ELESO V. GOVERNMENT OF OGUN STATE & ORS

• Pages: 11-27

ELESO V. GOVERNMENT OF OGUN STATE & ORS.

11

toba from the same Oyan family who reigned before and after execution of Exhibit

the plaintiff can ascend the throne in group B after the death of Oloruntoba if

so elected or selected by his family and approved by the two other families in

group B."

5

This reasoning has' not been faulted. Indeed, it has also been affirmed by the

Court of Appeal. This, to my mind knocks the bottom off the respondent's case that

a person from group B cannot be Oba because they had earlier, i.e. before 1962

produced an Oba.

10

It is however in the next important finding of the court of Appeal that the appellant

did not prove that he was nominated and selected by his Ruling House that his case

crashed to the ground. This Court has stated it a number of times that it will not

disturb concurrent findings of facts by two lower courts save for special circumstan-

ces shown. For this, see:

Olujinle v Adeagbo

(1986) 2 N.W.L.R. 235 at p.255;

Enang

15

u

Adu

(1981) 11- 12 S.C. 25, at p.42 and

Akinsanya v. United Bank for Africa Limited

(1986) 4 N.W.L.R. (Part 35) p.273. I have not been persuaded that there are any

special circumstances in this case.

For these reasons and the fuller reasons contained in the judgment of my learned

brother, Kawu, J.S.C., I also agree that the appeal succeeds only with respect to

20

reliefs numbers 2 and 4 as set out in the lead judgment. I also subscribe to the orders

made by him.

Appeal allowed in part.

25

ELESO V. GOVERNMENT OF OGUN STATE & ORS.

30

M.A. ELESO

V

1.

THE GOVERNMENT OF OGUN STATE

2.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER

FOR JUSTICE OF OGUN STATE

35

3. OBA OYEBADE LIPEDE I THE

ALAKE OF ABEOKUTA

4.

CHIEF TOYE COKER (THE

APENA OF EGBA).

5.

CHIEF FA. OYALOWO

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

OBASEKI,

AG. C.J.N.

ESO,

J.S.C.

BELGORE,

J.S.C.

45

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.

WALI,

J.S.C.

6th April, 1990.

40

APPELLANT

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC.4

5

/

1

989.

Chieftaincy - £22, Chiefs Law, Cap.20„Laws of ()gun State, 1978- Purport - of Chieftaincy

50





Matter - Locus Stanch - How established.- Appointment by a panel - Whether two

persons can validly he appointed to fill one vacancy - minor chieftaincy -

application of

chiefs law to minor chieftaincy - procedure fulfilling a minor chieftaincy - functions of

prescribed authority in relation thereto.

Constitutional Law - Locus Standi -

5.6(6)(b), 1979

Constitution construed. Right to sue;

How arise - right must vest in a family or group or may be personal to a plaintiff

12

NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

1990 2 N.S.C.C.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether the Governor has right under s.22 of the Chief Law of Ogun State,

Cap.20 of 1978, to select and approve the appointment of a candidate for a minor

Chieftaincy title?

2.

When may a right to sue in a Chieftaincy contest arise?

5

3.

Who appoints a minor chief, and what is the duty of the Prescribed Authority

under s.22 of Chiefs Law, cap 20 of Ogun State?

FACTS:

The Plaintiff instituted an action in the High Court of Ogun State against the 1st,

2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants claiming,

inter alia,

a declaration that the purported

10

appointment of the 4th defendant by the 1st defendant and or 3rd defendant as the

Balogun of ljaiye and Are of Egba is irregular, illegal and unconstitutional, not being

in accordance with the custom and tradition of ljaiye and Egbaland. The 3rd

defendant (the Alake of Egbaland) is the Prescribed Authority pursuant to s.22(1) of

the Chiefs Law, Laws of Ogun State, Cap.20 of 1978.

15

After considering the evidence led by the parties, the trial Judge held that neither

the Plaintiff nor the 4th defendant was appointed the Balogun of ljaiye and Are of

Egba as required by the custom and tradition of the ljaiye and Egba people and as

required by the Chiefs Law. He thereafter entered an Order of non-suit against the

Plaintiff in respect of all the claims. But the Plaintiff and the 4th defendant ere

20

dissatisfied with the Order of non-suit and so each of them appealed agains

w

t the

judgment of the trial court to the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division. In other words,

the Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal and the 4th defendant cross-appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's appeal in respect of the declarations

sought and pronounced the purported appointment of the 4th defendant ti

as

tuted

the

25

Balogun of ljaiye and Are of Egba illegal and void, and the Court of Appeal subs

an order granting those two declarations instead of the order of non-suit.

The 4th defendant, dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, appealed

to the Supreme Court contending,

inter Oa,

that the learned Justices of the Court

of Appeal erred in holding that the Governor of the State as Chief Executive was not

30

empowered and authorised under the Chiefs Law to resolve a stalemate in fa

ur of

one or two or several contestants by approving an appointment of a perso

vo

n as a

minor chief for the peace, order and good government of the State.

HELD:

1. By the provisions of s.22 of the Chiefs Law of Ogun State, Cap.20 of 1978, the

35

Governor, as the Chief Executive of the State has not that type of role to play. He

has no such right to select and approve the appointment of a candidate for a

minor chieftaincy title. It is clearly the function of the Alake of Egbaland as the

Prescribed Authority and, if there should arise a problem, the Commissioner may

set up an inquiry. The power to act in the matter cannot, therefore, be considered

40

part of the residuary executive power of the Governor of the State. The

Prescribed Authority is a traditional office-holder. In the instant case, the selection

and approval of the appointment of the appellant as the Balogun of ljaiye and Are

of Egba by the Governor was unlawful and contrary to the provisions of s.22 of

45

the Chiefs Law of Ogun State.

2. The right to sue in a Chieftaincy contest may arise in two different ways. A man

may by his statement of claim and evidence show that the right being asserted

is that of his family by reason of, say, their hereditary interest. In that case, it is

the family, usually through their representatives, who can bring the action on the

premise that, it is the civil right of the family that has been pleaded. On the other

50

hand, a man may be asserting his own right to the Chieftaincy stool. What is

required in that case is his statement and evidence, (if evidence has been called),

should show the nature of his interest and his entitlement to the stool. In such

case, what he is asserting is his own civil right to the stool and not that of his

family. S.6(6)(b) of the 1979 Constitution has expressly given him a

Lo

c

u

s

c

s that

s Standi

in such a case. In the instant case, the 5th respondent's (plaintiff) c

he