The facts are that on Thursday the 18th July, 1985, pursuant to a letter from the 4th Defendant No.IDM.28/105 the Obara Ruling House, the principal Ruling House, in Ikenne, there are others, and the one to which both the Plaintiff/Respon¬dent, and the 1st and 5th Defendant/Appellant belong, held a meeting for the purpose of deciding the question of the filling of the vacant position of the Alakenne of Ikenne Chieftaincy. The 1st defendant in this case presided at this meeting. He is the Head of Obara Ruling House. The second defendant, Attorney-General of the State, is a nominal defendant. The third de¬fendant, subsequently substituted with the Secretary to the Government has Ministerial responsibility in Chieftaincy matters. The 4th Defendant is the Chief Executive of the Ijebu-Remo Local Government responsible for set¬ting in motion the process of filling the vacancy, subject matter of this action.

At the aforesaid meeting of the Obara Ruling House on the 18th July, 1985, Plaintiff/Respondent was one of the four candidates nominated, whose names were to be and were eventually sent to the kingmakers in re¬spect of the vacant Alakenne of Ikenne Chieftaincy, purportedly in com¬pliance with the letter No. IDM/28/105 of the 4th Defendant referred to above and the Alakenne of Ikenne Chieftaincy Declaration 1958.

After the meeting, the plaintiff met the 1st defendant in his house and complained to him orally, and subsequently in writing, that the procedure adopted and the nomination made at the meeting of the 18th July, 1985 was contrary to the Alakenne of Ikenne Chieftaincy Declaration of 1958, that is Exhibit A.

On the 26th day of July, 1985, the kingmakers purported to have ap¬pointed the 5th Defendant, the Alakenne of Ikenne from the list of four names including the names of the plaintiff and the 5th Defendant, under the Alakenne of Ikenne Chieftaincy Declaration 1958.

On the 29th July, 1985, Plaintiff/Respondent issued a writ of summons as follows:-

The learned trial Judge found that there was evidence (from the plaintiffs) that there were other children and grandchildren of Chief T. K. Dada who were not mentioned in Exhibit A. He therefore found that those other children and grandchildren acquired no interest in the land granted. The learned trial Judge observed that there was no averment in the statement of claim that the Aige family ever granted or allotted the land in dispute delineated on Exhibit A to Chief T.A. Dada.