n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Ojo & Ors V. Gov. Oyo State (1989) CLR 1(a) (SC)

Brief

  • Concurrent findings
  • Vested rights
  • Chieftaincy matters

Facts

The stool of Bale of Ilora became vacant in 1979 as a result of the death of Chief Oparinde, the then incumbent. By the Bale of Ilora Chieftaincy Declaration 1956 it became the turn of Okunla Ruling House to present a candidate to fill the vacant stool. Six candidates were nominated by the members of Okunla Ruling House which include Eyinade Ojo (1st plaintiff), Olayiwola Olawore (3rd defendant), Deacons S. Ola Ojo, Festus Bisiriyu, Inaolaji Akinyemi and Ajibi Oyekola. The late Olanniba Ajala, the then head of the Ruling House presented them to the traditional kingmakers. The living five traditional king makers included chief Ogunrombi, the Odofin, Chief D.K.Sangonte, the Balogun; Chief Wojuola Oyesoro, the Ejemu; Chief Adedewe Abake, the Iyalode and Chief Ajibade Adesina, the Onsa and their Chairman. The other three kingmakers had died. The kingmakers met, deliberated and considered the six contestants and a majority of three to two, appointed Eyimade Ojo as Balle of llora. Their resolution and certificate of appointment were sent to the Governor (1st defendant) for approval. However, the appointment was set aside because of representations and petitions the Government received from the members of llora Community. The Government ordered a fresh exercise to be conducted but directed that on the ground of what it called interest of justice, Chief Wojuola Oyesoro, the Ejemu of llora should not participate in the deliberation or meetings of the kingmakers. The Secretary to the Oyo South Local Government (4th defendant) set the ball rolling by inviting again the Okunla Ruling House to meet and nominate fresh candidates for the said vacant stool. The Ruling House met and nominated 5 candidates including 1st Plaintiff and 3rd defendant. Karimu Oyewole Aiki, the new head of Okunla Ruling House presented them to the traditional kingmakers for deliberation and consideration. The kingmakers met but the 4th defendant objected to the Ejemu taking part because of the directive of the Government that he should not take part. Chief Wojuola Oyesoro, the said Ejemu insisted that he would participate and even vote short of which he would cause trouble. He even threatened his colleagues with ‘juju’. Chief Ajibade Adesina, the Onsa and head of the kingmakers, supported the Ejemu and he himself threatened that no meeting would be held except the Ejemu was allowed to participate and vote contrary to the Government directive. The Onsa thereafter refused to call any meetings of the traditional kingmakers despite several appeals and warnings by the Government. Of course the Onsa in several letters made his own position clear. The Government then subsequently appointed eight warrant kingmakers in person of Chief Ezekeil Ogunrombi, Chief D.K. Sangonte, Chief J.E Ojo, Owoade Aderinkola, Madam Kikelomo Atiko, Olorode, Alhaji Opeloyeru and P.A Arokale.

TThey met at Jobele on 13/1/87 and considered the five contestants (3 were actually absent although they seem to have had notice of the meeting) before unanimously appointing Olayiwola Olawore as the Bale of llora. Their recommendation and Certificate of Appointment were sent to the Governor of Oyo State who approved same on 12/2/87.

The learned trial Judge made some findings of fact and arrived at some conclusions in his judgement. These included the following:-

  • 1"
    That the 3rd defendant/respondent, Olayiwola Olawore is a member of the Okunla Ruling House.
  • 1
    That there was no dispute between the parties as to there being a Bale of llora Chieftaincy Declaration 1956.
  • 2
    That the alleged custom that no Bale of llora is ever appointed outside the House of the ONSA let alone at JOBELE WAS NOT PROVED by the evidence led by the plaintiffs and the onus was clearly on them to establish the custom by evidence, and
  • 3
    3. That the traditional kingmakers defaulted in their duty of appointing the Bale and so the 1st defendant was right to have appointed warrant kingmakers having exercise powers vested on him by Section 13 of the Chiefs Law, 1959”.

    • An appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.

    Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the Chieftaincy Declaration in this matter is the only that...

Read More