DR. STEPHEN BILLY OLAJIDE v. CHIEF ADEBAYO ADENIYI & ORS (2019)

DR. STEPHEN BILLY OLAJIDE v. CHIEF ADEBAYO ADENIYI & ORS

(2019)LCN/13575(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Thursday, the 27th day of June, 2019

CA/IL/2/2019

JUSTICES

IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

BALKISU BELLO ALIYU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

DR. STEPHEN BILLY OLAJIDE Appellant(s)

AND

1. CHIEF ADEBAYO ADENIYI
(ARO OF OLLA)
2. CHIEF JACOB AWOYEMI
(OLOFAKI OF OLLA)
(For themselves and on behalf of Iketa Ruling House of Olla)
3. CHIEF IBIDOKUN
(ONIREDO OF OLLA)
4. CHIEF JULIUS SUNDAY AFUYE
(AALA OF OLLA)
(For themselves and on behalf of Odi Ruling House of Olla)
5. CHIEF JAMES ALATISE
(EESA OF OLLA)
(For Himself and on behalf of Owa Clan/Kingmakers of Olla)
6. CHIEF JULIUS OMOLAYO BAMIDELE ADENIYI
(ODOFIN OF OLLA)
(For Himself and on behalf of Osigiri Ruling House of Olla)
7. CHIEF AREMU ONIJALA OF OLLA
(For himself and on behalf of Ariko Ruling House of Olla)
8. ISIN TRADITIONAL COUNCIL
9. GOVERNOR OF KWARA STATE
10. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, KWARA STATE Respondent(s)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT A GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH ACCORDS THE RESPONDENT THE NECESSARY CLUE OF THE APPELLANTS GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE VEXED DECISIONS OF THE COURT IS DEEMED VALID

It ought to be reiterated, that once a ground of appeal accords the Respondent the necessary clue of the Appellant?s grievances against the vexed decision of the Court below on appeal, the ground ought to be deemed as valid and competent. See APC LIMITED VS. NDIC (NIGERIA UNIVERSAL BANK) LIMITED (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt. 335) 1 @ 24 ? 25; OGBORU VS. OKOWA (2016) 2 SC (Pt. 111) 69 @ 86. PER SAULAWA, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE RATHER THAN TECHNICALITY OUGHT TO BE PURSUED BY THE COURTS

Once the parties and the Court are not in any way misled by the ground of appeal, complaint in regard to form devoid of any miscarriage of justice becomes a mere technicality. Thus, the cause of substantial justice rather than technicality, ought to be pursued by the Courts. See NIGERIA REINSURANCE CORPORATION VS. CUDJOE (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt. 414) 1532 @ 1545 ? 1546; SHANU VS. AFRIBANK (NIGERIA) PLC (2003) FWLR (Pt. 136) 823; CITY ENGINEERING (NIGERIA) LIMITED VS. NAA (2000) FWLR (Pt. 34) 499. PER SAULAWA, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT PARTIES BEFORE A COURT OF LAW ARE ALLOWED TO TAKE LAWS INTO THEIR HANDS

Yet, the law is trite, that none of the parties before a Court of law is allowed to take the law into his own hands with a view to foisting upon the Court a fait accompli, thereby rendering it utterly impossible to arrive at a decision one way or the other on the merits of the issue before it, or render any decision it may take nugatory or futile. See ABIODUN VS. C.J. KWARA STATE (Supra); EZE AGBU VS. FIRST AFRICAN TRUST BANK LIMITED (1992) NWLR (Pt. 220) 699 @ 724; AGBAKOBA VS. INEC (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 489 @ 569. PER SAULAWA, J.C.A.

IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The instant interlocutory appeal is a fall-out of the ruling of the Kwara State High Court delivered on June 25, 2018 in Suit No. KWS/80/2016. By the ruling in question, the Court below, Coram M. Abdul-Gafar, J.; nullified and set aside the nomination, appointment and installation of the Appellant as Ollola (King) of Olla on the premise that the installation of the Appellant as King of Olla was carried out by the 9th and 10th Respondents during the pendency of the Suit before the Court.

BACKGROUND FACTS
By the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim thereof, dated March 7 and 8 2016 respectively, the 1st to 4th Respondents herein, sought against the 5th to 8th Respondents a total of fourteen (14) declaratory and injunctive reliefs, viz:
i. DECLARATION that ascension to the stool of Ollola of Olla is rotational one after the other between the Oke Section (comprising of Odi and Iketa Ruling Houses) and Isale Section (comprising of Ariko and Osigiri Ruling Houses of Olla)
?ii. DECLARATION that upon the demise of the immediate past Ollola of Olla, Late

