OYEYEMI V. COMMISSIONER

• Pages: 371-388

OYEYEMI V. COMMISSIONER



371

OYEYEMI

V.

COMMISSIONER

5

CHEF JOSEPH ODETOYE OYEYEMI



APPELLANT

V.

10 1. COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL )

GOVT KWARA STATE

2.

GOVERNOR, KWARA STATE



)

3.

IREPODUN LOCAL GOVERNMENT,



RESPONDENTS

KWARA STATE.

4.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL,

KWARA STATE.

APPEAL No. SC. 191/1990.

20

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

KAWU,



J.S.C.

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.

WALT,



J.S.C.

AK PATA



J.S.C.

25

28th February, 1992.

Chieftaincy - Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law, Kwara State, section 3(2) -

Intendment of - Deposition of a Chief (Bale of Oro Town) - Need for the Governor to

30



hold an inquiry before deposing a chief - Effect of failure to so hold.

Constitutional Law - Natural justice - Audi alteram partem - Imperatives of - Breach of

rules of natural justice - Whether can arise incidentally in the course of proceedings -

Sufficiency of interest to be heard - When it could arise.

35

Construction and Interpretation - Section 3(2), Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition)

Law of Northern Nigeria - How construed - Holding an inquiry in Chieftaincy dispute

- Meaning of - Interpretation of statutes - Need to read words and clauses together; and

with reference to their context.

Equity - Action personalis moritur cum persona - Examples, and construction

of

40

Estoppel - A party acquiring a vested right by the ostensible recognition of another - Whether

the party who gives such recognition is estopped from denying the existence of the right

to the position.

Practice and Procedure - Personal actions - Whether substitution can lie in the event of the

45



death of the person concerned.

Words

& Phrases - Actio personalis moritur cum persona - Examples, and meaning of

ISSUES:

1. When may the principle of

audi alteram partem

apply.

50

372



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1992] 1 N.S.C.C.

2, Can the breach of the right of fair hearing arise incidentally in the course of

proceedings?

FACTS:

The plaintiff/appellant had in the High Court claimed for a declaration that he

was recognised as the Bale of Oro by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, that their

purported withdrawal of the recognition and subsequent recognition of the 5th

defendant was null and void. He also claimed an order of injunction restraining the

5th defendant from parading himself as the Bale of Oro Town.



Plaintiff's case in a nutshell was that he was duly nominated by Bale Egin



10

Orunmila ruling house, presented to the Kingmakers of Oro by the Asanlu of Aro

and Aro of Oro and was duly installed as the Bale of Oro on the 1st of August, 1980.

He was duly recognised by the 1st to 4th defendants. He acted in that capacity

and defendants' functionaries addressed correspondence to him as such until

14th June, 1982 when the defendants purported to withdraw his recognition as



Bale without a hearing. The 3rd defendant by Exhibit D, dated 7th December, 1982



1

conveyed the recognition of the 5th defendant by the Local Government.

The learned trial Judge found, inter alia, as follows:-

(i)

That there are two ruling houses in Oro Town, and that the plaintiff belongs

to one of them;



20

(ii)

That the plaintiff was installed as the Bale of Oro on the 1st of August. 1980;

(iii)

That the Kwara State Government recognised the appointment of the

plaintiff

as

the Bale and that he continued to receive his salary as Bale from

the 2nd of August, 1980, till the 14th of June, 1982.

Based on the above findings, among others, the trial Judge gave judgment for

the plaintiff/appellant, holding that the then Governor, Alhaji Adamu Atta exceeded

his powers by ordering that a new Bale be installed by the Oloro of Oro Town

without holding any inquiry (as required by the Chiefs Law) into the selection,

appointment and installation of the plaintiff.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, that court reversed the decision of the trial

court and held that exhibit J, a letter written by the Permanent Secretary, Ministry

of Local Government and dated the 14th of June, 1982 shows that there was an

inquiry. It non-suited the plaintiff.

Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal's decision, the plaintiff appealed to the

Supreme Court contending,

inter alia,

that the Court of Appeal erred by holding

that the Governor did conduct an enquiry before withdrawing his recognition as

the Bale of Oro Town.

HELD:

1. The principle of

audi alteram partem

is applicable in all cases in which a

decision is to be taken in any matter involving a person's interest in a property,

right or personal liberty. Its application extends to all those cases which for

want of appropriate explanation are explained away by the well-known judicial

acronym:

ex debito justitia..

(See p.378, lines 28 - 34).



In the instant case, the action of the Governor in removing the plaintiff/appellant



45

without a hearing was in breach of the principle of audi alteram partem. It was

also in clear breach of the express provisions of the Chiefs (Appointment and

Deposition) Law. The case of the appellant was stronger in that he had acquired

a vested right to the Chieftaincy stool over which he had acted, been

recognised and paid his salary by the 3rd respondent for about two years.



50

25

30

35

40