CaseLaw
Sosanya V. Onadeko (2005) CLR 2(h) (SC)
Judgement delivered on February 11th 2005
Brief
Facts
The demise in January 1994 of Oba A.O. Osideinde, the last Odemo of Isara signalled the race for his successor to the stool of Odemo of Isara which is a recognized chieftaincy with an approved Chieftaincy Declarations that was registered on 28th March 1958. (See the Chief's Law of Ogun State 1978). It is also pertinent to state that it is common ground between the parties that the dispute between the parties arose from the nomination, selection and installation of the 1st Respondent as the Odemo of Isara, Isara Remo in Ogun state. It is also an agreed fact that it was the turn of the Rokodo/Ogunsere Ruling House to present a candidate for the vacant stool.
The case of the Appellant as could be gathered from his pleadings and the evidence led at the trial appears to be that the nomination, selection and final appointment of the 1st Respondent to the stool of Odemo of Isara are in breach of the provisions of the Chief's Law of Ogun State. On this, it is claimed that under that law, a candidate for the stool of Odemo of Isara, to be eligible, must be a descendant from the male line of a previous Odemo of Isara. However, it is claimed that as the 1st Respondent descended from the sister of a previous Odemo of Isara, Oba Ogunsere, he was not eligible to be a candidate for the vacant stool. It is therefore claimed that his appointment as the new Odemo of Isara is illegal as each of the steps taken towards that effect, namely, his nomination and selection were illegal. It is also the case for the Appellant that as he was also interested in contesting for the vacant stool, he was unfairly denied the opportunity to take part in the election for the stool. This is because though he was nominated by his father for the stool prior to the selection exercise that took place on the 10th of March 1995, he was prevented from taking part in the exercise because of the way his nomination was treated at the general meeting of the Rokodo/Ogunsere Ruling House held on 10/3/95. This is inspite of the fact that on that day, his name was proposed there by his father, Chief Sosanya, P.W.1. It is also part of the case of the Appellant that the general meeting of the Rokodo/Ogunsere Ruling House held on the 10/3/95 was itself illegal and all the decisions taken thereat were null and void, as the meeting was not validly constituted and its proceedings were unfairly conducted.
On the other hand, the case for the 1st, 5th and 6th Respondents plainly appears to be that a meeting of the entire Rokodo/Ogunsere Ruling House was held on 20th August 1994. At that meeting which was also attended by the (Ukoyade/Seenu Branch) of the Ruling House, it was decided that a Nomination Committee be set up to consider candidates nominated by the respective branches of the Ruling House. That although the Ukoyade/Seenu branch to which the Appellant belonged had two members on the Nomination Committee, that branch of the Ruling house did not forward any name to the Nomination Committee for consideration as a candidate for the vacant stool. It is also part of their case that the Nomination Committee unanimously and without any dissenting voice from any of its members, recommended the 1st Respondent as the candidate to fill the vacant stool of Odemo of Isara to Rokodo/Ogunsere Ruling House for ratification. They also pleaded and led evidence that the 1st Respondent was eligible for appointment to the vacant stool as he descended from the former Odemo of Isara, Oba Ogunsere. In addition, they claimed that the investigation conducted into his candidature, the Nomination Committee was satisfied that he fulfilled all that they required of him to be recommended as the only candidate for the vacant stool.
With regard to the complaint of the Appellant that the meeting of Rokodo/Ogunsere Ruling House held on 10th March 1995 where the 1st Respondent was nominated as the sole candidate for presentation to the Kingmakers was not validly constituted and that the proceedings were unfairly conducted, the 2nd - 4th Respondents by their pleadings and the evidence led at the trial, denied the complaint of the Appellant. Rather, their case appears to be that the notice of the meeting held on 10th March 1995 was given to the entire members of Rokodo/Ogunsere Ruling House and also to Ikenne Local Government Officials and the State Security Service. That the Public Notice (Exhibit D) stated clearly that the purpose of the meeting was to fill the vacant stool of Odemo of Isara. They claimed that at the meeting, a roll call of members of the Ruling House was taken, at the end of which 178 members, after proper identification, were accredited as authentic members of the Ruling House. It was also part of their case that since the only purpose of the family meeting was to ratify the consensus candidate already nominated by the Nomination Committee, the 1st Respondent's name was put to the house for ratification. It was at that stage that the 1st P.W, Chief Sosanya objected to the nomination and put up, for the first time, the Appellant, P.W.1's son as a contestant. Following that development, a vote was called for between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent. The result of the poll was 175 votes for the 1st Respondent and 3 votes in favour of the Appellant. After the conclusion of that exercise, the name of the 1st Respondent was forwarded to the kingmakers who subsequently appointed the 1st Respondent as the Odemo of Isara. The Respondents upon the above facts, therefore contend that the selection, nomination and appointments of the 1st Respondent as the Odemo of Isara were valid in law in that they were in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Chief's Law, Cap. 20, Laws of Ogun State 1978.
At the conclusion of the hearing of the evidence led by the parties, the learned counsel appearing for them addressed the Court. In a considered Judgment, the learned trial Judge dismissed the Appellant's case.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the Appeal.
Still dissatisfied the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.