Oba Evangelist Joseph Adeyemi Ajayi, it is the turn of Oke Section of Olla (comprising of Odi and Iketa Ruling Houses) to produce the next Ollola of Olla
iii. DECLARATION that upon the demise of the immediate past Ollola of Olla, Late Oba Evangelist Joseph Adeyemi Ajayi, the Chiefs from Owa Clan/Kingmakers of Olla can only consider and accept the selection and nomination of candidate for the stool of Ollola of Olla from Oke Section of Olla Community.
iv. DECLARATION that the Eesa of Olla, as the head of Owa Clan/Kingmakers as well as the entire Owa family of Olla, have no right whatsoever to nominate and/or interfere in the selection and nomination of candidate for the stool of Ollola of Olla.
v. DECLARATION that all steps taken by Osigiri Ruling House from Isale Section of Olla to fill the vacant stool of Olalla of Olla after the demise of the immediate past Ollola of Olla, Late Oba Evangelist Joseph Adeyemi Ajayi, are contrary to the custom and traditions of Olla and are therefore null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
vi. DECLARATION that the Report of lsin Traditional Council 3 Man Adhoc Committee on Resolution of crisis on the

selection of new Ollola of Olla is contrary to the custom and tradition of Olla and therefore null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
vii. AN ORDER setting aside all steps taken by Osigiri Ruling House from Isale Section of Olla to fill the vacant stool of Ollola of Olla after the demise of the immediate past Ollola of Olla, Late Evangelist Joseph Adeyemi Ajayi.
viii. AN ORDER nullifying the Report of Isin Traditional Council 3 Man Ad-Hoc Committee on Resolution of crisis On the Selection of new Ollola of Olla.
ix. AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, their members privies, servants/agents and/or anybody claiming through them from taking steps and/or further steps to fill the vacant stool of Olalla of Olla after the demise of the immediate past Ollola of Olla, Late Oba Evangelist Joseph Adeyemi Ajayi.
x. AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, their members, privies, servants/agents and/or any person claiming through them from senlectig and/or nominating any member of their Ruling Houses to fill the vacant stool of Ollola of Olla after the demise of the immediate past Olalla of Olla,

Late Oba Evangelist Joseph Adeyemi Ajayi.
xi. AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION restraining the 1st Defendant, members of his Owa Clan/Kingmakers, their privies, servants/agents from nominating and/or interfering in the selection and/or nomination of candidate to fill the vacant stool of Ollola of Olla.
xii. AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION restraining the 1st Defendant, members of his Owa Clan/Kingmakers, their privies, agents/servants from considering and/or accepting candidate from 2nd and 3rd Defendants’ Ruling Houses to fill the vacant stool of Ollola of Olla upon the demise of the immediate past Ollola of Olla, Late Oba Evangelist Joseph Adeyemi Ajayi.
xiii. AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION restraining the 4th and 5th Defendants, their agents and/or servants from approving, appointing and/or recognizing any candidate from the Ruling Houses of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to fill the vacant stool of Ollola of Olla upon the demise of the immediate past Ollola of Olla, Late Oba Evangelist Joseph Adeyemi Ajayi.
xiv. And such further order(s) as the Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this suit.

The Appellant was not a party in the suit at the

Court below. The Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Kwara State (5th Defendant) filed two (2) Notices of Preliminary Objection thereby challenging the competence of the action. See pages 64 ? 68 of the main Record and 497 ? 505 of the Additional Record of Appeal, respectively.

Consequent upon the upholding of the said Preliminary Objection thereof, the 5th Defendant in question was struck out of the suit by the Court below. Whereupon, the Court below granted leave to the 1st to 4th Respondents to join the 9th and 10th Respondents herein as the 5th and 6th Defendants respectively. That was on 15/02/2017. Again, on 26/09/2017, the Court below made an Order granting leave to the 1st to 4th Respondents to join the Appellant as the 7th Defendant in the action. The Appellant filed his Memorandum of Appearance on 16/09/2017. The 1st to 4th Respondents filed a further amended Writ of Summons on 03/10/2017, which was duly served upon the Appellant vide the counsel thereof.

On 04/04/2018, the 1st to 4th Respondents filed in the Court below a motion on notice thereby seeking the following reliefs:
1. Setting aside the

purported nomination, appointment, installation and coronation of the 7th Defendant as Ollola of Olla made, carried out or executed on the 8th day of July 2017 during the pendency of this case.
2. And for such order or other or further orders as the court may deem fit to make.

The motion in question was predicated upon a total of 7 grounds:
1. This suit was filed on 8/3/2016 first against the 1st – 4th defendants with Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs making up the 5th defendant.
2. The claim, inter alia, include declaration that it is the turn of the claimant’s Oke section comprising Odi and Iketa families to present a candidate and be nominated and appointed to the vacant stool of Olla.
3. The 7th defendant is from the Osigiri family of Isale section together with 2nd defendant who is the Odofin of Olla and head of Osigiri Ruling House.
4. While the case was/is pending, the Osigiri family wrongly nominated the defendant and the 1st defendant wrongly approved the nomination the while the 5th and 6th defendants purported to appoint and install him as Ollola of Olla.
?5. All the defendants have been

aware of the suit since inception.
6. The purported nomination, appointment and installation of the 7th defendant were done willfully, intentionally and recklessly in order to pull the rug from under the feet of the Court and foist a fait accompli on it, and render it helpless.
7. It is in the interest of justice to grant this application.

On 25/06/2018, when the case came up, all the parties were recorded to have been absent save the 2nd Claimant. The learned counsel for the parties adopted their respective Written Addresses regarding the motion in question. The Court below, having had the privilege of being addressed by the respective learned counsel, proceeded to deliver the vexed ruling to the following conclusive effect:
Court: I have considered the application of the claimant and the affidavit evidence of the claimant and the affidavit of the 5th ? 6th defendants and the 7th defendant as well as the submission of the parties. It is clear to me that the 7th defendant was appointed during the pendency of this case.
The 5th ? 7th defendants carried out the installation of the 7th defendant whilst this case was

pending before this court.
The action of the 5th ? 7th defendants smarks of wanton disregard for the Court.
The Court has an inherent jurisdiction to set aside any steps taken by the parties in defence of Court after the court seized of the matter.
See ABIODUN VS. C.J. KWARA STATE (2007) 18 NWLR (1065) 100.
Consequently, I hereby nullify and set aside the nomination, appointment and installation of the 7th defendant as Ollola of Olla carried out on 8th July, 2017.
Oladipo: I ask for a date for PTC.
Court: The case is adjourned to 10/7/2018 for mention.
Sgd.
Hon. Justice M. AbdulGafar
Judge
25/06/2018.

