The action arose when the vacancy which occurred in the stool of Ajero of Ijero sometime in 1990 came to be filled by a candidate presented by the Arojojoye Ruling House and appointed by the kingmakers subject to the approval of the Governor. The Arojojoye Ruling House presented the 3rd Defendant, Prince Joseph Adewole, to the kingmaker as their sole candidate but the kingmaker refused to accept his candidature but rather preferred the 2nd Plaintiff, Prince Adeola Ajidahun. The government intervened to annul the selection. It appointed the 4th-7th Defendants as warrant chiefs. The warrant chiefs appointed 3rd Defendant to fill the vacant stool. The appointment was subsequently approved by the Executive Council in accordance with the Chiefs Law.

By their action the Plaintiffs challenged the presentation by the 2nd Defendant, selection by the 4th-7th Defendants, and the subsequent approval of the appointment by the Government of the then Ondo State of the 3rd Defendant as the Ajero of Ijero. The Plaintiffs claimed to be entitled to bring the action by virtue of their membership of the Akata family which they claimed was a stock of the Arojojoye Ruling House of Ajero of Ijero-Ekiti Chieftaincy. Whether they were right in their claim or not thus became the threshold issue. It is evident that if their claim to membership of the Arojojoye ruling house could not be sustained, their right to challenge the nomination of the 3rd Defendant or the appointment of warrant chiefs by the government would be non-existent.

The trial Judge rejected the Plaintiffs' claim that the Akata stock was a stock of the Arojojoye ruling house. He commented on the absence in the pleadings of the parties, or in evidence, of their respective family trees showing their connection to the founding ancestor. He said:

"Nobody, for instance told this Court how they came by either 5 of 7 stocks. Who begat whom before you now have 5 stocks or seven stocks. Who was the ancestor of each stock and how he was connected with the apex ancestor."

He held that the burden was on the Plaintiffs who asserted that they were related to the Arojojoye ruling house to prove these facts.

He therefore came to the conclusion that the Respondents had no locus standi to challenge the appointment and installation of the 3rd Appellants. Accordingly he dismissed the suit in its entirety.

Respondents dissatisfied, appealed to the Court of Appeal, which allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Respondents cross-appealed to the Supreme Court on some aspects of the judgement.