LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

AJAYI & ANOR v. A.G, ONDO STATE & ORS (2022)

AJAYI & ANOR v. A.G, ONDO STATE & ORS

(2022)LCN/16132(CA)

In the Court of Appeal

(AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022

CA/AK/206/2016

Before Our Lordships:

Ayobode Olujimi Lokulo-Sodipe Justice of the Court of Appeal

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justice of the Court of Appeal

Yusuf Alhaji Bashir Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. MR. ILESANMI AJAYI 2. MR. BOLARINDE AJAYI (For Themselves and Other Members Of Ugbedo Family/Ruling House Of Olugbe Of Ugbe Chieftaincy) APPELANT(S)

And

1. ATTORNEY GENERAL, ONDO STATE 2. GOVERNOR, ONDO STATE 3. CHAIRMAN, AKOKO NORTH EAST LOCAL GOVERNMENT 4. SECRETARY, AKOKO NORTH EAST LOCAL GOVERNMENT 5. GARUBA BABARINDE (For Himself and Other Members of Okede Ruling House Of Olugbe Of Ugbe Chieftaincy) 6. ILORI AKINWANDE (For Himself and Other Members of Ode-Oba Ruling House Of Olugbe Of Ugbe Chieftaincy) RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

THE POSITION OF LAW WHERE A DECLARATION IN RESPECT OF A RECOGNIZED CHIEFTAINCY IS VALIDLY MADE AND REGISTERED

Accordingly the chieftaincy declaration, Exhibit E, is deemed to be the only customary law regulating the selection of a person to be the holder of the office of the Osolu of Irewe. The declaration derives its force and authority from the Obas and Chiefs of Lagos State Law, 1981 and, like any other existing law, is binding on all candidates who seek nomination and selection to fill a vacancy in the chieftaincy of the designated area. The learned trial Judge had no further duty to perform than to interpret and give effect to the provisions of the Chieftaincy declaration, Exhibit E, having regard to its clear and unambiguous meaning.”
See also the case of ADEKEYE V. ADESINA (2010) LPELR-103(SC) wherein the Supreme Court stated thus:-
“Exhibit “G2”, as has been stated, is the Registered Declaration of Oloyan of Oyan chieftaincy and it is settled law that where a declaration in respect of a recognized chieftaincy is validly made and registered, the matter or custom or native law and custom therein stated shall be deemed to be the customary law regulating the selection of a person to be the holder of the recognized chieftaincy to the exclusion of any other customary usage or rule or tradition.
The registered declaration is therefore a declaration of the tradition, customary law and usages pertaining to the selection and appointment to the particular chieftaincy stool/throne, it relates – see …
Where, therefore, there is a registered chieftaincy declaration, such as Exhibit “G2”, the duty of the Court generally is to apply the provisions of the chieftaincy declaration to the facts of the case as established by pleadings and evidence as the Court has no power to assume the functions of the chieftaincy committee as regards the making or amendment of customary law governing the selection and appointment of traditional chiefs – see … PER LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A. 

THE PURPOSE OF A REGISTERED CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION

​The Appellants in setting up their case would appear not to realise that the Chiefs Law not only makes the customary law in respect of any chieftaincy to be as it is contained in a registered declaration in respect of any chieftaincy that has one applicable to it, to the exclusion of any other customary law; but that the said Chiefs Law in the knowledge that customary law in respect of any matter is dynamic and not unchangeable or not always rigid, made adequate provisions for the update as it were, of the customary law relating to a chieftaincy as contained in a registered declaration, by way of amendment or alteration of any such registered declaration where there is one in existence. In this regard see Section 6(1) of the Chiefs Law and the case of OYEFOLU V. DUROSINMI (2001) LPELR-2869(SC) wherein the Supreme Court dwelling on “the purpose of a registered chieftaincy declaration” amongst others stated thus:-
“Section 11 of the Obas and Chiefs Law of Lagos State, 1981 provides as follows:- “Where a declaration in respect of a recognized Chieftaincy is registered under this Section, the matters therein stated shall be deemed to be the customary law regulating the selection of a person to be the holder of the recognised chieftaincy to the exclusion of any other customary usage or rule”.  PER LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A. 

THE EFFECT OF THE LAW WHERE A RECOGNIZED CHIEFTAINCY IS DE-RECOGNIZED TO THE STATUS OF A MINOR CHIEFTAINCY

That the regard the law has for a registered declaration applicable to a chieftaincy where one exists, is so great or sacrosanct, is shown by the settled position of the law to the effect that even if a recognized chieftaincy is de-recognized to the status of a minor chieftaincy (which is when the Chiefs Law under its Part II allows for customary law in respect of the said minor chieftaincy to be proved), the customary law as contained in the registered declaration applicable to the chieftaincy in question when it was a recognized chieftaincy, continues to apply to the said chieftaincy upon becoming a minor chieftaincy. In this regard see the case of OGUNDARE V. OGUNLOWO (1997) LPELR-2326(SC) wherein the Supreme Court dwelling on “whether the reduction in the rank of a recognised chieftaincy in respect of which a declaration exist changes the customary law as contained in the declaration” stated thus: –
“It was also erroneous for the plaintiffs/appellants to lead evidence of Native law and custom regulating the Baale of Isundunrin Chieftaincy outside the Chieftaincy Declaration of 1958 (Exhibit “D”) which contains a legally binding written statement of the customary law regulating the selection and appointment of a candidate when a vacancy occurs. It must be restated that where a declaration exists in respect of a recognised chieftaincy, the reduction in rank of that chieftaincy to a minor one does not change the customary law as contained in the declaration relating to entitlement, selection and appointment to it. The provisions of such a Declaration should prevail until it is amended. See: …”
PER LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.

AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment delivered on 11/7/2016 by the High Court of Ondo State presided over by A.O. Adebusoye, J. (hereafter to be simply referred to as “the lower Court” and “the learned trial Judge” respectively). The Appellants as plaintiffs/claimants at the lower Court, initiated Suit No. HIK/9/2012, subject matter of this appeal via a writ of summons which was issued on 18/6/2012. The Appellants on 30/8/2012 filed a statement of claim dated 22/8/2012, in the case. It is apparent from the record of appeal (hereafter to be simply referred to as “the record”) that the said statement of claim was subsequently amended and that the amended statement of claim was filed on 27/10/2014. The claims of the Appellants as set out in paragraph 24 of the said amended statement of claim reads thus: –
“(1) A DECLARATION that the Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007 is void being not in conformity with the provisions of the Chiefs Law of Ondo State of Nigeria before its Registration.
​(2) A DECLARATION that the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007 is contrary to the known native Law and Custom regulating the appointment of succession to Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko Chieftaincy.
(3) AN ORDER of Court setting aside the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007.
(4) A DECLARATION that under the applicable native law and custom of Ugbe Akoko Ugbedo Family is a ruling house and it is its turn, now to present candidate for appointment as Olugbe of Ugbe-Akoko.
(5) A DECLARATION that the first claimant is the one entitle (sic) to be appointed, made and installed as Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko based on the previous agreement and under the native law and custom of Ugbe- Akoko.
(6) AN ORDER of injunction restraining the defendants jointly and severally from acting on the Olugbe of Ugbe- Akoko Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007.”

The 1st and 2nd; 3rd and 4th; and 5th and 6th; Respondents filed their respective statements of defence in response to the suit of the Appellants.

The case of the Appellants as set up in their amended pleading is that they are of the Ugbedo family/ruling house of Olugbe of Ugbe chieftaincy. The 1st Appellant was once appointed and installed as Olugbe of Ugbe before he was persuaded to step down for the immediate past Olugbe, Oba Babarinde. That a declaration for Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy which was made by the Akoko North East Local Government Chieftaincy Committee was registered but was not approved by the Executive Council or relevant authorities in 2007. Appellants traced the paternal succession to the Olugbe chieftaincy from Ayo to Koko (Ayo’s son); Ologunra, Beebe and Ologunayere. That Ologunayere’s son, Oyua pre-deceased him but Ologunayere had a grandson whose name was Ajayi and who was the father of the 1st Appellant. It is their case that Ajiboye a messenger of Ologunayere sought to “usurp the throne” with the backing of Olukare who was the leader of Akoko at the time. That until after Ologunayere, the succession was from father to son “like in most Yoruba towns and villages of the old”. Between the periods of 1955 and 1960, the Isowopo Council did not want the Ugbedo family to be included as a ruling house as contained in the Divisional Adviser’s report and as such the Ugbedo family was not included in the Declaration of Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy of 2007. It is their case that the 2007 Registered Chieftaincy declaration of Olugbe of Ugbe (hereafter to be simply referred to as “the 2007 registered declaration”) is wrong and cannot be used for the purpose of determining succession to the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy (hereafter to be simply referred to as “the questioned chieftaincy”). That the 1st Appellant having being once appointed to the questioned chieftaincy, is entitled to be so appointed to the said chieftaincy after the demise of the last holder of the same.

​The case of the 1st and 2nd Respondents is that the Ugbedo family is not known to be one of the ruling houses entitled to the questioned chieftaincy. The two recognized ruling houses being the Okede and Ode-Oba ruling houses. That the 2007 registered declaration was duly approved by the Ondo State Executive Council on 30/8/2006 upon payment of the prescribed fees and the same registered on 7/8/2007. That the Appellants never challenged the contents of the previous chieftaincy declaration of Olugbe nor the 2007 registered declaration as it relates to the number, identity or rotation of the ruling houses through the laid down administrative procedures for making presentations as to the position of customs before making the declarations in question. That they (Respondents) are not aware of any agreement to increase the number of ruling houses to three and that due inquiry was made into the native law and custom of Ugbe before the making and registration of the 2007 registered declaration. That on 10/8/2002 one Chief Olufemi Ugbedokun and Chief Alako wrote to the Department of Chieftaincy Affairs complaining of irregularity in the questioned chieftaincy, claiming that their families ought to be included in the list of kingmakers. In response to the said letter the State Government by a letter dated 23/8/2002 requested the Chieftaincy Committee of Akoko North East Local Government to look into any irregularities in the existing chieftaincy declaration of the Olugbe chieftaincy and make recommendations thereto. Pursuant to the consideration of the said application, the Akoko North East Local Government Chieftaincy Committee amended the Olugbe chieftaincy declaration in question, and forwarded a draft of the same to the Department of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs. That the said amendment made in line with the recommendations of Akoko-North East Local Government Chieftaincy Committee was made to rectify the complaints made by the families of the kingmakers; and did not relate to the number, names or order of rotation of the ruling houses to fill any vacancy in the said chieftaincy.

