute arises as to tie distribution the head of the family has a right

40





to decide which system of distribution is to be adopted. In this case the

plaintiffs/respondents having created a dispute about the distribution of the

L.E.D.B. compensation, the head of the family was placed in a position that he

had to make a decision. He decided in favour of idi-igi system.

2.

The Privy Council in

Danmole v. Dawodu

had not been invited to base their

45





decision on the view that it would be inequitable for the head of the family when

a dispute arose to decide to discontinue a system which had previously been

followed by agreement.

3.

The Supreme Court had no hesitation in saying that this was a case in which

the head of the family could make a change; and it could not in the

50



circumstances question his decision.

CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

1.

Danmole and Another v. Dawodu and Another

3 F.S.C. 46; (1962).

2.

England v. Palmer

14 W.A.C.A. 659.