Not unnaturally, the Appellant was dissatisfied with the vexed ruling of the Court. Hence, consequent upon the leave of this Court, the Appellant filed the Notice of Appeal thereof on 07/11/2018 which is predicated upon a total of 9 Grounds. By the said Notice of Appeal, the Appellant urges upon the Court for the following reliefs:
a. An order of the Honourable Court allowing this appeal.
b. An order of the Honourable Court setting aside in whole, the entire decision/ruling of the lower Court

delivered on 25/6/2018 nullifying the nomination, appointment and installation of the Appellant as Ollola of Olla.
c. An order of the Court for the maintenance of status quo before the 1st ? 4th Respondents? suit before the lower Court.
d. Such further other order or orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit or consider just to make in the circumstance.

Both the main record of appeal and the additional record were transmitted to this Court on 08/01/2019. The Appellant?s brief of argument was filed on 14/02/2019. The 1st ? 4th Respondents? brief was filed on 29/03/2019. The 5th and 7th Respondents? brief was filed on 14/03/2019. The 6th Respondent?s brief was filed on 15/03/2019. The Appellant filed reply briefs to the 1st ? 4th, 5th and 7th and 6th Respondents? briefs on 03/05/2019, 08/04/2019 and 02/04/2019, respectively. All the three reply briefs were deemed by the Court to have been properly filed and served.

On 15/05/2019, when the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel addressed the Court and thereby adopted their respective briefs, thus resulting in reserving

judgment.

Most particularly, the Appellant?s brief of argument, settled by Abdulwahab Bamidele Esq., spans a total of 24 pages. At page 4 of the said brief, a couple of issues have been couched:
i. Whether the nomination, appointment and installation of the Appellant as the King (Oba) of Ollola had not been concluded before the 9th and 10th Respondents and the Appellant were joined as parties to the 1st ? 4th Respondents? suit at the lower Court (Grounds 1, 4, 6 and 7 of the Grounds of Appeal).
ii. Whether the lower Court is justified to set aside the nomination, appointment and installation of the Appellant as the King (Oba) of Olla at interlocutory stage of the proceedings. (Grounds 2, 3, 5, 8 and 9 of the Grounds of Appeal).

The Issue No. 1 is argued at pages 5 ? 15 of the brief, to the effect that the Court below was not right to have held that the installation of the Appellant smirks of wanton disregard of the Court. The reason being that neither the Appellant nor the 9th and 10th Respondents were made parties originally to, the 1st ? 4th Respondents? action.
?
It was submitted, that a careful

perusal of the 1st ? 4th Respondents? original Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim (pages 1 ? 15 record) clearly shows that the totality of the facts and reliefs sought were in no way directed at either the Appellant or the 9th and 10th Respondents. Thus, the Court below was not justified to have concluded that the nomination, appointment and installation of the Appellant were disrespectful. See paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the counter affidavit against the 1st – 4th Defendants? Motion on Notice (pages 260 ? 265 of the record) and the Exhibits ABC ? 01 attached thereto.

It was contended, that approval of appointment and certificate/instrument of appointment confirming the appointment of the Appellant as Ollola of Ola by the 9th Respondent on 19/12/2016 (exhibited to the 9th and 10th Respondents? Statement of Defence) also lends credence to that fact. Thus, the Court below ought to have countenanced the said approval of appointment and certificate/instrument of appointment of the Appellant in question. See EROMOSELE VS. F.R.N. (2018) 2 ? 3 SC (Pt. 11) 1 @ 17 17/18.

Further contended that the fact that the Appellant was joined at a later stage of the proceedings before the Court below shows that the Appellant should not have been admitted by the Court for events that had occurred before he was made a party to the action. See AJEWOLE VS. ADETIMO (1996) 2 SCNJ 119.

Reference was made to paragraph 3a ? g of the 9th and 10th Respondents? counter affidavit to the effect that Exhibit C attached to the 1st ? 4th Respondents? Affidavit did not in any way support their application at the Court below.

It was equally argued, that by the respective pleadings and deposition thereof, the 1st ? 4th Respondents have admitted that the Appellant could not have been bound by any order of the Court below without being joined as a party. See NBC PLC VS. UBANI (2013) 10 ? 12 SC 95 @ 133.

The learned counsel reiterated the trite principle that once an act is completed, the Court cannot intervene to nurse what has been done by interlocutory order except in a final judgment upon determination of the merit of the case based on evidence presented by parties before the Court. See AJEWOLE VS. ADETIMO

(Supra) 119; OJUKWU VS. MILITARY GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE (1996); AYORINDE VS. A.G. OYO STATE (1996) 2 SCNJ 198; SOUTH ATLANTIC PETROLEUM LIMITED VS. THE MINISTER OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES (2018) 1 ? 2 SC (Pt. 11) 57 @ 82 ? 83, 98 ? 99.