​The defence of the 3rd and 4th Respondents (akin to that of the 1st and 2nd Respondents), is that the Ugbedo family is not one of the ruling houses entitled to the questioned chieftaincy as the 2007 registered declaration provides for only two ruling houses which are the Okede and Ode-Oba ruling houses. The 2007 registered declaration was duly approved by the Ondo State Executive Council. The Appellants never challenged the contents of the said declaration or the amendment effected therein. That they (Respondents) are not aware of any dispute over the succession to the questioned chieftaincy in 1955 or any agreement to increase the number of the ruling houses. That due inquiry was made into the relevant native law and custom of Ugbe before the making and registration of the 2007 registered declaration which is in accordance with the custom and tradition of Ugbe-Akoko. It is their case that the registered declaration of 1961 and the 2007 registered declaration are the same, as they relate to the families or ruling houses entitled to fill any vacancy in the questioned chieftaincy.

​The case of the 5th and 6th Respondents as set up in their further amended statement of defence is that the Okedo and Ode-Oba of the Kirigbo royal houses are the two ruling houses entitled to fill any vacancy in the questioned chieftaincy. That the chieftaincy associated with Ugbedokun is Olufemu and the Appellants have no special or established interest in the questioned chieftaincy. That the 1961 registered declaration pertaining to the Olugbe chieftaincy was duly amended by the Akoko North East Local Government Chieftaincy Committee and the said 2007 registered declaration was approved by the Ondo State Government Executive Council, in 2006 and the same registered in 2007. That no amendment was made to the ruling houses entitled to the questioned chieftaincy in the said declaration. That Ayo, Koko, Olugunra, Bebe (sic) and Ologunayere, were never appointed nor reigned as Olugbe of Ugbe at any material time The first person that reigned as Olugbe of Ugbe in Ugbe-Akoko was Amuse from Kirigbo royal household. It was Oyuwa that begat Ajayi and who begat Ajayi Oyuwa, the father of the 1st Appellant. The members of the Oyuwa lineage have never been appointed as Olugbe of Ugbe. That Ologunayere is not a member of Ugbe-Akoko but Ologunkare who was a member of Ode-Oba ruling house reigned as the Olugbe of Ugbe in his lifetime. It was Ologunkare that begat the 6th Respondent. The 1st Appellant never contested for Olugbe of Ugbe stool nor was he persuaded to step down for Oba Babarinde Sarumo. That there was no agreement that the Ugbedo family would be included as a ruling house The Ugbedo family was not included in any of the registered declarations relating to the questioned chieftaincy and the family is not entitled to the same by native law and custom. The necessary steps for amendment were undertaken by the appropriate persons before the making of the 2007 registered declaration and the rotation of the ruling houses to fill any vacancy in the questioned chieftaincy, which is between the Ode-Oba and Okede ruling houses and is supported by native law and custom.

​In the proof of their case, the Appellants fielded 2 witnesses: PW1 – Mr. Adekomi Felix and PW2 – the 1st Appellant and the following Exhibits tendered by the Appellants were admitted in evidence and duly marked: (i) Exhibits A1-A7 are numerous documents in respect of the Olugbe Chieftaincy; (ii) Exhibits B1-B2 – letter dated 15/5/2012 addressed to the Chairman, Chieftaincy Committee, Akoko North East Local Government Area; (iii) Exhibits C1-C4 – letters dated 15/5/2012 addressed to the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Ondo State and Chairman, Chieftaincy Committee, Akoko North East Local Government Area; (iv) Exhibit D – letter dated 8/3/2016 and certified true copy of a document titled “amendment of declaration made under Section 4 of the Chiefs Law, 1957 of the customary law regulating the selection of the Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko Chieftaincy”.

​The 1st and 2nd Respondents fielded a lone witness: DW1 – Mrs. Julian Olumoye and the following Exhibits were tendered by them: (i) Exhibit E – letter dated 10/8/2002 titled “irregularity in Olugbe Chieftaincy Declaration Amendment”; (ii) Exhibit F – CTC of letter dated 23/8/2002 with Ref. No CD/C/460/13 titled “Re – Irregularity in Olugbe Chieftaincy Declaration Amendment” (iii) Exhibit G – CTC of letter dated 3/12/2003 titled “Re-Amendment to the Olugbe Chieftaincy Declaration”; (iv) Exhibit H – CTC of letter dated 10/12/2003 with Ref No, ANELG.112/186 titled “Re – Amendment to the Olugbe Chieftaincy Declaration”.

The 5th and 6th Respondents fielded the following witnesses: DW2 – Mr. Yunusa Adeniyi; and DW3 – the 6th Respondent and the following documents tendered by the said 5th and 6th Respondents were admitted in evidence and duly marked as Exhibits: (i) Exhibit J – letter dated 16/10/2006 with Ref. No. CD/C.460/55; (ii) Exhibit K- document titled “Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy declaration of 1961”; (iii) Exhibits L1-L26 – Proceedings of the Ondo State Chieftaincy Review Commission of 6th April, 1978.
The 3rd and 4th Respondents adduced no evidence at the hearing of the suit at the lower Court.

​In its judgment spanning pages 234 to 286 of the record, the lower Court having copiously stated what it understood the case of the parties to be; and having extensively reviewed the evidence adduced by witnesses called by the parties that chose to call witnesses in the proof of their respective cases, and evaluation of the same; and having had the benefit of the written addresses of the parties concluded thus: –
“From all I have been saying above, the claimants’ reliance on their inconsistent pleadings and attempting to lead evidence thereon has in no small measure been fatal to their case, leading to manifest contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of their two witnesses and the averments in their amended statement of claim. The testimonies of the two witnesses for the claimants have been so discredited under rigorous cross-examination making them very unreliable. Though, the claimants pleaded traditional history in support of their claim to the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy, their testimonies and reliance on Exhibits A1-A7 as regards the understanding, of 1955 and steps taken by the claimants’ family thereafter, have made their case incredible and unreliable. I believe it is an exercise in futility to embark on a consideration of the case of the defence at this stage when the claimants are still groping in the dark and unable to present a credible case.

The claimants in this case failed woefully to establish by credible evidence the, native law and custom they rely on to support their entitlement to the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy. With the request in Exhibits B1-B2 & C1-C4 yet to be responded to and the claim in this present suit filed within 34 days of the submission of the request in the said Exhibits B1-B2 & C1-C4, it stands to reason that the claimants are being mischievous.
The claimants in this case are in paragraph 24 of their amended statement of claim seeking six (6) reliefs, out of which five (5) are for declarations.

Taking into consideration the case as presented by the claimants through the PW1 & the PW2 and the contradictions/inconsistencies making the testimonies of the claimants’ witnesses unreliable and unbelievable; as well as the conflicts between the oral testimonies of the claimants’ witnesses and the documentary evidence, Exhibits A1-A4, it will be inequitable for this Court to grant the declaratory reliefs being sought by the claimants in this suit.
In the circumstances of this case, I hold that the claimants have not discharged the onus placed on them by law to entitle them to the reliefs/claims being sought. Accordingly, this suit is hereby dismissed for being premature and lacking in merit. I award N10,000.00 as cost in favour of the defendants.”

Aggrieved by the judgment of the lower Court, the Appellants initiated this appeal by lodging at the registry of the said Court on 19/7/2016, a notice of appeal bearing the same date. The said notice of 19/7/2016 was subsequently amended with the leave of this Court. The amended notice of appeal dated and filed on 10/6/2019 was deemed properly filed and served on 21/6/2021. The grounds of appeal in the amended notice relied upon by the Appellants in prosecuting this appeal, shorn of their respective particulars read thus
“Ground One
The learned trial Judge misdirected himself in law when by appraisal he gave to the facts contained in Exhibits A5-A7 leading to his conclusion that the Exhibits have revealed the contradictions and inconsistencies in the case as made out by the Claimants which misdirection has caused miscarriage of justice.
Ground Two:
The learned trial Judge misdirected himself while holding in respect of Exhibits B1-B12 and C1 and CC4 when he held at page 38 of his judgment thus:
“The request contained in these letters is simply an appeal for the amendment of the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration by making the Ugbedo family a ruling house of Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy. Man Suffice it to say straightaway that these documents and the request contained therein have shown further the inconsistency in the case of the Claimants, especially as regards their traditional history pleaded in paragraph 14 of the amended statement of claim and on which evidence was led by both the PW1 & the PW2, wherein they lay claim to Ugbedo being the only ruling house of the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy. What the Claimants seem to be fighting for in Exhibit B is for the inclusion of Ugbedo family as a ruling house in the Amended Chieftaincy Declaration of the Olugbe of Ugbe 2007 and not the exclusion of the already recognized two ruling houses therein. It can be seen, both from the conflicting evidence as presented by the PW1 and the PW2 on the custom and tradition of Ugbe Akoko and the unwritten agreement/understanding of 1955 based on Exhibits A1-A7, B & C, as regards whether the Ugbedo is a ruling house of the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy, that the Claimants have not been able to satisfactorily established their claim by credible evidence”
Ground three:
The learned trial Judge erred in law by placing reliance on the existence of 1957 and 1961 declarations of the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy giving the conclusion that the Carme facts that the Claimants did not challenge them before now means that the contents of those declarations are acceptable to them.
Ground Four:
The learned trial Judge erred in law to have dismissed the Claimants’ case having come into conclusion that the suit is premature, at worst the appropriate order should have been that of striking out.
Ground Five:
The learned trial Judge erred in law and wrongly misappraised the evidence and the facts of the case which misappraisal and error led him to the conclusion that the Claimants/Appellants have not proved their case.
Ground Six:
The judgment is against the weight of evidence.”

​The reliefs sought by the Appellants in this appeal as set out in the amended notice of appeal are: (i) an order of this Court allowing the appeal and setting aside the “ruling and decisions” of the lower Court; (ii) an order of this Court reversing the judgment of the lower Court and granting the reliefs of the Appellants.

