Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Balogun V. Ode (2007) CLR 2(c) (SC)

Judgement delivered on February 9th 2007

Brief

  • Estoppel
  • Jurisdiction of court
  • Final decision
  • S.236(1) of 1979 Constitution
  • Unlimited jurisdiction of State High Court

Facts

The facts giving rise to the suit leading to this appeal briefly stated are, that the 1st set of Respondents - i.e Salawe Chieftaincy Family, sometime in 1985 (not 1975 as appears, in 1st to 3rd Respondents' Brief) made a request or application to the Lagos State Government, to make a Chieftaincy Declaration that will regulate succession to the vacant stool of their Salawe of Lagos which was/is a recognised Chieftaincy title under Part II of the Obas and Chiefs Laws of Lagos State, 1981. The 5th Respondent, later forwarded a draft chieftaincy Declaration to the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs for approval and registration. The draft, was approved and duly registered by the State Government. The said Chieftaincy Declaration, recognized four (4) Ruling Houses, namely,

  • 1
    Rokosu Ruling House
  • 2
    Okoya Salawe Ruling House
  • 3
    Agbaje Salawe Ruling House
  • 4
    Oke Salawe Ruling House

Following different claims and counter-claims from rival claimants to the said stool, the Government, referred the matter to the Judicial Tribunal on Chieftaincy Chairmaned by Oshodi J. for investigation and report. The Tribunal in its report, recommended the revocation of the 1986 Chieftaincy Declaration and concluded by recommending Two (2) Ruling Houses, -namely, Fatosa and Fayemi with Fatosa being the first on rotational basis. The 5th Respondent approved the findings and recommendations of the Tribunal. A new Chieftaincy Declaration, was then promulgated by the Government.

Aggrieved by the said promulgation, the Appellants, instituted Suit No. LD/3854/95 dated 12th September, 1995 and both in Writ of Summons and in paragraph 29 of the Statement of Claim, they claimed the following reliefs:

  • i
    A declaration that there are Four (4) Ruling Houses in the Salawe Chieftaincy Family of Lagos namely:- Okoya Ruling House, Agbaje Ruling House, Rokosu Ruling House and Oke Ruling House.
  • ii
    A declaration that all the Ruling Houses are entitled to present candidates to fill the vacant stool of Salawe Chieftaincy Family in the following order of rotation:-Rokosu Ruling House Okoya Ruling House Agbaje Ruling House Oke Ruling Flouse
  • iii
    A declaration that it is the turn of Rokosu Ruling House to present the next candidate that for (sic) the vacant stool of Salawe of Lagos.
  • iv
    An order of petpetual injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves, their servants, agents and privies from nominating or selecting any candidate for filing (sic) the vacant stool of the Salawe of Lagos.
  • v
    An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 4th Defendant whether by himself, his servants, agents, privies or functionaries from approving the nomination or candidate of any person presented by the 1st - 3rd Defendants for purposes of filling(sic) the vacant stool of Salawe of Lagos.

After the parties had filed and exchanged their pleadings, the 1st to 3rd Respondents thereafter, filed on 8th March. 1996, a motion on Notice, praying the trial Court, to dismiss or strike out the suit on the ground that it does not disclose a reasonable cause of action in that:

  • ii(sic)
    "The Plaintiffs cannot re-open the same decision adjudicated upon in SC/5/1969 and the Judicial Enquiry into Obaship and Recognised Chieftaincy in Lagos State.
  • iii(sic)
    The claim is an abuse of the process of the Court".

    • After hearing arguments, the learned trial Judge, in a considered Ruling, struck out the application as being misconceived and held he had jurisdiction to entertain the said suit.

    Dissatisfied with the said Ruling, the Appellants appealed to the Court below.

    The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal holding that the trial Court, has no jurisdiction to entertain or determine the suit. It set aside the said Ruling of the trial Court and in its place dismissed the suit by holding that it was a gross abuse of the process of the Court.

    Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether or not the Appellants' suit before the High Court constitutes an...
    • Read More