This is a succession dispute concerning a minor chieftaincy in the old Ondo State (now Ekiti State). The Plaintiffs' case in a nutshell was that only a member of the Plaintiffs INISEMO family could be appointed the ONISEMO of Ikoyi-Ekiti. It was pleaded that the 1st Defendant was from ITETA family and also an in-law to the Plaintiffs family; and therefore, not eligible for appointment as the ONISEMO of Ikoyi-Ekiti. It was further pleaded that some years before the suit was brought, the 1st Defendant manifested his interest in the said chieftaincy. In reaction, the Plaintiffs sent a letter of protest to the Ondo State Government. The Ondo State Government by a letter dated 6/11/79 directed Oba Onikoyi of Ikoyi not to fill the chieftaincy until (it) the Government had looked into the matter. As a result, the Chieftaincy position was not filed. The 1st Defendant was subsequently observed to be holding himself out as the ONISEMO. It was also observed that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants had been recognising him as such. In these circumstances, the Plaintiffs brought their suit claiming as earlier stated in this judgment.

The 1st and 2nd Defendants in the statement of defence, which they jointly filed, pleaded that there were two INISEMOS, namely INISEMO ITETA of the 1st Defendant and INISEMO ODO of the Plaintiffs. They pleaded that on 1/6/79, the Onikoyi of Ikoyi wrote a letter to the 1st Defendant's family to present a candidate for the ONISEMO chieftaincy as it was the turn of the 1st Defendants INISEMO ITETA family to present a candidate. On 20/6/79, the 1st Defendant family in writing presented him for the chieftaincy position. The Onikoyi of Ikoyi and his chiefs on 1/8/79, in writing confirmed the 1st Defendant's selection. On 30/11/79, the late Onikoyi of Ikoyi wrote a letter to that effect to the Secretary, Ekiti North Local Government. It was finally pleaded that the 1st Defendant was installed the ONISEMO before the demise of the ONIKOYI of IKOYI.

In the end, the trial Judge held that, in view of the Plaintiff's failure to exhaust the remedies prescribed by law, the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit and struck out the suit.

Dissatisfied, the Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal sitting which unanimously dismissed the appeal. The Plaintiffs then appealed further to the Supreme Court.