​The appeal was entertained on 25/5/2022 and learned leading senior counsel F. Omotoso, SAN; in urging the Court to allow the appeal, adopted and relied on the Appellants’ brief of argument dated 13/3/2017 and filed on 15/3/2017 but deemed properly filed on 24/1/2019; as well as the Appellants’ reply brief to the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents’ briefs of argument dated and filed on 10/6/2019 but deemed as properly filed on 4/6/2021. In the same vein, learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th Respondents Olumide Ogidan and learned leading counsel for the 5th and 6th Respondents, Omosola Odusola, respectively, adopted and relied on the briefs of argument of the 3rd and 4th and 5th and 6th Respondents in urging the Court to dismiss the appeal. The 3rd and 4th Respondents’ brief is dated 27/2/2019 and filed on the same date; while the 5th and 6th Respondents’ brief of argument is dated 29/1/2019 and filed on 28/2/2019. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed no brief in this appeal and did not participate at the hearing of the same.

The Appellants formulated four issues for the determination of this appeal. The said issues and grounds of appeal from which they were formulated read thus: –
“3.1 Whether by the combined effects of the documentary evidence tendered and admitted by the trial Court, the Appellants Ugbedo family is not entitled to be included as a ruling house of Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko to enable the 1st Appellant contest for the Chieftaincy stool? (Grounds 1 and 2).
3.2 Whether the failure of the Appellants to challenge both the 1957 and 1961 declarations means the acceptability of the exclusion of their Ugbedo family as a ruling house of Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko? (Ground 3).
3.3 Whether the lower Court was right in holding that (sic) action of the Appellants was premature? (Ground 4).
3.4 Whether by the totality of the evidence adduced, the Appellants were not entitled to the reliefs sought? (Grounds 5 and 6).”

The issues formulated by the 3rd and 4th Respondents for the determination of the appeal are: –
“a. Whether the appellants’ Ugbedo family is one of the ruling houses of Olugbe Chieftaincy of Ugbe-Akoko.
b. Whether the lower Court was right in holding that action of the Appellants was premature.
c. Whether by the totality of the evidence adduced, the Appellants were entitled to the reliefs sought.”

The issues for the determination of this appeal as formulated by the 5th and 6th Respondents are as follows –
“1. Whether the material contradictions and inconsistencies found in the case and evidence of the Appellants by the lower Court was not rightly found and therefore the Appellants are entitled to the declaratory reliefs sought having regard to the evidence of the Appellants. (Grounds 1, 2 and 5)
2. Whether having regard to the provisions of Sections 4(1)(3)(4) and 19 of the Chiefs Law of Ondo State and evidence, particularly Exhibit “C1-C4″ the lower Court was not right when it held that the suit of the Appellants was premature. (Ground 4)”

​Dwelling on their issues 1 and 2 together, the Appellants submitted to the effect that the Isowapo Local Government ought to have given effect to the Provincial Adviser’s Report of 22nd June, 1955, wherein it was recommended that the Appellants’ Ugbedo family be included as one of the three ruling houses of the questioned chieftaincy. That the finding of the lower Court to the effect that their (Appellants) evidence disclosed that there was only one ruling house contradicted the evidence and documents tendered by them (Appellants) which documents went to show that there existed two ruling houses – Okede and Ode-Oba, does not preclude their Ugbedo family from being included or considered as one of the ruling houses of the questioned chieftaincy; Exhibits A1 to A4 having mentioned the Ugbedo family as being included as one of the three ruling houses. That “Exhibit A” gave the oral testimony of the Appellants credibility and the lower Court ought to have accepted and acted on the same. It is the stance of the Appellants that the fact that they did not challenge or contest the registered declaration of 1961 did not presuppose that they were satisfied with the exclusion of their family from the ruling houses as: –
“(a) It was not proved that they were aware of the existence of both 1957 and 1961 declarations of Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko Chieftaincy.
(b) There had not been any occasion for the use of those declarations on the death of an Oba.
(c) Oba Babarinde Sulema that contested with the first Appellant in 1955 that was given preference over the 1st Appellant because of only died (sic) in 2013 or there about when the Chieftaincy Declaration of Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko 2007 had to be invoked.
(d) That the death of the said Oba drew the attention of the Appellants to the existence of the 2007 Declaration of the Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko Chieftaincy.
(e) The failure of Local Council to perform its statutory duty cannot be visited on the Appellant.”

​The Appellants submitted that contrary to the findings of the lower Court, the chieftaincy declaration of 1961 could not be affirmed as the customary law regulating the appointment to the questioned chieftaincy. Appellants submitted that pursuant to the principle of law that a party relying on a particular custom must prove the same; there is no proof that the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy has only two ruling houses of Okede and Ode-Oba. Appellants further submitted that before Exhibit A1 was made, there was “awareness meeting of Ugbe community” and all persons who “ought to be heard were fully heard” and that this gives credence and weight to the recommendations made therein to the effect that the Appellants’ family should be included as one of the ruling houses. That the lower Court did not take these facts into full consideration and thus arrived at a conclusion dismissing the Appellants’ claims.

​It is the Appellants’ stance on their issue 3 that pursuant to Section 6(6) of the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (hereafter to be simply referred to as “the amended 1999 Constitution”), they have unrestricted powers to put forth their case before the Courts and neither Sections 4 nor 6 of the Ondo State Chiefs Law, Cap. 27, Laws of Ondo State, 2006 (hereafter to be simply referred to as “Chiefs Law”) ousts the right of a plaintiff from approaching the Courts in addition to or in the alternative of those provisions. That Exhibits C1 to C4 do not preclude the Appellants from approaching the Courts for a redress and that they needed not to await the outcome of the said Exhibits before initiating the instant action. Appellants posited that the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Chiefs Law are not conditions precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction of the lower Court; nor do the said provisions provide administrative remedial procedure to be exhausted before approaching the Court. Consequently, the lower Court misconceived the said provisions of the Chiefs Law.

Dwelling on their issue 4, the Appellants having stated the position of the law to be that a party who alleges must prove and a party seeking declaratory reliefs must rely on the strength of his own case, submitted that while they adduced evidence in support of their pleadings in paragraphs 14-18 of their amended statement of claim, the 4th and 5th Respondents failed to adduce credible evidence in support of their pleadings to the effect that the previous Olugbes hailed from the two ruling houses of Okede and Ode-Oba. That the contradictions in their case (Appellants) as held by the lower Court were not material and same were incapable of tilting the scale of justice in favour of the Respondents. It is the stance of the Appellants that the instant appeal calls for the re-evaluation of evidence.

​Dwelling on their issue 1, the 3rd and 4th Respondents submitted to the effect that the case of the Appellant is not that his family is a member of the ruling house but that given the agreement of 1955, his family ought to be included as one of the ruling houses entitled to fill any vacancy in the questioned chieftaincy. That there are only two ruling houses in Ugbe-Akoko – Okede and Ode-Oba. They referred to the cross-examination of the 1st Appellant on pages 173 and 174 of the record and paragraphs 4, 8, 9 and 16 of the Appellants’ amended statement of claim and further submitted that the Appellants contrary to the averments in the above stated paragraphs, stated under cross-examination that ‘Okede and Ode-Oba are not ruling houses in respect of Ugbe Chieftaincy”. It is the stance of the 3rd and 4th Respondents that the Appellants failed to adduce evidence to show that their family is one of the ruling houses of Olugbe Chieftaincy of Ugbe- Akoko.

It is the stance of the 3rd and 4th Respondents on their issue 2, that the Appellants failed to utilize the procedure provided for in the provisions of the Chiefs Law and that the Appellants’ suit was filed before the Executive Council could consider Exhibits C1-C4. The said Respondents submitted that pursuant to Sections 4 and 6 of the Chiefs Law, the Appellants ought to have waited for the decision of the Executive Council before filing the instant suit and that the failure of the Appellants to have done so robbed the lower Court of the jurisdiction to entertain the mater as the suit of the Appellants, was premature. That the lower Court assuming jurisdiction over the matter would have only pre-empted the decision of the Executive Council.

The 3rd and 4th Respondents on their issue 3, submitted in the main that the Appellants failed to lead credible evidence to entitle them to their reliefs and that the Appellants’ case was fraught with many inconsistencies.

​Dwelling on their issue 1, the 5th and 6th Respondents submitted to the effect that the burden to prove their entitlement to the declarative and injunctive orders they (Appellants) seek, laid on the said Appellants. That the evidence adduced by the Appellants in that regard was not credible and the lower Court rightly found this to be so. The 5th and 6th Respondents referred to the evidence of PW2 in paragraph 15 of his statement on oath and stated that the same contradicts the evidence of PW1 under cross-examination as contained in pages 170 and 174 of the record and other pieces of evidence adduced through PW2. That Exhibits A1 to A7 further ran contrary to the said evidence of PW2 under cross-examination and that contrary to the assertion of the Appellants, the lower Court in fact considered the said Exhibits as shown on pages 265 and 266 of the record. It is the stance of the 5th and 6th Respondents that the assertion of the Appellants that the lower Court arrived at its conclusions on presumptions is erroneous. They submitted that the Appellants did not prove by credible evidence that the 2007 registered declaration was not approved before registration and further that there is no appeal by the Appellants against that finding. That in the event the Appellants proved that the 2007 registered declaration was not approved prior to its registration, and the lower Court had set it aside on that ground, the Appellants would still not have been entitled to fill any vacancy in the questioned chieftaincy given the contradictions in their evidence and the contents of Exhibits C1 to C3. Reference was made to page 261 of the record. It is the stance of the said Respondents that the call by the Appellants for the re-evaluation of the evidence in the instant case ought not be acceded to. This is because the lower Court competently evaluated the evidence adduced by the parties before coming to its conclusions/findings.

