- Daramola v. Attorney-General, Ondo State
- ₦ 200
Daramola v. Attorney-General, Ondo State
PRINCE MICHAEL DARAMOLA
PRINCE ADEOLA AJIDAHUN
PRINCE OLANIYAN AJIDAHUN
PRINCE TUNJI AKINYEDE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE ONDO STATE
PRINCE OLA ADEGBOLA
PRINCE JOSEPH ADEBAYO ADEWOLA
CHIEF OYEBADE AYENI
CHIEF OWOEYE BADA
CHIEF WERE WAYA
COURT OF APPEAL
( ILORIN DIVISION )
MURITALA AREMU OKUNOLA, J.C.A. ( Presided )
PATRICK IBE AMAIZU, J.C.A.
WALTER S.N. ONNOGHEN, J.C.A. ( Read the Leading Judgment )
THURSDAY 20TH JANUARY, 2000
APPEAL - Ground of Appeal - Where a ground of appeal complains of improper evaluation of facts in a civil case - Duty on the Court of Appeal - Ingredients in the Judgment Court of Appeal to consider
CHIEFTAINCY MATTER - Locus standi to institute action in respect thereof - Principles applicable
COURT - Failure to properly evaluate evidence of parties - Effect
COURT - Judgment of court - Ingredients of
COURT - Record of proceedings in court - How challenged
CUSTOMARY LAW - Declaration made in respect of and registered - Effect on such custom and native law - Duty of court
CUSTOMARY LAW - Declared and registered native law and custom - Party aggrieved by it - Legal option open to person aggrieved
EVIDENCE - Evidence of party relying on inconclusive traditional history - How treated - Principle in KOJO v. BONSIE - Applicability of
EVIDENCE - Failure of court to properly evaluate evidence of parties - Effect
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Act declared void - Effect on subsequent actions
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Disobedience to court order - How treated
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Judgment attacked as being against the weight of evidence in a civil case - Ingredients in the judgment that the Court of Appeal will consider - Duty of the Court of Appeal in respect thereof
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Judgment of court - Ingredients of
LOCUS STANDI - Chieftaincy matter - Principles guiding locus standi in respect thereof
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Addresses - Address of counsel - Essence of When not necessary
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Addresses - Address of counsel - Judge not recording the address of a counsel to one of the parties while recording the other - Effect on the record - Duty of court
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Failure of court to properly evaluate evidence of parties - Effect
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Parties - Locus standi of a party - How determined
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Parties - Locus standi of a party in a chieftaincy matter - How determined
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Pleading - Facts not denied or admitted - How treated
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Record of proceedings - How challenged
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Statement of claim and writ of summons Statement of claim supersedes the writ
- Whether the failure of the learned trial judge to consider the address of the appellants in his judgment (while that of the respondents were fully considered occasioned) any injustice to the appellants.
- Whether the learned trial judge was right in dismissing the claims of the appellants, having regard to the facts of this case.
There are three ruling houses in Ijero-Ekiti namely: Arojojoye, Okeruku and Oyinyo. On the 24th of October, 1990, the last Ajero of Ijero - Ekiti died. By the customs and traditions of Ijero - Ekiti people, the next Ajero was to have been nominated by the ruling house three months after the death and burial rites of the last Ajero. The ascendancy of Ajero throne in Ijero - Ekiti is rotational among the three ruling houses, and following the death of the Ajero, it was the turn of Arojojoye ruling house to produce the next Ajero. It was the duty of the ruling house concerned to meet with its accredited family head and nominate a candidate or candidates from those who indicated interest in that office to the kingmakers who will then select or elect the new Ajero of Ijero - Ekiti.
The appellants are members of Akata family of Ijero - Ekiti. All the meetings held by Arojojoye ruling house to select the new Ajero did not include members of Akata family. The reason for this, according to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, was that Akata Family is not related by blood to Arojojoye Ruling House.
Many candidates presented themselves to the ruling house as contestants for Ajero stool but the 2nd Respondent sent the name of only the 3rd Respondent to the kingmakers. Subsequently, a majority of the ruling house met and sent the names of six candidates that were vying for the title to the kingmakers who then appointed the 2nd appellant by four votes to one against the 3rd Respondent.
The Ondo State Government, despite being restrained by a court order from appointing warrant chiefs for the purpose of appointing the Ajero of Ijero - Ekiti, set aside the appointment of the 2nd appellant made by the kingmakers as the Ajero and appointed warrant chiefs in place of the traditional kingmakers, who then appointed the 3rd respondent as the new Ajero of Ijero - Ekiti.
The government approved the appointment of the 3rd respondent as the Ajero of Ijero - Ekiti; hence the appellants filed this suit wherein they claimed inter alia a declaration that the selection and presentation of the 3rd Respondent by the warrant chiefs was against the history, native law and custom of Ijero - Ekiti and hence wrongful, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
The appellants, as plaintiffs at the High Court, lost the case and being dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court appealed to the Court of Appeal.