Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Jokanola V. Mil. Gov., Oyo State (1996) CLR 5(f) (SC)

Judgement delivered on May 14th, 1996

Brief

  • Appeal
  • Customary law

Facts

The appellant is the Otun Bale of Lanlate and a member of Olabebe ruling house one of the two ruling houses for the appointment of Bale of Lanlate. The other ruling house is Bioku ruling house. In 1957 a Chieftaincy Declaration relating to Bale of Lanlate Chieftaincy was drawn up. The Declaration was registered on 28th November, 1958. It provided for the rotation of the candidature of Bale of Lanlate between Olabebe and Bioku ruling houses.

In 1977 the government of Oyo State set up Ademola Commission of Inquiry which reviewed all the existing chieftaincy declarations in Oyo State. The Commission received memoranda from various interested groups including Olabebe and Bioku ruling houses who presented a joint memorandum. After thorough consideration of all memoranda the Commission affirmed the 1957 chieftaincy Declaration of Bale of Lanlate.

At the demise of Oba Babatunde Aremu, the Bale of Lanlate, on the 7th of October, 1984, the appellant, the 8th respondent, Oyewole Oyediran, and two other members of Olabebe ruling house contested for the vacant stool. At the end of the contest the kingmakers declared Prince Oyediran Oyewole, the 8th respondent, the winner, having scored majority of the votes cast. Thereafter the name of the 8th respondent was forwarded to the Oyo State Government for approval. Dissatisfied with the selection and election of Prince Oyediran Oyewole as the candidate to be appointed the new Bale of Lanlate, the appellant instituted this action against the eight defendants/respondents, listed above, in the High Court of Oyo State and claimed as follows:

  • 1
    Declaration that paragraph V of the Registered Declaration of 1957 relating to Bale of Lanlate Chieftaincy which was retained by Ademola Commission of enquiry and approved by the 1st Defendant in his letter of the 11th of January, 1978 reference No. C. B. 141/169/VOL. V. 557 is contrary to the customary law relating to the Bale of Lanlate Chieftaincy and is therefore invalid.
  • 2
    Declaration that according to tradition and customary law of Bale of Lanlate Chieftaincy, the surviving Otun Bale automatically becomes the Bale elect.
  • 3
    Declaration that the nomination and selection of the 8th defendant as the Bale of Lanlate by the 4th to 6th defendant is irregular, contrary to the customary law relating to Bale of Lanlate Chieftaincy and invalid.
  • 4
    Order of injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants by themselves, their servants, agents or otherwise howsoever from recognising or approving the appointment of the 8th defendant as the Bale of Lanlate.
  • 5
    Injunction restraining the 1st to 7th defendants by themselves, their servants, agents or otherwise howsoever from treating or dealing with the 8th defendant as the Bale of Lanlate.
  • 6
    Injunction restraining the 8th defendant from acting as or parading himself as the Bale of Lanlate pending the determination of the substantive case."

    • The case of the appellant, through the pleadings, is that he was appointed Otun Bale of Lanlate by Oba Babatunde Aremu, in 1976. He averred that according to the custom and tradition of Lanlate, on the demise of a Bale of Lanlate, the Otun of Lanlate is automatically appointed to succeed the deceased Bale, while the next ruling house from which the last Bale came would produce the next Otun Bale. Both Bale and Otun Bale being the most important chieftaincies in Lanlate must not come from the same ruling house at the same time. He further asserted that before the position of Otun was created, the next chief to Bale of Lanlate was the Sobaloju and that the Sobaloju was the automatic choice of Bale of Lanlate when a vacancy in the Baleship occurred.

    The appellant submitted that in view of the clear custom of the chieftaincy of Bale of Lanlate, which he narrated above, the 1957 Registered Declaration which merely provided for rotation between the Olabebe and Bioku Ruling Houses did not fully represent the true customary law of Lanlate since it omitted the vital element relating to succession by the Otun and the impossibility of the Otun and Bale coming from the same ruling house at the same time. For these reasons plaintiff's counsel argued that the selection of the 8th respondent who came from the same ruling house with him, as Bale of Lanlate, was invalid, null and void.

    The learned trial judge considered the evidence adduced before her and, in a well considered judgment, dismissed the claim of the appellant.

    Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial High Court the appellant filed an appeal at the Ibadan Division of the Court of Appeal. There again, the appellant, Mr. Adedeji Jokanola, was not successful. He has now come before this court.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the decision of the Court of Appeal is sustainable considering the...

Read More