Dwelling on their issue 2, the 5th and 6th Respondents referred to Sections 4 and 19 of the Chiefs Law and submitted to the effect that what the Appellants set out to achieve by their suit, was the same objective sought in Exhibits C1 to C4; that is, for the lower Court to amend the existing customary law and include Ugbedo family as a ruling house. It is the stance of the said Respondents that the suit of the Appellants was premature and aimed at preventing the 1st and 2nd Respondents from carrying out their lawful duties activated through Exhibits C1 to C4. That the fact that the Appellants’ suit was premature was raised by the 1st and 2nd Respondents before the lower Court. That the Appellants failed or neglected to respond to the same and this tantamount to conceding to the issue.

​The Appellants have in paragraph 1, of their composite reply brief filed in respect of the Respondents’ briefs of argument urged the Court to strike out the issues formulated by the 3rd and 4th Respondents in this appeal for their failure to have related the said issues to the grounds of appeal in the notice of appeal. The submission of the Appellants in this regard is clearly misconceived. This is because the practice of relating/tying issues for determination to grounds of appeal from which they were distilled, while it is desirable, the failure to do so does not tantamount to incompetence of the issues for determination so formulated to warrant the striking out of the same. See in this regard the case of JFS INVESTMENT LTD V. BRAWAL LINE LTD (2010) LPELR-1610(SC).

This position of the law, must however be differentiated from a situation where the issues so formulated do not arise from the grounds of appeal. In such situation, the issues are incompetent and must be struck out. In this regard, see the case of DADA V. DOSUNMU (2006) LPELR-909(SC). 

The said reply brief aside from the challenge to the competence of the issues formulated by the 3rd and 4th Respondents on the ground that they were not tied to grounds of appeal would appear to have no utilitarian value as it was only a re-argument or re-presentation of what had been argued by the Appellants in their brief of argument and which arguments cannot be said to have arisen from any new issues argued by the Respondents.

Having perused the judgment of the lower Court, the grounds of appeal and the issues formulated by the parties for the determination of this appeal, it is my considered view that issues 3 and 4 formulated by the Appellants would be apt for the resolution of the appeal by this Court. This is not only because the appeal being that of the Appellants is better resolved on the material issues identified by the Appellants for its determination but as the resolution of the said issues 3 and 4 in my considered view would adequately address all the other issues formulated by the Appellants in this appeal as well as the issues formulated by the Respondents. The said issues 3 and 4 which have been re-produced hereinbefore are hereby re-produced again for ease of reference. They read thus: –
“3. Whether the lower Court was right in holding that (sic) action of the Appellants was premature? (Ground 4).
4. Whether by the totality of the evidence adduced, the Appellants were not entitled to the reliefs sought? (Grounds 5 and 6).”

The lower Court in its judgment on appeal, recorded the issues formulated by the 1st and 2nd Defendants (now Respondents and who did not participate in this appeal) thus:
“(1) Whether the claimants have succeeded in proving their claim that the Amended Olugbe of Ugbe-Akoko Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007 was not duly approved and registered in accordance with the provisions of the Chiefs Law of Ondo State.
(2) Whether failure to hold an enquiry is sufficient ground for the Court to declare the Amended Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration 2007 void.
(3) Whether the claimants’ action is not premature in view of the fact that they did not wait for the Executive Council to exercise its discretion with respect to their letter of complaint and request for amendment before instituting this action.
(4) Whether the Amended Chieftaincy Declaration of Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko 2007 which was tendered by the claimants and admitted as Exhibit D is a certified true copy of the original copy.”

​The sole issue formulated by the Appellants for the resolution of their case before the lower Court reads: – “Whether based on the basis of the state of pleadings and evidence on record, the claimants are entitled to the reliefs claimed.”

​Dwelling on the issues in its judgment the lower Court stated thus: –
“… The PW2, who is the 1st claimant, also testified in line with the averments contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 14-23 of the amended statement of claim. He gave evidence on what transpired in 1955, when there was a vacancy and testified that there is no Chieftaincy Declaration in Ugbe Akoko.
In paragraph 17 of the amended statement of claim, the claimants averred thus;-
“…”
The impression given by this averment is that before the 1955 agreement, the Ugbedo family was not a Ruling house, as there were in existence only two Ruling Houses before the agreement of 1955 and the installation of Babarinde Sarumo as the Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko in 1956. That the agreement, in the main, was that the claimants’ Ugbedo family should then be added to the two existing ruling houses, so as to increase the number of ruling houses to three (3). One would not be wrong to assume from this paragraph 17 that it was between 1955 & 1956 that the Ugbedo family of the claimants expressed their desire to join the two already existing ruling houses in Ugbe Akoko and that it is this 1955 understanding/agreement the claimants are relying on to be entitled for inclusion in the Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko Chieftaincy Declaration, as one of the ruling houses. This has thus made the traditional history as pleaded in paragraph 14 of the amended statement of claim and the evidence led thereon suspect.
Paragraphs 18 & 19 of the amended statement of claim lend support to this position by stating thus;-
“…”
The claimants have by their paragraphs 18 & 19, as reproduced above, admitted the existence of the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 1957 and that the Ugbedo family was not included as a ruling house in the already existing two ruling houses. The claimants are not contesting this 1957 Chieftaincy Declaration in any way, though, they were aware of the exclusion of their family name as a ruling house therein. The grouse of the claimants, as can be seen in paragraphs 20 & 21 of the amended statement of claim, is against the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007, which is an amendment to the 1957 Declaration. There is no explanation given by the claimants why they have not, up till this moment, contested or challenged the said 1957 Declaration, despite the exclusion of their family name. The natural conclusion will then be that they were satisfied with the said Declaration. To all intents and purposes, the said 1957 Chieftaincy Declaration represented the applicable customary law regulating the selection and appointment of a candidate to fill the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy stool, to the exclusion of any other custom and tradition.

According to Uwaifo, JSC in Fasade v. Babalola (2003) LPELR-1243(SC) [2003] 11 NWLR (Pt.830) 26; … From the above, it can be inferred that the customary law and tradition of Ugbe- Akoko as regards the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy have been embodied in the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 1957, in which, though, the claimants were excluded, have not been challenged by them in any way. The said Chieftaincy Declaration of 1957 was tendered from the Bar by learned counsel for the 5th & 6th defendants as Exhibit K and supports paragraph 19 of the amended statement of claim that the Ugbedo family of the claimants was not included as one of the recognized ruling houses for the Olugbe of Ugbe-Akoko Chieftaincy, the only two recognized ruling houses being; Ode Oba and Okede ruling houses. One can assume that, though, the claimants were not happy with this development, they did not feel strongly about it as to take any step towards setting the records straight. It is, well settled that where such a chieftaincy declaration exists, the duty of the Court is to apply the provisions of the declaration to the facts of the case, as established by evidence, particularly as the Court has no power to assume the functions of the Chieftaincy Committee as regards the making or amendment of customary law governing the selection and appointment of traditional chief. To all intents and purposes, the provisions of the Olugbe of Ugbe-Akoko Chieftaincy Declaration, Exhibit K, applied to the filling of the vacancy in the Olugbe of Ugbe-Akoko Chieftaincy, unless amended, to the exclusion of any other customary usage or rule. See Section 6(1) of the Chiefs Law of Ondo State, 2006.
It can be seen however, from the evidence before this Court, that Exhibit K has been amended and that the existing chieftaincy declaration in respect of the Olugbe of Ugbe-Akoko Chieftaincy is the Amended Chieftaincy Declaration of the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy, 2007, which the claimants are now challenging in paragraphs 20 & 21 of the amended statement of claim as void, alleging it was made without any inquiry conducted as required by the Chiefs Law. This was the bone of contention of the claimants’ solicitor in Exhibit B, wherein they are alleging in the 4th paragraph that;- … The claimants have by their letter, Exhibit B, invoked the powers of the Executive Council of the State as conferred under Sections 6(2) & 19(1) of the Chiefs Law of Ondo State, 2006, in order to amend the Amended Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007.

This, in my own view, is a confirmation of paragraphs 8, 9 & 17 of the amended statement of claim by the PW1 that the Okede and Ode-Oba Ruling Houses were the two ruling houses in existence before the Ugbedo family of the claimants expressed their desire in 1955 to be joined as a ruling house too and thus, increased the number of Ruling Houses to three (3).

I wish to point out that the claimants adopted a double barrel approach in their pleading as regards their claim to the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy title. Paragraph 14(1) to (10) of the amended statement of claim deals with succession to the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy and tracing same from the first Olugbe of Ugbe, Ayo, to the grandfather of the 1st claimant, Ologunayere, thereby laying claim to being the only Ruling House, while paragraphs 15-17 & 22 relate to the understanding arrived at in 1956 after the dispute over succession in 1955. On one hand, the claimants are laying claim to their sole entitlement as a ruling house to the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy title under customary law, while on the other hand, they are saying that there was an agreement arrived at in 1956 that the claimants’ Ugbedo family, which was hitherto not one of the ruling houses, should be made a Ruling House, together with the already existing two Ruling Houses. It is therefore very glaring that the claimants have made inconsistent averments in their pleadings.

The PW1, in one breadth, testified in line with the averments in paragraph 17 of the amended statement of claim in his original testimony on the 1955 understanding, but changed his mind in his additional testimony by testifying that the Ugbedo family has always been a Ruling House, producing all the Olugbe of Ugbe until Ajiboye tried to usurp the title. The PW2, who is the 1st claimant, in his original testimony acknowledged the understanding of 1955 but went on to say something rather different from the averment in paragraph 17 of the amended statement of claim and the testimony of the PW1. According to the PW2 in paragraph 9 of his testimony, the understanding of 1955 was that a Chieftaincy Declaration be made “accommodating the family of Babarinde Sarumo and my family as the Ruling Houses.” The purport of this is that, on the agreement/understanding arrived at in 1955, while paragraph 17 of the amended statement of claim is that the Ugbedo family of the claimants be made a Ruling House in addition to the already existing two (2) ruling houses, thus increasing the number of ruling houses to three, the PW2 has set up another case to the effect that the understanding was to bring in the families of Babarinde Sarumo and Ugbedo as the only two ruling houses. This is clearly, at variance with the facts as pleaded by the claimants in paragraph 17 of the amended statement of claim and also with the testimony of the PW1 on the subject matter of the understanding [agreement reached in 1955.
… The evidence adduced by the PW2 in paragraph 9 of his testimony on the accommodation of the family of Babarinde Sarumo in the Chieftaincy Declaration, alleged to have been agreed upon in 1955 and that both families of Babarinde Sarumo and Ugbedo are to be the Ruling Houses for the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy, is not only at variance with the pleadings, it has also contradicted the testimony of the PW1, especially paragraphs 8 & 11 of his testimony.

