There was a long drawn dispute over succession to the vacant stool of Bale of Oke Oyi in Kwara State. There were series of law suits between Chief Joshua Alao, now, the 1st respondent and Mallam Gbadamosi Akano. The dispute went to the Supreme Court.
It seems that after the Supreme Court’s decision in the suit, Joshua Alao v Gbadamosi Akano (1988) 1 NSCC 329; (1988) 1 NWLR (pt 71) 431. Mallam Gbadamosi Akano was turbaned the Bale of Oke Oyi. His, however was a very short reign. He died on the 17th of June of that year.
His death re-opened the struggle for the stool of Bale of Oke Oyi. This time, it was between the 1st respondent and Chief Alfa Issa Akano, the son of Mallam Gbadamosi Akano. He is now the 2nd respondent. Both the 1st and 2nd respondents claimed that they were appointed by the kingmakers of Oke Oyi.
Following the conflicting claims, the then Government of Kwara State appointed an administrative panel headed by M. F. Oye to look into the claims. The panel took evidence of the parties and their supporters/witnessed and thereafter compiled its report.
His Honour, prince Ojo Fadumile, the state Deputy Governor, in a letter No. MLGS/CHI/GEN 320/S.4/340 of 27/9/93, Exhibit 1, addressed both to the Chairman, Ilorin East Local Government, Oke Oyi and the Secretary Ilorin Emirate Council, Ilorin, stated as follows:
“Appointment of Oluo (Bale) of Oke Oyi
-
3
Based on the report of the panel and the Government white Paper on the report, the Kwara State Government, after seeking legal advice hereby approves the appointment of Mr. Joshua Alao and not Joshua Akano as the Olu (Bale) of Oke Oyi with effect from 1st September, 1993 with full rights and privileges attached to the stool.
-
4
.............................
Sgd.
Prince Ojo Fadumile
Deputy Governor
Kwara State”
.
The letter attracted swift reaction from the Governor’s office. The Secretary to the State Government in a letter No. S/Pool/38A/23 of 15/10/92 denied that the Executive Governor of Kwara State approved the appointment of the 1st respondent as the Bale of Oke Oyi. The claim of the 1st respondent is predicated on this letter of appointment and, also on his nomination by the Kingmakers. The 2nd respondent, on the other hand claimed that after the death of his father, his family recommended him for appointment as the Bale of Oke Oyi. Because, there were two claimants to the stool, the Emir of Ilorin appointed a panel to look into their respective claims. The panel after taking evidence of the parties/supporters reported back to the Emir in Council. He was subsequently recognized and turbaned as the Bale of Oke Oyi on 20/11/90.
Following the letter of the Secretary to the State Government referred to above, the 1st respondent took action against the 2nd respondent and the Attorney General Kwara State and Ilorin Emirate Council now referred to as 1st and 2nd appellants respectively.
At trial, the 1st respondent gave evidence for himself where he tendered the letter of the Deputy Governor as Exhibit 1. The 2nd respondent also gave evidence and called a witness. The 1st and 2nd appellants also called one witness and tendered several documents in evidence which included the two letters written by the Secretary to the Kwara State Government to the 1st respondent and 2nd appellant respectively which were admitted as Exhibits 3 and D9. They also rendered in evidence, the unsigned and uncertified draft copy of the Kwara State Government White Paper on the panel constituted to hear the conflicting claims to the stool of Oluo of Oke Oyi by the 1st and 2nd respondents. This document was admitted in evidence as Exhibit D17.
The trial court held that the approval by the Deputy Governor of the appointment of the 1st respondent as Oluo of Oke Oyi was within the powers of the Deputy Governor and that since there was no evidence of a withdrawal of the authority given to the Deputy Governor or any break down of communication between the Governor and his Deputy, Exhibits 3 and D9 were not credible evidence as to negate the approval in Exhibit 1 which was written by the Deputy Governor. The court also held that the title of Oluo of Oke Oyi was rotational amongst the ruling houses and that it was unlikely that the 2nd respondent would succeed his father. Consequently, the court gave judgment in favour of the 1st respondent and awarded costs of N12, 500 in his favour.
Appellants dissatisfied appealed to the Court of Appeal. 1st respondent filed a cross appeal.