In the circumstance, the Court is urged upon to resolve Issue No. 1 in favour of the Appellant.

The Issue No. 2 is argued at pages 15 ? 21 of the brief, to the effect that the Court below is not justified to have set aside the nomination, appointment and installation of the Appellant as the Oba (King) of Olla at interlocutory stage of the proceedings at it did.

It was submitted, in the main, that the whole essence of the 1st ? 4th Respondents? action is to nullify the nomination, appointment, installation and coronation of the Appellant.

Further submitted, that what the Court below did by granting the 1st ? 4th Respondents? application, was to dabble into the merits of the case to be decided upon after hearing evidence on the merits. See INEC VS. OGUEBEGO (2017) 7 SC 205 @ 317; TANIMOWO VS. ODEWOYE (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt. 124) 1513 @ 1531; AJEWOLE VS. ADETIMO (1996) 2

SCNJ 119; INEC VS. OGUEBEGO (2017) 7 SC 205; et al.

It was vehemently posited, that the case of ABIODUN VS. C.J. KWARA STATE (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1065) 109 is most inappropriate, inapposite, irrelevant and inapplicable to the instant case, considering the facts of the case of the parties, before the Court below.

Equally posited, that the Court has a duty not to apply a case law cited thereto if the issue therein is not applicable to the facts of the case before it. See BRITTANIA U-NIG. LIMITED VS. SEPLAT PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED (2016) 1 ? 3 SC (Pt. 111) 1 @ 62.

The Court is urged to hold, that the Court below was wrong in placing reliance on the case of ABIODUN VS. C.J. KWARA STATE (Supra) hook, line and Sinker. Accordingly, the Court is urged to resolve the Issue No. 2 in favour of the Appellant.
Conclusively, the Court is urged upon to allow the appeal.
?
Contrariwise, the 1st ? 4th Respondents? brief was settled by O. T. Olorunnisola Esq. It spans a total of 10 pages. At pages 3 ? 5 of the said brief, a preliminary objection has been raised thereby challenging the competence of Grounds 1, 2, 3, 5,

6, 7 and 8 of the Notice of Appeal.

It is argued, that the eight (8) Grounds of Appeal in question are not in compliance with Order 7 Rule 2(3) and Rule 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016.

Regarding the appeal, the 1st ? 4th Respondents? learned counsel deemed it fit to formulate a sole Issue at page 5 of the said brief thereof for determination, viz:
?Whether the trial Court was right in its ruling setting aside the nomination, appointment and installation of the Appellant.”

From the outset, the learned counsel conceded the trite law that the Court cannot make an order against people who are not parties before it, as that would contrive the rule of fair hearing. However, it is vehemently submitted, that the Court below did not make any order against non-party. That the order made was to preserve the res and the integrity of the Court.

In the main, it?s submitted, that as at April 11, 2016, the 1st ? 4th Respondents had filed their Statement of Defence (pages 16 ? 23 of the record). Thus, the 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents (1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants) deliberately appointed and caused the

installation of the Appellant at the time they knew there was a pending case against him in respect of the Ollola of Olla stool.

According to the learned counsel, the 5th and 6th Defendants in their counter affidavit (to the claimants? motion) averred that they were physically present at the installation (of the Appellant) which they described as mere celebration. However, it is posited that it is not correct to say installation is a mere ceremony. Thus, contended, that installation is part of the making an Ollola, or any Oba for that matter. See TANIMOWO VS. ODEWOYE (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt. 242) 1513 @ 1531.

It was further contended, that the Court below was right, in view of the circumstances of the case, in applying the case of ABIODUN VS. C.J. KWARA STATE (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1065) 109; PETER OBI VS. INEC (2007) 11 (Pt. 1046) 565.

It was argued, that the vexed ruling of the Court below has not determined the suit before the Court, as the case was evidently adjourned to 10/07/2018 for mention. And that the decision as to whether the 7th Defendant was or would be properly appointed depends on the proof of declaration sought. Thus, allegedly

it?s erroneous to say that setting means nullifying or final determination.

Conclusively, the Court is urged upon to dismiss the appeal as the case is still proceeding at the Court below.

The 5th and 7th Respondents? brief was settled by A. G. Ademola ? Bank Esq. It spans a total of 11 pages. At page 4 of the said brief, a sole Issue has been couched:
Whether the nomination, appointment and installation of the Appellant as Ollola of Olla were not done during the pendency of the case against the stool of Ollola of Olla before the lower Court as held by the learned trial Judge and whether the Appellant and the 9th and 10th Respondents were aware or deemed to be aware of the pendency of the case. Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Notice of Appeal.

Regarding the first leg of the sole Issue, it is submitted, that the suit was filed on 08/03/2016, while the purported appointment and installation of the Appellant by the 9th and 10th Respondents were done on 19/12/2016. The nomination of the Appellant had earlier been done on 10/09/2014, before the case was instituted. Therefore, the Court is urged to hold, that the

nomination, appointment and installation of the Appellant by the 9th and 10th Respondents were done before and during the pendency of the suit before the Court.

Regarding the second leg of the sole Issue, it?s submitted, that the 9th and 10th Respondents were aware or deemed to be aware of the existence of the suit before the Court below.