The case of the claimants is hinged principally on the alleged unwritten understanding/agreement of 1955, which has entitled the Ugbedo family to be included as one of the Ruling Houses of the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy. There is no doubt that evidence relating to the terms of the alleged unwritten, understanding/agreement is very crucial and material to the case of the claimants. Likewise, any contradiction touching on the terms of the said unwritten understanding would amount to a material contradiction, striking at the very basis of the case of the claimants, thus raising doubts in the mind of the Court.
The contradiction in paragraph 9 of the testimony of the PW2, which is also at variance with paragraph 17 of the amended statement of claim, and with that in paragraphs 8 & 11 of the testimony of the PW1, is material to the case of the claimants. This I so hold. Under cross-examination by 3rd & 4th defence counsel, the PW1 insisted there is only one ruling house in Ugbe Akoko. One can see straightaway that this testimony runs contrary to that pleaded by the claimants in paragraph 17 of the amended statement of claim and the testimony of the PW1 in paragraph 8 of his testimony.

With the claimants not only relying on the 1955 understanding, but also on the native law and custom of Ugbe land, for their claim to the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy, it behoves on them not to only plead the affected native law and custom, but to lead credible evidence in proof, which evidence should ordinarily be corroborated.
However, the admission by the PW1 that he was 15 years old in 1955 when the said unwritten understanding/agreement was arrived at and his admission under cross-examination that he is from Ako quarters, a quarter different from that of the claimants and that he is also not a member of the Ugbedo family of the claimants, has left this Court wondering how he became involved in the unwritten understanding of 1955 in the first place. The question agitating my mind is, in what capacity was he involved and what part did he play in the said understanding/agreement which did not concern his quarter or his family at the tender age of 15 years? In paragraph 5 of his testimony, the PW1 referred to the 1st claimant as a child and that this was why the 1st claimant was asked to step down from contesting the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy. To me, this evidence, coming from the PW1, who admitted he too was 15 years old at that time, is laughable. In Yoruba land, when serious family issues are being discussed, it will be an aberration to see a 15 year old boy from another family sitting down to participate in such deliberations. Most importantly, when traditional matters are being discussed, regarding ascendancy to the throne, a young boy of 15 years, not being a kingmaker or a chieftaincy title holder or a member of a ruling house, can hardly be seen or consulted or allowed to participate in such matters. The impression the PW1 is trying to create is simply that, there were probably no elders around at Ugbe Akoko during that period or that children had taken over the running of the affairs of Ugbe Akoko! This will certainly be preposterous and an anathema in Yoruba land. I find it very difficult to place any reliance on the testimony of the PW1 as it appears very difficult to believe, having also been seriously battered and torn to shreds under cross-examination. The testimony of the PW1 cannot therefore be believed by this Court so as to provide the required corroboration needed to support the evidence of the PW2 on the traditional history of Ugbe Akoko. The testimony of the PW1 is therefore of no importance or assistance to the case of the claimants and it would have been better if he had stayed away. With the evidence of the PW1 thrown overboard, only the evidence of the PW2 appears to be left and standing in an awkward position. Glaringly, the traditional history being relied on by the claimants to prove their case is built on sinking sand.
The 1st claimant, who testified as the PW2, was also subjected to serious cross examination. He responded to a question from learned counsel for the 3rd & 4th defendants by insisting there was only one ruling house in Ugbe, but that there are now two ruling houses as at today. The PW2 must have probably forgotten the averment in paragraphs 8, 9 & 17 of the amended statement of claim where it was averred that there were two ruling houses before the unwritten understanding in 1955, when it was then agreed to increase it to three, by the inclusion of the Ugbedo family of the claimants with the two already existing ruling houses. This is also contrary to paragraphs 8 & 11 of the testimony of the PW1. The PW2 testified on the traditional history of succession to the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy, stating the names of the Olugbes from his Ugbedo family who reigned as Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko. Surprisingly, under cross-examination by learned counsel for the 5th & 6th defendants, he stated that he did not know when Ologunayere died. He also denied that Okede and Ode-Oba are ruling houses. It would be recalled from paragraph 14 of the amended statement of claim that the name Ologunayere came up and his link with the 1st claimant was also explained. According to the averments, Ologunayere was the grandfather of the 1st claimant, who reigned as Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko after one Beebe. It will no doubt sound very queer that the PW2 claimed he did not know when his grandfather died or is he saying history did not record his death? The denial of the PW2 that Okede and Ode-Oba are ruling houses is contrary to the testimony of the PW1 in paragraph 8 of his testimony stating that Okede and Ode-Oba are ruling houses. Just like the testimony of the PW1, that of the PW2 has also been seriously shaken under cross-examination. Apart also from the contradictions between his testimony and that of PW1, it will be unconscionable to believe or rely solely on his testimony without any corroboration as regards traditional history.
Happily, the claimants are not relying only on the testimonies of the PW1 & the PW2 to prove their case, as they have, through the PW2 and their counsel, tendered Exhibits A.D.
…..

It is therefore, apposite to use the documentary evidence tendered by the PW2 as a hanger from which to assess the oral testimonies of the claimants’ witnesses. Who knows, these documentary evidence may as well serve as the corroboration needed to sustain the traditional history being relied on by the claimants.
Exhibit A1-A7 is a bundle of documents containing among others, the letter written by the Divisional Officer, Owo to the Provincial Adviser, Ondo Province, Akure and it is dated 22nd June 1956. This bundle of documents, Exhibits A1-A7, tendered by the PW2 and dated 1956, by virtue of Section 155 of the Evidence Act 2011, being a document over twenty years, enjoys the presumption as to statements in documents twenty years old. See … In paragraph 14(10) of the amended statement of claim, the claimants pleaded the Report of the District Officer, Owo, obtained from the National Archives and this was tendered by the PW2 and admitted as Exhibits A1-A7. Putting it in proper perspective, this bundle of documents is made up of a letter with reference No. 1560/56 written by the Divisional Officer, Owo, which is marked Exhibit A1-A2 and attached to this are other documents marked Exhibits A3-A7.
The first paragraph of Exhibit A1-A2 reads thus; – “The Olugbe Chieftaincy has been vacant since 1939 when Ajiboye died.” This paragraph presupposes that the said Ajiboye reigned as Olugbe of Ugbe before he died in 1939.
On Ajiboye, the claimants in paragraphs 14 of the amended statement of claim referred to him as a messenger of Ologunayere, who tried to usurp the throne of the Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko but this was rebuffed by the community. This fact was confirmed by the PW1 & the PW2 in paragraphs 4- 9 of their respective additional testimonies. The claimants both in their pleadings and the testimonies of the PW1 & the PW2 are saying that the said Ajiboye being a messenger to Ologunayere and not a member of any ruling house in Ugbe Akoko never reigned as Olugbe of Ugbe, even though he attempted to do this.
Under cross-examination by the 5th & 6th defence counsel, the PW1 stated that one Babarinde from Okede reigned as Olugbe while Ajiboye from Odeoba never reigned as Olugbe of Ugbe. He also stated that Ajiboye was an elderly man in Ugbe and at his death one Chief Alako was directing affairs in Ugbe as a senior chief. Under cross-examination by the 5th & 6th defence counsel, the PW2 admitted that the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy stool was vacant before the death of Ajiboye in 1939. He stated that he is literate but that he cannot read Exhibit A. He stated that he did not read Exhibit A before filing this suit. That he cannot say that the 1st paragraph of Exhibit A is wrong because Ajiboye was not from any ruling house. Thus, while the claimants would not want to admit that Ajiboye reigned as Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko, the first paragraph of Exhibit A1-A2, which the PW2 tendered in proof of the claimants’ case, has shown the inaccuracy and falsity in the case as made out by the claimants on traditional history. This position taken by the claimants’ witnesses on Ajiboye and their resolve not to recognize Ajiboye as having reigned as Olugbe of Ugbe was the contention in Exhibit A3 which is titled;- “Note on the History of the dispute compiled by I. O. Ogun. Assistant Divisional Adviser, Owo”
The fact as stated in paragraph 1 of Exhibit A1, as well as the attached Exhibit A3, is that indeed Ajiboye reigned as the Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko and was succeeded by Babarinde Sarumo. The claimants cannot run away from this fact of history and their attempt at distorting history will no doubt boomerang against them, making their traditional story doubtful and unbelievable. Exhibit A1 tendered by the PW2 has brought out the lie in the testimonies of the claimants’ witnesses on whether one Ajiboye reigned as Olugbe of Ugbe or not.
On the Olugbe Chieftaincy, which is the title of the said report (Exhibit A1-A2) and its main content, it is stated that Ugbe with a population of 629 has two quarters, namely; – Oke-Aran & Ako. That it is undisputed that the Olugbe comes from Oke-Aran quarter which consists of three extended families, namely; -Kirigbo, Ode- Okeawa and Ugbedokun. That while Kirigbo and Oke-Aran families state that there are two ruling houses, Oke-de and Ode-Oba, both from Kirigbo family, which evidence finds support in the Isowopo Local Council (WRNLN 159 of 1954), the Ugbedokun family of Oke- Aran quarter and Ako quarter, on the other side, are claiming that the Ugbedo ruling house, from within Ugbedokun family, is the only ruling house to provide a candidate for the Olugbe of Ugbe stool. That this claim of the Ugbedokun family finds support in the reply to a questionnaire from the District Officer in July, 1951, of which two of the signatories were from Oke-Aran quarter. That the Kirigbo and Ode-Okeawa families disowned the two signatories. That the Assistant Divisional Adviser, Mr. I. O. Ogun, carried out a referendum among the 108 tax payers in Ugbe with Ako quarter and Ugbedokun family favouring Ugbedo ruling house having 59 votes and Oke-Aran quarter, excluding Ugbedokun family favouring Okede and Ode-Oba ruling houses, having 49 votes. That the Assistant Divisional Adviser was not able to obtain any agreed evidence about the ruling house from which previous Olugbes had come, with Ugbedokun citing five previous holders, Ode-Oba citing two previous holders (including the immediate past Olugbe) and Okede citing one previous holder.
This was the confused state of the traditional history of the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy even in 1956 when the Divisional Officer, Owo, wrote Exhibit A1-A2 and attached Exhibits A3-A7, recommending that Babarinde Sarumo should be installed the Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko.
Of utmost importance are paragraphs 8 & 9 of Exhibit A1-A2, dealing with the recommendations of the Divisional Officer, Owo, which state thus; –

