Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Ayinde V. Abiodun (1999) CLR 8(e) (CA)

Brief

  • Finding of fact by trial court
  • Burden of proof (He who asserts must prove)
  • Evidence (Contradiction in evidence of a party)
  • Standard of proof (Civil cases)
  • Traditional history (Credibility of)

Facts

The 1st Appellant and 1st Respondent are members of two different branches of Asanike Ruling House of Iragberi. By the Aragberi of Iragberi chieftaincy declaration dated 21/5/79 and registered on 1/6/79, Oluroyewa, Asanike, Motebo, Okuntoye and Oyetunde Ruling Houses have the right to present candidates for the Aragberi of Iragberi Chieftaincy on rotational basis. After the death of Oba J.T. Akinpelu of Oluroyewa Ruling House, it became the turn of Asanike Ruling House which consist of 2 sections namely Adegbola Elere and Omidele. In may 1988 on the directive of the 2nd Respondent, Asanike Ruling House convened a meeting of the house and after voting Salami Agboola Olanipekun became the head of the family. On 24/5/88 Asanike Ruling House at a meeting unanimously nominated the Plaintiff to fill the vacant stool of Aragberi of Iragberi. The 1st Respondent was later nominated secretly by the Adegbola Elere section, and in spite of the Plaintiffs protests his name was recommended to the 3rd Respondent for approval by the 2nd Respondent. It is the Plaintiff's case that the 1st Respondent has not been validly appointed.

In his own statement of defence the 1st Respondent asserted that there is only one Asanike Ruling House, which is not divided, and that the Plaintiff is not a member of the said ruling house. He denied that there was any Asanike Ruling House meeting in which the Plaintiff was nominated for the Aragberi or Iragberi chieftaincy. The unanimous nomination of the 1st Respondent of 30/05/88 was in public and not secretly, and there was no protest, for the 1st Respondent was validly nominated.

Evidence adduced by parties were appraised by learned trial Judge, who after considering the addresses by Counsel dismissed the Appellant's case

Issues

  • 1
    Whether or not the learned Trial Judge did not misconceive the onus of...
  • Read More