Further submitted, that the Appellant is a member of the Osigiri Ruling House which is being represented by the 6th Respondent. Hence, both the Appellant and the 6th Respondent are beneficiaries of the contemptuous act of the 9th and 10th Respondents in the appointment of the Appellant. See AFOLABI VS. ADEKUNLE (1983) 8 SC 98; EZEGBU VS. FIRST AFRICAN TRUST BANK LIMITED (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 220) 699 @ 724.

The case of AGBAKOBA VS. INEC (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 489 @ 569, was cited and relied upon to the effect that abiding by the principle of lis pendis, counsel as well as litigants ought not to do anything which may render the decision of the Court nugatory.

Further argued, that contrary to the Appellant?s submission, in paragraphs 4.12 ? 4.16 of the brief thereof, the Court below did

consider the vexed application and the opposition thereto the 9th and 10th Respondents before coming to the conclusion that the Appellant was nominated, appointed and installed during the pendency of the suit before the Court.

Contrary to the Appellant?s submission in paragraphs 4.18 ? 4.22 of the brief thereof, it was contended that because the attitude of the Appellant and members of his Osigiri Ruling House was contemptuous of the Court below, the Appellant who was enjoying the illegal title had to be joined along with the 9th and 10th Respondents to the suit. But that they failed to defend this allegation, thereby warranting the Court below to exercise its inherent power to set aside the action taken by the parties in defiance of the Court. Thus, the Appellant cannot escape the consequence of his appointment being set aside because it was done with his full knowledge that a case was pending on the stool of Ollola of Olla.

According to the learned counsel, the case of TAMIMOWO VS. ODEWOYE (Supra) and other cases cited at paragraphs 5.8 ? 5.18 of the Appellant?s brief, to the effect that the Court below has predetermined the

suit at interlocutory stage, are misleading and not true. That those cases unlike the present case deal with a situation where a candidate for the stool was already appointed before the commencement of the suit before the Court. Hence, the Court would not grant an order restraining the candidate so appointed from parading himself as a chieftaincy title holder. That, in the present case, even after the order was made setting aside the appointment thereof, the Appellant still had the effrontery to file a deposition on oath claiming to be the Ollola of Olla. This is highly contemptuous. An order of Court is to be obeyed by all and sundry until same is set aside by the Court itself or a higher Court on appeal. The Court is urged to so hold.
Conclusively, the Court is urged upon to dismiss the appeal with substantial cost.

The 6th Respondent?s brief was settled by Josiah Adebayo Esq., on 15/3/19. It spans a total of 9 pages. At page 3 paragraphs 3.0 ? 3.4 thereof, a notice of preliminary objection is raised and argued. The preliminary objection is predicated upon the ground that the record of appeal was compiled and transmitted to this Court

outside the statutory period without the leave of Court having been sought and obtained. Thus, the Court is urged to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Order 8 Rule 18 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016.

Paragraphs 4.0 ? 5.02 of the said brief relate to the argument on the merits. Both issues have been adopted and argued together by the learned counsel.

Regarding Issue No. 1, it is submitted that there is no controversy on its resolution. That from their pleadings, parties were ad idem, that the Appellant was nominated, appointed and installed before he was made a party to the suit.

Further submitted, that Issue No. 2 is where the controversy lies. It is contended, that the Court below was justified when it set aside the nomination, appointment and installation of the Appellant by the 9th and 10th Respondents herein. That it?s not disputed that the Appellant was one of the persons nominated for the stool in Osigiri Ruling House of Olla. However, before the appointment and installation could be made, the 1st ? 4th Respondents filed the instant action. Before the Court below could make pronouncement one way or the other, the 9th and

10th Respondents appointed the Appellant as the next Ollola of Olla. That the act of the 9th and 10th Respondents is contemptuous of the Court below, which has the vires to set aside an act done in deviant of the Court at any stage of the trial. SeePETER OBI VS. INEC (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 489 @ 694. EZEGBU VS. FIRST AFRICAN TRUST BANK LTD (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 220) 699 @ 724.
The Court is urged to so hold and accordingly dismiss the appeal.

The Appellant?s reply brief to the 1st ? 4th Respondents? brief filed on 03/5/19 but deemed properly filed and served on 13/5/2019, spans a total of 10 pages. Most particularly, paragraphs 2.0 ? 2.5 at pages 2 ? 4 of the brief relate to the 1st ? 4th Respondents? preliminary objection, thereby urging the Court to dismiss the same. However paragraphs 3.0 ? 3.18 at pages 4 ? 9 of the said brief, deal with the 1st ? 4th Respondents? argument on the merits of the appeal, thereby urging upon the Court to discountenance the submissions and argument of the 1st ? 4th Respondents.

?The Appellant?s unpaginated reply brief filed on 08/4/19

but deemed properly filed and served on 16/4/19, relate to the 5th and 7th Respondents? brief. The said reply brief actually spans a total of 10 pages. By the said reply brief, the Appellant has urged upon the Court to discountenance the various misleading and erroneous argument and submissions contained in the 5th and 7th Respondents? brief in question and uphold the Appellant?s argument and contention.

Lastly, the Appellant?s reply brief to the 6th Respondent?s brief filed on 02/4/19, spans a total of 8 pages. Paragraphs 1.1 ? 1.6 at pages 1 ? 2 of the said reply brief relate to the 6th Respondent?s preliminary objection. By the said reply thereof, the Appellant has conclusively contended that the 6th Respondent?s argument on the preliminary objection predicated on late compilation and transmission of record of appeal is lame, misconceived, frivolous and calculated to thwart the expeditious fair hearing and determination of the appeal as the record of appeal was properly compiled and transmitted in record time. Thus, the Court is therefore urged upon to dismiss the preliminary objection.