These two paragraphs are clear indications that there existed a Declaration, made by Isowopo Local Council which did not include Ugbedo family as a ruling house of the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy, at least, as at 1956 when Babarinde Sarumo was recommended for installation as the Olugbe of Ugbe in Exhibit A1-A2. It was als (sic) revealed also that the said Declaration made by the then Isowopo Local Council, encompassing the native law and custom of Ugbe on the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy, was flawed and thus unacceptable. It was during this process that Ugbedo family was then recommended for inclusion so as to join the already existing two ruling houses of Oke-de and Ode-Oba.
While one can say, to a large extent, that the facts stated in paragraph 14 of the amended statement of claim regarding the claimants’ claim of succession of their Ugbedo ruling house to the Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko Chieftaincy have, “to a large extent, been captured in paragraphs 1-5 of Exhibit A1-A2, as well as in Exhibits A3 & A4, the other twin barrel attack of the pleadings of the claimants as stated in paragraphs 15-17 of the amended statement of claim relating to the 1955 understanding which saw Babarinde Sarumo emerged as the Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko, has been captured also in the recommendations of the Divisional Officer, Owo, in paragraphs 7-9 of Exhibits A1-A2. The story-line in the claimants’ pleadings and Exhibits A1-A3 will appear to be that there was dispute over the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy with the emergence of one Ajiboye as the Olugbe, with the claimants refusing him recognition. After the death of Ajiboye, the dispute did not abate, as the claimants still continued the battle, insisting their Ugbedo family had exclusive preserve of the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy. According to the claimants, and this is the kernel of their case, the dispute was allegedly resolved when there was the understanding that their candidate, the 1st claimant, should step down for Babarinde Sarumo as the Olugbe of Ugbe and that the two existing ruling houses, should be increased to three so as to accommodate the Ugbedo family of the claimants. This is the purport of paragraph 17 of the amended statement of claim and in my own view, this can only mean that the Ugbedo ruling house was not yet a ruling house during the period in contention and was to have been included as a ruling house one based on the unwritten understanding, which saw Babarinde Sarumo emerged as the Olugbe of Ugbe. After all, by the purport of paragraph 17 of the amended statement of claim and paragraph 9 of Exhibit A1-A2, the Ugbedo family of the claimants was to be added to the two already existing ruling houses, and the then Declaration recommended to be amended to reflect this new arrangement. Thus, the case of the claimants, through their traditional history as pleaded in paragraph 14 of the amended statement of claim that Ugbedo family has exclusive right to the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy stool has been rubbished by the story in Exhibit A1-A2. One cannot claim to have an exclusive right and at the same time beg to be entitled to the right.
The case as presented by the claimants in paragraphs 17-19 of their amended statement of claim and on which evidence was led by the PW2 on the issue of the unwritten understanding arrived at in 1955 is that the said agreement was welcomed by all concerned. However, Exhibit A5, which is a letter, attached to Exhibits A1-A2, written by the people of Ugbe and dated 3rd December, 1956, to the Divisional Adviser, Owo, has revealed that there was no such mutually agreeable understanding in 1955 as being touted by the claimants. Exhibit A5 is a strongly worded letter complaining about the imposition of Babarinde Sarumo and disagreeing with the very terms of the understanding the claimants are making allusions to in their pleading before this Court and on which they are seeking to rely on for the grant of their claims.
The open threat in Exhibit A5 in its last paragraph is not lost as the writers stated clearly that; “Now therefore, we humbly beg your worship to warn the Isowopo Local Council and Mr. Babarinde Sarumo, to Restrain from performing the Installation ceremony; because, Mr. Babarinde Sarumo has no right to the Stool. Moreover, should the Isowopo Local Council and Mr. Babarinde Sarumo, fail to abide with this decision of Ugbe, and vindictively perform or carry out the ceremonies, anything can happen at any time.”
This has thus, negated the impression and the very basis of the case as made out by the claimants, especially in paragraph 17 of their amended. statement of claim, that the immediate past Olugbe (Babarinde Sarumo) was appointed the Olugbe of Ugbe and installed in 1956 on the understanding that the claimants’ Ugbedo family be made a Ruling house. Clearly, the claimants never agreed with the understanding of 1955 that Babarinde Sarumo should be made the Olugbe of Ugbe!
That was not all the claimants’ Ugbedo family did to show their discontentment and aversion to the alleged unwritten understanding [agreement of 1955 which they pleaded and which was referred to in Exhibit A1-A2. Exhibit A6, attached to Exhibits A1-A2, is a letter with reference No. OLA/10/56 written by Oladiran Olaitan Esq, solicitor to the Ugbedo family, forwarding some documents in an appeal case. This letter is dated 4th day of December, 1956. Also Exhibit A7, attached to Exhibit A1-A2, is a Notice of Appeal in the matter of the declaration of appointment of Babarinde Sarumo of Ugbe, filed by Ugbedo ruling house, challenging inter alia, the Declaration of Native Law and Custom made in respect of the Olugbe Chieftaincy on the 14th January, 1956, as well as the appointment of Babarinde Sarumo, who was not a member of the only ruling house- Ugbedo.
It can be seen that though, the claimants are seeking, in this present suit, to rely on the understanding/agreement allegedly arrived at in 1955, their actions as portrayed in Exhibits A5-A7, revealed that they hold the said agreement in contempt. To show his utter contempt for the said unwritten agreement, the PW2, under cross-examination by 3rd & 4th defendants’ counsel, insisted that there was only one ruling house in Ugbe before, but there are now two ruling houses as at today namely; – Ugbedo Ruling House and Kirigbo Ruling House. This is certainly not one of the terms of the understanding/agreement of 1955 being relied on by the claimants in this present suit.
Also under cross-examination, the PW2 stated that there was an understanding with the then Government that he would be made an Oba and his family would be included in the Ruling Houses. The PW2 must have read something else into the recommendation of Exhibit A1-A2 when he said the understanding was that he would be made an Oba. The purport of the said paragraph 9 of Exhibit A1-A2 is unambiguous as it stated inter alia that “… there is also equity in such a solution because the candidate being now put forward by the Ugbedo Ruling House. (Ilesanmi Ajayi) is a 14 year- old school-boy who in the normal course of event will obtain the title.” This, to my mind, does not translate to an automatic ticket for the 1st claimant to assume the throne on the demise of Babarinde Sarumo, since the procedure stipulate under the Chieftaincy Declaration would still have to be followed. Under cross-examination, the PW2 then admitted that he did not take any step in respect of the said understanding. I would like to agree with the PW2 in this regard that he actually did not take any step to actualize the said agreement/understanding of 1955 and the reason is very obvious. It can be seen from Exhibits A5-A7 that the Ugbedo family, to which the PW2 belongs, did everything possible against the manifestation and actualization of the agreement of 1955 and never bothered to see to its implementation. It is obvious that the Ugbedo family “waged war” against the implementation of the understanding throughout the period Babarinde Sarumo was on the throne as Olugbe of Ugbe and on his demise, they have suddenly woken up to realize there exists an understanding which would see them ascending the throne without much ado. This must probably be the reason why they closed their eyes to the 1961 Chieftaincy Declaration of the Olugbe of Ugbe, Exhibit K and its implication, only to wake up in 2012 to seek an amendment to the Amended Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration, 2007.
Not done, the PW2, under cross-examination stated that Government did not approve the recommendations in Exhibit A and that he was too young in 1956 when Exhibit A was issued. The patent falsehood in this can be seen when one considers the averment in paragraph 14(8) of the amended statement of claim and the evidence led on this in paragraph 8 of the additional testimonies of the PW1 & the PW2 that Babarinde Sarumo was the immediate past Olugbe of ugbe, who must have been installed following the recommendations in Exhibit A1-A2. This shows that the terms of the understanding/agreement of 1955 as stated in Exhibits A1-A2 and as averred in paragraphs 16 & 17 of the amended statement of claim were approved and implemented, at least as regards the installation of Babarinde Sarumo. One can even hazard a guess as to why Government failed to implement fully the terms of the agreement/understanding of 1955. With the impediment put in the way of the implementation of the said agreement by the filing of the Notice of Appeal in Exhibit A7 by the Ugbedo family of the claimants, it will amount to begging the question for the PW2 to pretend as if he did not know why the agreement was not fully implemented. It is safe to conclude that the claimants were against the implementation of the said agreement right from the onset and took steps to frustrate it. It is no doubt a surprise to now see the claimants falling over themselves in order to give vent to the contents of Exhibit A1-A2.
Though, the claimants tendered Exhibits A1-A7 to support their case, based principally on paragraph 17 of their amended statement of claim, Exhibits A5-A7 have revealed the contradictions and inconsistencies in the case as made out by the claimants especially as regards the traditional history dealing with whether Ajiboye ever reigned as Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko and whether the Ugbedo family was, ever a ruling house before the 1955 understanding,
The PW2 also tendered Exhibits B1-B2 & C1 & C4, which are letters dated 15th May, 2012, written by Gani Asiru Chambers, Solicitors to the claimants, addressed to the Chairman, Chieftaincy Committee, Akoko North East Local Government Area, Ikare-Akoko and The Hon. Commissioner, Ministry of Local Government & Chieftaincy Affairs, Akure, Ondo State, respectively. These letters are titled; “CALL FOR AMENDMENT OF THE OLUGBE OF UGBE CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION.”
The request contained in these letters is simply an appeal for the amendment of the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration by making the Ugbedo family a ruling house of Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy. Suffice it to say straightaway that these documents and the request contained therein have shown further the inconsistency in the case of the claimants, especially as regards their traditional history pleaded in paragraph 14 of the amended statement of claim and on which evidence was led by both the PW1 & the PW2, wherein they lay claim to Ugbedo being the only ruling house of the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy. What the claimants seem to be fighting for in Exhibit B is for the inclusion of Ugbedo family as a ruling house in the Amended Chieftaincy Declaration of the Olugbe of Ugbe 2007 and not the exclusion of the already recognized two ruling houses therein. It can be seen, both from the conflicting evidence as presented by the PW1 and the PW2 on the custom and tradition of Ugbe -Akoko and the unwritten agreement/understanding of 1955 based on Exhibits A1-A7, B & C, as regards whether the Ugbedo is a ruling house of the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy, that the claimants have not been able to satisfactorily established (sic) their claim by credible evidence.
In paragraph 13 of the amended statement of claim: it was averred thus: – “13 There is a Declaration of Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy which was made by Akoko North East Local Government Chieftaincy Committee of which the 4th defendant is the secretary and registered but not approved by the Executive Council or relevant authorities in 2007.” Evidence was led on this, in paragraph 7 of the original sworn written statement of PW2.
In paragraph 20 of the amended statement of claim it was also averred thus: – “20 Without conducting any inquiry into the relevant native law and custom for appointment of succession to Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy, the 2007 Declaration was made.”
Unfortunately, none of the claimants’ witnesses gave evidence on this fact as pleaded. but the PW2 tendered Exhibit B, which in its paragraph 4 reads thus:- “The Current Declaration was made and registered without consulting all the stake holders of Olugbe of Ugbe, thereby occasioning lack of fair hearing.”
The 1st & 2nd defendants, in paragraphs 5, 10-16 of their statement of claim (sic) denied paragraphs 13 & 20 of the amended statement of claim and stated that the Amended Chieftaincy Declaration of Olugbe of Ugbe, 2007 was registered after it was approved by the State Executive Council. Also that an inquiry was made into the relevant native law and custom of Ugbe before making the said Declaration following a letter written by the duo of Chief Olufemu Ugbedokun of Okearan quarter and Chief Alako of Ako Isa to the Department of Chieftaincy Affairs complaining that their respective families ought to be included in the list of kingmakers. That, as a result of this complaint: the Ondo State Government via a letter dated 23rd August, 2002, requested the Chieftaincy Committee of the Akoko North East Local Government to look into the complaint, if any, and make necessary recommendations. A similar complaint was also made by the then Olugbe of Ugbe, Oba Babarinde Saruma. That, having inquired into the validity of the complaint, the Chieftaincy Committee of the Akoko North East Local Government amended the said declaration and forwarded a draft to the Department of Local Government & Chieftaincy Affairs. That the complaint and amendment related only to the constitution of the kingmakers and had nothing to do with the number, names or order of rotation of the ruling houses. That the registered Chieftaincy Declaration of Olugbe of Ugbe-Akoko was therefore, amended in line with the recommendations of the Akoko North East Local Government Chieftaincy Committee.
Evidence was led on these facts through the DW1, Mrs. Julian Olumoye; a Principal Administrative Officer in the Department of Local Government & Chieftaincy Affairs: Akure, in paraqraphs 5, 10-18 of her sworn written statement. To Buttress her case, she tendered Exhibits E, F, G & H. Exhibit E is said the letter of complaint written by duo of Chief Olufemu of Ugbedokun and Chief Alako of Ako/Isa wherein they were complaining about the composition of the kingmakers and seeking the inclusion of their own names in the list of kingmakers. by removing two of the existing kingmakers. This letter, dated 10th August, 2002, was written through the Olugbe of Ugbe to the Permanent Secretary, Department of Chieftaincy Affairs, Akure. Exhibit F is a covering letter forwarding Exhibit E to the Chairman, Akoko North East Local Government Caretaker Committee, Ikare. Akoko, dated 23rd August. 2002. Exhibit G is the letter dated 3rd December. 2003 written by the then Olugbe of Ugbe, Oba Babarinde Saruma through the Chairman, Akoko North East Local Government Council, to the Permanent Secretary, Department of Chieftaincy Affairs, Akure, recommending the inclusion of the names of the two writers of Exhibit E as kingmakers. Exhibit H is the letter written by the Akoko North East Local Government Council to the Permanent Secretary. Department of Chieftaincy Affairs. Akure, forwarding Exhibit G. There is no doubt that parties have joined issues on this question of whether an inquiry was conducted before the said 2007 Amended Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration was made, approved and registered.
Apart from mere assertion, the claimants did not lead oral evidence on the facts pleaded on this issue in paragraph 20 of the amended statement of claim and the issue was almost being treated as an abandoned issue until one looks at paragraph 4 of Exhibit B, wherein it was also merely stated that the said declaration was made and registered without consulting the stakeholders.

