The respondent, deposed Baale of Lagun, brought this action for orders of certiorari to quash inter alia his deposition order and the proceedings of the enquiry, and declaration that a certain enquiry was unconstitutional and in breach of the rules of natural justice. The respondent had in 1978, been duty nominated and appointed and installed as Baale of Lagun under the 1959 Chieftaincy Declaration. The title, which was hereditary had no other contestants, and there were no challengers to the appointment.

In March 1960, the Governor of Oyo State, Chief Bola Ige, directed that an amendment be made to the 1959 Chieftaincy declaration, under which the respondent was appointed.

In 1976, prior to the appointment of the respondent the Government of Oyo State had set up a Chieftaincy Declaration Review Commission to review all chieftaincy declarations in Oyo State, and the Appellant, by his counsel Chief Bola Ige, had ad¬vocated for a promotion of system of chieftaincy, which was rejected, for the decla¬ration as it then was, by the Oyo State executive council. When the said Bola Ige became Governor of Oyo State, he ordered a one day enquiry, set up under s.7(1) of the Chiefs Law, to investigate the degree of popularity of the Baale among the people of Lagun. The appellant testified and called 7 witnesses, but the respondent was not heard. Subsequently, the respondent was deposed, and the appellant was appointed the new Baale of Lagun.

At the trial, the respondent's claim was that the amendment to the 1959 Chief-taincy Declaration by the Governor, was made in bad faith, an abuse of power and illegal. The learned trial Judge dismissed the respondent case, and the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. After a consideration of the case, the Justices of the Court of Appeal unanimously held that the Governor of Oyo State had not been fair in the steps taken to amend the 1959 declaration. This means that he exercised his powers in disregard of the rules of natural justice and fair play, and failed to com¬ply with the Chieftaincy Law under which he purported to act. They allowed the ap¬peal. The appellant dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the Supreme Court, contending inter alia, that the Court of Appeal was wrong in granting the declaration to the respondent, when the matter before the court was initiated by a perogative writ, after the claims or relief of certiorari had been dismissed by the trial Judge.