I have had a cause to critically, albeit dispassionately, consider the nature and circumstances surrounding the instant appeal, the submissions of the learned counsel contained in their respective briefs of argument vis–vis the record of appeal as a whole.

As alluded to above, the 1st ? 4th Respondents as well as the 6th Respondent have deemed it expedient to raise preliminary objection in their respective briefs of argument thereof. Thus, I have deemed it not only important but equally imperative for me to first and foremost, deal with the said preliminary objection before proceeding to determine the appeal on the merits, if at all necessary.

DETERMINATION OF THE 1ST ? 4TH RESPONDENTS? PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
Essentially, the ground of the preliminary objection is to the effect that the Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Notice of Appeal, are not incompliance with Order 7 Rules 2(3) and 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016. The Notice of Appeal is contained at pages 486 ? 496 of the main record of appeal. Shorn of the particulars thereof, the eight grounds being the subject of the objection are hereby

reproduced:
GROUND ONE (1)
The lower Court erred in law and which error occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice against the Appellant in holding that the action of the 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants (i.e. the 9th and 10th Respondents and the Appellant) smirks of wanton disregard for the Court.
GROUND TWO (2)
The lower Court erred in law and which error occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice against the Appellant in annulling and setting aside the nomination, appointment and installation of the Appellant as Ollola of Olla (i.e. King of Olla) at the interlocutory stage of the proceedings when the reliefs or claims of the 1st – 4th Respondents in the substantive suit before the lower Court are inter alia substantially the same as the order made by the lower Court.
GROUND THREE (3)
The lower Court erred in law and which error occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice against the Appellant in wrongly applying the case of Abiodun V. C.J. Kwara State (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1065) 109 as an authority to set aside the nomination, appointment and installation of the Appellant as Ollola of Olla (King of Olla).

GROUND FOUR (4)
The order of the lower Court of 25th June, 2018 nullifying the nomination, appointment and installation of the Appellant as Ollola of Olla otherwise called king or Oba of Olla is against the weight of affidavit evidence filed at the lower court.
GROUND FIVE (5)
The lower Court erred in law and which error occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice against the Appellant in failing to uphold the settled law that a king (i.e. an Oba) that has already been appointed or installed should not be removed from office pending the determination of the suit challenging his appointment.
GROUND SIX (6)
The lower trial Court erred in law and which error occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice to the Appellant in concluding that the Appellant as 7th Defendant at the lower Court was appointed during the pendency of the case before it (i.e. the lower Court).
GROUND SEVEN (7)
?The lower trial Court erred in law and which error occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice to the Appellant in concluding that the 5th ? 7th Defendants, i.e. the 9th and 10th Respondents and the Appellant carried out the installation of

the Appellant whilst the case was pending before the lower Court.
GROUND EIGHT (8)
The lower Court erred in law and which error occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice against the Appellant in its order nullifying and setting aside the nomination, appointment and installation of the Appellant as Ollola of Olla on 25th June, 2018 which consequently altered the status quo before the 1st ? 4th Respondents’ suit was instituted before the lower Court.
GROUND NINE (9)
The lower Court erred in law and which error occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice to the Appellant in its nullification and setting aside of the nomination, appointment and installation of the Appellant when there is no basis in law and fact for the setting aside of the nomination, appointment and installation of the Appellant as Ollola of Olla.

Instructively, the fundamental object of a ground of (Notice of) Appeal is to merely convey to the Respondent the nature of the grouse of the Appellant against the decision of the Court below. In the instant case, contrary to the 1st ? 4th Respondents? contention, the said Grounds 1 ? 9 of the

Notice of Appeal clearly communicate the nature of the Appellant?s grouse in the appeal. The said grounds are not, by any stretch of imagination, incompetent.
It ought to be reiterated, that once a ground of appeal accords the Respondent the necessary clue of the Appellant?s grievances against the vexed decision of the Court below on appeal, the ground ought to be deemed as valid and competent. See APC LIMITED VS. NDIC (NIGERIA UNIVERSAL BANK) LIMITED (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt. 335) 1 @ 24 ? 25; OGBORU VS. OKOWA (2016) 2 SC (Pt. 111) 69 @ 86.
In the present case, the appeal is predicated upon a total of nine (9) grounds. However, the preliminary objection invariably challenges the competence of all the nine (9) Grounds save Ground No. 4. By implication, the 1st ? 4th Respondents concede the competence of the said Ground No. 4. It is trite, that a sole competent ground of appeal can sustain the hearing and determination of the appeal on the merits. See ABUBAKAR VS. WAZIRI (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt. 436) 2025 @ 2046 paragraph G.
?What is more, contrary to the 1st ? 4th Respondents? postulation, the fact a ground of appeal is

apparently argumentative is not sufficient to deprive the Appellant the right of hearing to ventilate the grievances thereof on appeal, especially when it is obvious on the face thereof, that issues arise for determination by the Court. Once the parties and the Court are not in any way misled by the ground of appeal, complaint in regard to form devoid of any miscarriage of justice becomes a mere technicality. Thus, the cause of substantial justice rather than technicality, ought to be pursued by the Courts. See NIGERIA REINSURANCE CORPORATION VS. CUDJOE (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt. 414) 1532 @ 1545 ? 1546; SHANU VS. AFRIBANK (NIGERIA) PLC (2003) FWLR (Pt. 136) 823; CITY ENGINEERING (NIGERIA) LIMITED VS. NAA (2000) FWLR (Pt. 34) 499.