Since the claimants are claiming that there was no inquiry conducted, it was for them to lead evidence on this through one or more of those they referred to as “stakeholders” to the Olugbe of Ugbe-Akoko Chieftaincy stool, who was sidelined.
Most importantly. it would be realized that the claimants are seeking mainly declaratory reliefs in this case. Out of the four (4) declarations sought by the claimants in paragraph 24 of the amended statement of claim, two (2) relate to the Amended Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007.

Consequent on the position of the law on declaratory reliefs, it behoves the claimants to strive hard to lead credible and satisfactory evidence to establish their entitlement to the declarations sought. In this particular instance, the claimants only made do with mere assertion without more.
To also disprove the case of the claimants in paragraph 13 of the amended statement of claim and on which evidence was led by the PW2 in paragraph 7 of his original sworn written statement verbatim, Exhibit J was tendered from the Bar by learned counsel for the 5th & 6th defendants: indicating that the said amended Declaration was approved by the State Executive Council. Faced with Exhibit J, the claimants kept their cool and allowed the matter to rest, in obvious agreement.
In his written address, Mr. K. M. Adeniyi. learned counsel for the 1st & 2nd defendants submitted in his issue No. 3 for determination thus;- (3) Whether the claimants’ action is not premature in view of the fact that they did not wait for the Executive Council to exercise its discretion with respect to their letter of complaint and request for amendment before instituting this action.
He referred to the dates Exhibits C1-C4 were filed and the date the claimants instituted this suit and submitted that the submission of the said letter marked the invocation of an administrative remedial procedure. He referred to Sections 4 & 6 of the Chiefs Law on the powers of the Executive Council in respect of amending an existing Declaration. He submitted that the claimants, having written Exhibits C1-C4, have to await the decision of the Executive Council on their request before instituting this present action. Unfortunately, learned counsel for the claimants did not favour this Court with his view on this issue.
It would be seen that Exhibits B1-B2 & C1-C4 are dated 15th of May, 2012, containing a request for the amendment of the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration by making the Ugbedo family a ruling house for the chieftaincy. The claimants ended the last but one paragraph of these letters by saying that:- “Our clients shall welcome an inquiry into this matter.” This present suit was filed by the claimants on 18th of June, 2012, which is about 34 days after Exhibits B1-B2 & C1-C4 were written, requesting for an inquiry into the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007.
Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Chiefs Law, Laws of Ondo State, Cap 27. Vol.1, 2006, provide for the powers of the Executive Council as regards Declarations, registration of approved Declarations and the purport of a registered Declaration. … On the purpose of a registered declaration, Musdapher JSC in Mafimisebi v. Ehuwa (2007) LPELR-1812(SC); (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt.1018) 385 has this to say;-

The tone of Exhibits B1-B2 & C1-C4 and the request in the 2nd paragraph is; – “Our instruction is to place a request before your honour the amendment of Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration by making the Ugbedo family a Ruling House for Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy.”
This presupposes that there is already in existence a registered Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration, which the Ugbedo family is seeking to now amend by their request in Exhibits B1-B2 & C1-C4. This fact was confirmed in these letters in the last three lines of the third paragraph thereof thus;- “The Current Declaration was made and registered without consulting all the stakeholders to Olugbe of Ugbe, chieftaincy thereby occasioning lack of fair hearing.” To further confirm that the Ugbedo family were certain of their request in the said letter. it was further stated in the last but one paragraph that:- “It is upon the above that our clients. the bonafide owner of the Olugbe Chieftaincy is now urging the State Executive Council vide your Honours in effecting amendment into the Chieftaincy Declaration to incorporate the Ugbedo family as a Ruling House of Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy. Our clients shall welcome an Inquiry into this matter.”

Having made a request through their solicitor to the Executive Council vide Exhibits B1-B2 & C1-C4, dated 15/05/2012, it is certainly premature and in bad faith for the claimants to rush to Court on 18/06/2012 to file this suit without waiting for the response to their said letters.
One can see that history is certainly playing itself out in this case and repeating itself, when one considers the fact that in 19562 during a similar dispute arising during the vacancy created in the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy by the death of Ajiboye, when the recommendations in Exhibits A1-A2 were made to resolve the issue, the claimants. instead of ensuring that they were implemented to the letter and ensuring the inclusion of their Ugbedo family in the Declaration made at that time, proceeded to issue threats against the installation of Babarinde Sarumo, as can be seen in their letter, Exhibit A5. That was not all the claimants did to frustrate the alleged understanding of 1955 and the recommendations in Exhibits A1-A2, which they are now laying claim to in this present case and seeking to benefit from. The claimants also proceed to file a Notice of Appeal as in Exhibit A7 engaging the services of a solicitor as can be seen in Exhibit A6. Unfortunately: the claimants did not favour this Court with the outcome of the appeal they lodged. One is therefore. not sure if they succeeded in their appeal or not. In this present situation. there is a vacancy now created by the passing away of Babarinde Sarumo, the then Olugbe of Ugbe. The claimants have written Exhibits B1-B2 & C1-C4 in protest, seeking an inquiry into the matter, but without awaiting the outcome of their said letter the claimants proceeded to this Court to file this present suit.
Section 19 (1) of the Chiefs Law of Ondo State, 2006, provides that;-
… See also Section 4 of the Chiefs Law of Ondo State on the powers exercisable by the Executive Council after the invocation of Section 19 of the Chiefs Law.

