Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Bakare & Ors V. Ajose-Adeogun (2014) CLR 1(f) (SC)

Judgement delivered on Friday, the 17th day of January, 2014

Brief

  • Issues for determination
  • Locus Standi
  • Necessary Party
  • Person having Interest
  • Order 14 Rule 19 of the Lagos State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules
  • Section 16 (1) (a) & (b) of the Obas and Chiefs of Lagos State Law
  • Section 6(6) (b) of the 1979 Constitution

Facts

The 1st - 3rd Respondents who were Plaintiffs in the trial Court by their writ of summons and statement of claim both dated 14th September 2000, sought the reliefs as stated hereunder:

  • i
    A declaration that Alhaji Kareem Oriowo Aromire is the Head of Kueji Ruling House and overall Head of Obanikoro Chieftaincy Family of Lagos pursuant to Lagos Island Local Government letter Ref: No. 00160C/Vol.11/272 dated 22nd October, 1990.
  • ii
    A declaration that pursuant to the Registered Chieftaincy dated 12th January, 1989, that there are four (4) Ruling Houses namely: DEYARI, KUEJI, JUMUYI AND ILUMO, that are entitled to present candidates in rotational order as listed herein. That is: DEYARI KUEJI KUMUYI ILUMO
  • iii
    A declaration that consequent upon, the death of late CHIEF SIKIRU OYEROKUN OJORA who is from Deyari Branch, it is the turn of Kueji Branch to present a candidate to fill the vacant stool of the Obanikoro Chieftaincy family.
  • iv
    A declaration that the Defendants not being members of Kueji Ruling House are not entitled to present a candidate to fill the vacant stool of Obanikoro of Lagos.
  • v
    An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves, their servants, agents and/or privies from selecting a candidate to occupy the vacant stool of Obanikoro chieftaincy Family of Lagos and the position of Arole which is not vacant as at now.
  • vi
    An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 6th Defendant whether by itself, its servants, agents, privies and/or any of its functionaries from giving approval of recognition to the purported selection of the 2nd Defendant as the Chief Obanikoro elect.
  • vii
    Such further or other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.

On hearing the 1st - 3rd Respondents, Motion on Notice dated 14/9/2000, the learned trial Judge granted prayers iv, v, vii and viii of the application.

The Appellants on 29th September, 2000 filed a Summons praying for an order setting aside the order of interlocutory injunction granted to the 1st - 3rd Respondents on 26/9/2000 for being incompetent and lacking in merit and a gross abuse of the process of the Honourable Court.

The 4th Respondent on 30th October, 2000 filed a Motion on Notice praying the Court for an order striking out the statement of claim and dismissing the 1st - 3rd respondents' action on the grounds that:

  • a
    The Plaintiffs have failed to disclose locus standi to institute the action.
  • b
    No reasonable cause of action has been disclosed by the plaintiffs.
  • c
    The action was not properly initiated and/or constituted.
  • d
    The action is frivolous.

    • The 1st - 3rd Respondents filed a counter-affidavit of 22 paragraphs on 17th November, 2000 in opposition to the 4th Respondent's Motion on Notice dated 30/10/2000.

    The learned trial judge consolidated and heard the following three applications of the parties:

  • i
    The Appellants' Summons dated 29/9/2000.
  • ii
    The 1st - 3rd Respondents Notice of preliminary objection dated 13/10/2000.
  • iii
    The 4th respondent's Motion on Notice dated 30/10/2000.

    • The learned trial judge in a ruling delivered on 14th September, 2001, held that the 1st - 3rd Respondents had not established their locus standi to institute the action and that the action is incompetent and struck it out.

    The 1st - 3rd Respondents dissatisfied with the ruling of the learned trial judge, appealed to the Court of Appeal by their Notice of Appeal dated 14th September, 2001.

    The 1st - 3rd Respondents by their Motion on Notice dated 13th December, 2001 applied for amendment of their original Notice of Appeal.

    The Brief of argument of the 1st - 3rd Respondents as Appellants at the Lower Court was dated and filed on 7th day of May, 2002.

    The Appellants' Brief of argument as 1st - 5th Respondents at the Lower Court was dated 26th June, July, 2002.

    The Brief of Argument of the 4th Respondent, as the 6th Respondent at the Lower Court was dated 29th July, 2002, but filed on 31st July, 2002.

    The Court of Appeal in a unanimous decision by its judgment delivered on 11th day of November, 2004 allowed the Appeal of the 1st - 3rd Respondents and made an order remitting the case back to the trial Court to be heard by another judge other than Akinsanya J.

    The Appellants by their application before this Honourable Court dated 18th April, 2005, but filed on 12th May, 2005 prayed for enlargement of time within which they may seek leave to appeal, leave to appeal and extension of time to appeal.

    The Appellants' appealed to this Court.

Issues

Whether the Court below was right in holding that the trial Court was...

Read More