In the circumstance, the 1st ? 4th Respondents? preliminary objection is deemed unmeritorious, and it is hereby discountenanced.

DETERMINATION OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT?S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
As copiously alluded to above, the 6th Respondent?s preliminary objection (paragraph S3.0 ? 3.4, the 6th Respondent?s brief), is to the effect that the instant appeal is incompetent and ought to be

dismissed on the ground that the record of appeal was compiled and transmitted out of the statutory time limit.

However, having accorded a critical consideration upon the preliminary objection, the Appellant?s Reply Brief thereto vis–vis the records of appeal, as a whole, I am unable to uphold the 6th Respondent?s submission that the instant appeal is incompetent for some obvious reasons.

It is obvious, by virtue of the rules of this Court, that where the Registrar of the Court below and the Appellant have failed to compile and transmit the record of appeal, the Respondent may file a notice of motion to move the Court to dismiss the appeal. See Order 8 Rule 18(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016.
It ought to be reiterated, for the avoidance of doubt, the requirement of compilation of record of appeal within sixty (60) days consequent upon the filing of notice of appeal is applicable only to the Registrar of the Court below. Thus, upon the expiration of the sixty (60) days in question, it becomes imperative for the Appellant personally to see to the compilation and transmission of the record of appeal to the Court of Appeal

within thirty (30) days after the Registrar?s failure to compile and transmit the record. See Order 8 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 (supra).
In the instant case, it?s obvious on the face of the records, that the sixty (60) days? time limit accorded the Registrar had expired on 07/01/2019. Thus, the compilation and transmission of the record of appeal on 08/01/2019 was perfectly within the thirty (30) days allotted to the Appellant to transmit the record by Order 8 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 (supra). Unarguably, the term ?Appellant? within the purview of Order 1 Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 (supra) includes the legal practitioner of the Appellant i.e. AbdulWahab Bamidele, Esq., as the person who prepared and transmitted the record of appeal on the Appellant?s behalf.

In the circumstance, the 6th Respondent?s preliminary objection is otios and it is hereby discountenanced.

DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL ON THE MERITS
Undoubtedly, the couple of issues canvassed by the Appellant are quite germane to the grounds of the Notice of Appeal. I have deemed it expedient to

thus adopt them for the ultimate determination of the appeal, anon.

ISSUE NO. 1
The first issue raises the very vexed question of whether the nomination, appointment and installation of the Appellant as the King (Oba) of Olla had not been concluded before the 9th and 10th Respondents and the Appellant were joined as parties to the 1st ? 4th Respondents? suit at the Court below. The first issue is distilled from the Grounds 1, 4, 6 and 7 of the Notice of Appeal.

ISSUE NO. 2
The second issue raises the question of whether the lower Court was justified to have set aside the nomination, appointment and installation of the Appellant as the King (Oba) of Olla at interlocutory stage of the proceedings. The second issue is distilled from Grounds 2, 3, 5, 8 and 9 of the Notice of Appeal.

Apparently, both issues in question are interwoven. Thus, like the proverbial birds of the same which naturally flock together, the two issues ought to be determined together. And I so hold.
?
As extensively highlighted above, the submission of the Appellant, in the main, is to the conclusive effect that the nomination, appointment and

installation of the Appellant as Oba (King) of Olla had been concluded before the 9th and 10th Respondents and the Appellant were joined as parties to the instant suit.

I have had a cause herein above to copiously allude to the 1st ? 4th Respondents? application filed on 04/04/2018 thereby urging upon the Court below:
1. Setting aside the purported nomination, appointment, installation and coronation of the 7th Defendant as Ollola of Olla made, carried out or executed on the 8th day of July 2017 during the pendency of this case.
2. And for such order or theror further orders as the Court may deem fit to make.

I have equally alluded to the ruling of the Court below delivered on 25/06/2018 to the conclusive effect.
Court:?
It is clear to me that the 7th defendant was appointed during the pendency of this case.
The 5th ? 7th defendants carried out the installation of the 7th defendant whilst this case was pending before this Court.
The action of the 5th ? 7th defendants? smarks of wanton disregard for the Court.
The Court has an inherent jurisdiction to set aside any steps taken by

the parties in defence of the Court after the Court seized of the matter. See ABIODUN VS. C.J. KWARA STATE (2007) 18 NWLR (1065) 100.
Consequently, I hereby nullify and set aside the nomination, appointment and installation of the 7th defendant as Ollola of Olla carried out on 8th July, 2017.

It is a trite fundamental doctrine, that a Court of law does not resort to making orders against persons who are not parties in a matter before it, as doing so would tantamount to breaching the fundamental right to fair hearing cherishingly enshrined in Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federation of Nigeria, 1999, as amended.

In the instant case, it?s obvious on the face of the records, that the vexed suit (KWS/80/2016) was instituted in the court below on 08/03/2016 by the 1st ? 4th Respondents (1st ? 4th Claimants/Plaintiffs) against the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Respondents (1st ? 4th Defendants) as well as the 5th Defendant (The Ministry of Local Government And Chieftaincy Affairs, Kwara State), who was however, struck out on ground of being a non-juristic person. The 1st ? 4th Defendants (5th ? 8th Respondents)

were the traditional Chiefs responsible for the selection, appointing and installation of an Ollola (Oba) of Olla.

Parties are ad idem, that the 1st ? 4th Defendants were solely responsible for putting in place all that?s needed for installing the Appellant as the Ollola (Oba) of Olla. Without their cooperation and support in putting forth the Appellant, the installation thereof would not have materialized.

A careful perusal of the pleadings vis–vis the evidence on record would reveal, that the 1st ? 4th Defendants did not claim ignorance that the instant suit was pending regarding the Ollola of Olla. At page 249 of the record, the 5th and 6th Defendants filed a counter affidavit admitting that the appointment of the Appellant was done on 19/12/2016 (paragraph 3(f). Thus, showing that the purported appointment was carried out about nine (9) months after the suit was filed on (08/03/2016).
?
On 11/04/2016, the 1st ? 4th Defendants had filed their Statement of Defence (pages 16 – 23 of Record). It is therefore evident on the face of the record, as aptly contended by the 1st ? 4th Respondents that the 5th, 6th

and 7th Respondents (1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants) deliberately appointed and caused the installation of the Appellant at the time they knew the instant case was pending against the Appellant in regard to the Ollola of Olla stool.
Paragraph 3(f) of the 5th and 6th Defendants? counter affidavit (page 249 of the Record) is to the effect that they were physically present at the installation ceremony, which they described as ?mere ceremony?.
In the case of TANIMOWO VS. ODEWOYE (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt. 124) 1513 @ 1531, it was held to the effect that a Court would not, upon an interlocutory application, direct the Oba who has already been installed, vacate the stool pending the final determination of the suit.
?
Thus, the foregoing authority demonstrates the extent of the significance of the installation of a King (Oba). Thus, knowing very well the fundamental importance of the installation to the traditional institution the 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants proceeded to install the Appellant with a view to overreaching the 1st ? 4th Respondents inspite of the relief sought in paragraph 70(a) of the Further Amended Statement of Claim (page

155 of the Record) to the following effect:
?An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 7th Defendant from parading or further parading himself as candidate, nominee for the stool of Ollola of Olla.”

Most instructively, facts and circumstances of the case of ABIODUN VS. C.J. KWARA STATE (Supra) are very much apposite to the case at hand. By the well cherished indomitable doctrine of Stare Decisis, this Court is duty bound to uphold the decision reached therein.

In the circumstance, the first and second issues ought to be and are hereby resolved against the Appellant.
?
Hence, against the backdrop of the

foregoing far-reaching postulates resulting in resolving both issues against the Appellant, there is no gainsaying the fact that the instant appeal is grossly unmeritorious, and it is hereby dismissed.

The Ruling of the High Court of Kwara State, delivered by M. AbdulGafar, J.; on June 25, 2018 in Suit No. KWS/80/2016 is hereby affirmed.

The 1st ? 4th Respondents shall be entitled to costs assessed at Fifty Thousand Naira (N50,000.00) only against the Appellant.

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of reading in draft before now the leading judgment delivered by my Noble Lord IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, JCA, I am in full agreement with the reasonings and the decision leading to the dismissal of the appeal. All the issues for determination raised in the appeal have been adequately considered and resolved. I find no justifiable reasons to further elucidate on same, other than to adopt (with gratitude) my Lord?s reasonings and decision contained in the leading judgment as mine, and in consequence, I too, do hereby dismiss the appeal for being unmeritorious. The

judgment of the lower Court delivered in Suit No: Kws/801/2016, on the 25th day of June, 2018, by Abdulgafar, J is hereby affirm. I abide with the order made on costs.

BALKISU BELLO ALIYU, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading in draft the leading Judgment of my learned brother, IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, JCA that has just been delivered.

I entirely agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached in the lead Judgment that the preliminary objections of 1st to 4th Respondents and that of the 6th Respondent lack merit and I hereby dismiss same.

I also agree that the issues one and two be and are hereby resolved against the Appellant and the Appeal is hereby dismissed by me for lack of merit.

I affirm the Ruling of Kwara State High Court in SUIT NO. KWS/80/2016 and I abide by the Orders made in the lead Judgment.

Appearances:

Abdulwahab Bamidele, Esq. with him, M. I. Olohungbebe, Esq.For Appellant(s)

O. T. Olorunnisola, Esq. with him, O. O. Adepitan, Esq., C. N. Chukwudi, Esq., T. L. Ajakaiye, Esq. and F.A. Abhulimen, Esq. for the 1st to 4th Respondents.
A.G. Ademola-Bank, Esq. for the 5th and 7th Respondents.
Josiah Adebayo, Esq. with him, Nicholas Okedayo, Esq. and Fayokemi Oladele, Esq. for the 6th Respondent.
A. A. Daib, Esq. (Chief State Counsel ) with him, M.A.Z. Usman, Esq. (State Counsel) and R.K. Abdulkadir, Esq. (State Counsel 1, Ministry of Justice, Kwara State) for the 9th to 10th RespondentsFor Respondent(s)

Appearances

Abdulwahab Bamidele, Esq. with him, M. I. Olohungbebe, Esq.For Appellant

AND