Following from the above decisions and with the powers conferred on the Executive Council b the clear provisions of Sections 4 & 19(1) of the Chiefs Law of Ondo State, it is not in doubt that the job of causing an inquiry to be made making a new Declaration or amending an existing one is squarely placed on the shoulders of the Executive Arm of Government and not on the judiciary. What the claimants have attempted to do in this instant case is to invoke the powers of the Executive Arm of Government to amend the existing Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration and at the same time approach this Court seeking to nullify the said existing Declaration and a pronouncement that by the applicable native law and custom of Ugbe Akoko, Ugbedo family is a ruling house and it is its turn to present a candidate for appointment as Olugbe of Ugbe. Asking the Executive Council to amend the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007 and at the same time praying this Court to set aside the same Declaration is certainly very unhealthy and may lead to confusion and ridicule. This should not be allowed to happen. Thus, having invoked the powers of the Executive Council under Section 19 of the Chiefs Law the claimants ought to await the decision on their request in Exhibits B1-B2 & C1-C4 and not peremptorily rush to file this present action in this Court. I should ordinarily not bother myself further on this matter but simply proceed to dismiss the claimants’ claim, but having gone this far, it is apposite to see the case to a logical, conclusion.
The question that arises now is whether or not the claimants have been able to prove that their Ugbedo family is a ruling house.
A combined reading of paragraph 17 of the amended statement of claim, the recommendation in paragraph 9 of Exhibits A1-A2 and paragraph 2 of Exhibits B1-B2 & C1-C4, shows the moves to include the Ugbedo family as one of the Ruling Houses of Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy. Exhibits A6 & A7 show the discontentment of the claimants’ Ugbedo family with the alleged understanding of 1955 pleaded in paragraph 17 of the amended statement of claim and referred to in paragraph 9 of Exhibits A1-A2. This discontentment. must have, no doubt, thwarted the inclusion of the Ugbedo family as one of the Ruling Houses of the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy and has led to the request of the claimants in the 2nd paragraph of Exhibits B1-B2 & C1-C4 for “the amendment of the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration by making the Ugbedo Family a Ruling House for Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy.” Clearly, the Ugbedo family is not included in the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007 as a ruling house and this has prompted the claimants, through their solicitor in Exhibits B1-B2 & C1-C4, to take steps to ensure its inclusion.
Learned counsel for the claimants tendered Exhibit D from the Bar. This is a letter written by the solicitor to the claimants, dated 08/03/2016t to the Senior Registrar of the Ikare High Court, requesting for a certified true copy of the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration annexed to the statement of defence of the 1st & 2nd defendants in this suit. Attached to this letter is a certified true copy, of the Amended Declaration made under Section 4(1) of the Chiefs Law, 1957 of the customary law regulating the selection of the Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko Chieftaincy. In this Declaration, there are two ruling houses recognized and these are, Okede and Ode-Oba. This Declaration is dated 20th July, 2007 and signed by both the Chairman and Secretary of the Akoko North East Local Government Chieftaincy Committee, and registered on 7th of August, 2007. The certification of this Document was done by one Mr. M. O. Lawal, of the Ikare High Court.
Learned counsel for the 1st & 2nd defendants Mr. K. M. Adeniyi, on the second issue raised for the determination of this case referred to the provision of Section 104 of the Evidence Act 2011 and submitted that Exhibit D tendered by the claimants’ counsel was not made in comparison with the original document by an authorized officer. He contended that Exhibit D emanated from the Registry of this Court and is a photocopy of the photocopy frontloaded by the 1st & 2nd defendants and not that which emanated from an officer in custody of the original document. He urged the Court to expunge the said document. Learned counsel for the 3rd & 4th defendants as well as that of the 5th & 6th defendants in their written addresses, also referred  to Section 104(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 and urged the Court to expunge Exhibit D from the record of this Court.
Section 104(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 states thus; –

On who has custody of a Chieftaincy Declaration, Section 5(1) of the Chiefs Law of Ondo State provides thus;- “…” The request in Exhibit D by the solicitor to the claimants is very clear and it was for the Senior Registrar II of the Ikare High Court to certify a copy of the Olugbe Chieftaincy Declaration annexed to the statement of defence of the 1st & 2nd defendants. What the solicitor to the claimants requested for was not a photocopy of the original, but a photocopy attached to the statement of defence of the 1st & 2nd defendants. Clearly, the Senior Registrar II of this Court is not such officer contemplated in Section 5 (1) of the Chiefs Law to have custody of declarations made by a committee approved by the Executive Council or that made by the Executive Council itself.
Consequently. Exhibit D, having not emanated from proper custody has been rendered inadmissible and ought not to have been admitted by this Court in the first place.
On the course open to a Court where inadmissible evidence has been admitted, Edozie JSC held thus in Durosaro v. Ayorinde (2005) LPELR-967 (SC) (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt.927)407: (2005) 3-4 S.C 14;- …
Regrettably, being a public document and having not emanated from proper custody, this Court will discountenance Exhibit D and it will not be considered or acted upon in this judgment.

The claimants in this present suit are seeking two principal reliefs. In reliefs Nos. 1-3 & 6 they are seeking a nullification of the Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007 and a restraining order barring the defendants from acting on it, while in reliefs 4 &5 they are seeking declarations that under the applicable native law and custom of Ugbe Akoko, the Ugbedo family is a ruling house and it is its turn to present a candidate for appointment as Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko.
Though, the claimants produced what they wanted to rely on as a certified true copy of the Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007 in Court and same was admitted in error as Exhibit D, having not emanated from proper custody, the fall out of this is that, there is no valid Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007 produced by the claimants and on which they are now seeking some declarations. Failure of the claimants to produce a certified true copy of the said Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007 in Court and from proper custody is fatal to their case in view of the declarations they are seeking in respect of the said Chieftaincy Declaration.

It is the duty imposed on the claimants who are seeking declaratory reliefs to produce sufficient evidence in Court in proof of their case. Having admitted that the Exhibit D is a public document, the arguments of learned counsel for the claimants in his written address invoking the provisions of Sections 122 and 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, are of no moment. Section 104 (1) of the Evidence Act. 2011 is very clear on what is expected of a person, such as the claimants, desirous of inspecting a public document. Such a person has to demand for a copy of such document from the public officer having custody of the document. This, the claimants, through their solicitor did, but their application was made to the wrong public officer. They cannot now turn round to lay the blame for this monumental slip at the door step of the defendants. It is not for the defendants to prove the case of the claimants for them.

In this instant case, the burden of producing and tendering the registered amended Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007 in Court is on the claimants, since they stand to lose if they fail to do so. In view of the failure of the claimants to tender a valid Olugbe of Ugbe Akoko Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007 from proper custody and on which their reliefs Nos. 1-3 & 6 are based, it will be wrong for this Court to hold that the claimants have discharged the burden of proof placed on them by law to entitle them to the grant of the declaratory reliefs sought.
In any case, assuming Exhibit D emanated from proper custody and can be acted upon by this Court in this suit, then, can this Court accede to reliefs 1-3 & 6 of the amended statement of claim?

There is no doubt from the above authority that once a registered chieftaincy declaration is produced in Court, the Court can proceed to interfere in cases of breach of fair hearing.
In paragraphs 19-21 of the amended statement of claim, it was averred thus;-

These three paragraphs are acknowledging the existence of two Declarations- Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 1957 and the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007, while also contending that the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007 was made without conducting an inquiry, thus an allegation of breach of fair hearing made. The PW2 in paragraphs 10, 13 & 15 of his original testimony testified that in 1957, the Isowopo Local Council made a Chieftaincy Declaration on Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy in which his family name was excluded. He also insisted that the 2007 Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration is not correct as it does not reflect the applicable native law and custom of Ugbe. It can be seen that the grouse of the claimants is not against the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 1957, but that of Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration made in 2007.
The said Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 1957 was tendered from the Bar by learned counsel for the 5th & 6th defendants without any objection from the claimants’ counsel and admitted in evidence as Exhibit K. Exhibit K was approved on the 3rd day of January, 1961 and registered on the 4th day of January, 1961. I really do not wish to comment too much on Exhibit K or embark on a comparison and evaluation of both Exhibits D & K in view of the fact of the pending request in Exhibits B1-B2 & C1-C4. As earlier pointed out, the amendment carried out on the 1961 declaration now leading to the 2007 declaration has nothing to do with the number of ruling houses in the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy, which remains at two-Ode Oba and Okede ruling houses. Suffice it to just say that there are two ruling houses mentioned in Exhibits D & K, excluding the Ugbedo family of the claimants.
Assuming this Court accedes to the request of the claimants by declaring the Amended Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 2007 null and void in view of the amendment made to the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961, which relates only to the names of the kingmakers and has nothing to do with the number of ruling houses, it stands to reason that recourse would still be made to the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961 in the filling of the vacancy in the Olugbe of Ugbe-Akoko Chieftaincy.
Consequent on the traditional history of the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy as pleaded and on which evidence was led by both the PW1 & the PW2, which said traditional history, is to say the least, very incoherent and unreliable, as well as facts contained in the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy Declaration, particularly Exhibit K, the claimants have not succeeded in proving that their family is one of the ruling houses in Ugbe Akoko.

In view of the above, I do see the need to consider extensively the case as put forward by the defence since the claimants have not succeed in proving their claim as required by law.
From all I have been saying above, the claimants’ reliance on their inconsistent pleadings and attempting to lead evidence thereon has in no small measure been fatal to their case, leading to manifest contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of their two witnesses and the averments in their amended statement of claim. The testimonies of the two witnesses for the claimants have been so discredited under rigorous cross-examination making them very unreliable. Though, the claimants pleaded traditional history in support of their claim to the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy, their testimonies and reliance on Exhibits A1-A7 as regards the understanding, of 1955 and steps taken by the claimants’ family thereafter, have made their case incredible and unreliable. I believe it is an exercise in futility to embark on a consideration of the case of the defence at this stage when the claimants are still groping in the dark and unable to present a credible case.

The claimants in this case failed woefully to establish by credible evidence the, native law and custom they rely on to support their entitlement to the Olugbe of Ugbe Chieftaincy. With the request in Exhibits B1-B2 & C1-C4 yet to be responded to and the claim in this present suit filed within 34 days of the submission of the request in the said Exhibits B1-B2 & C1-C4, it stands to reason that the claimants are being mischievous.
The claimants in this case are in paragraphs 24 of their amended statement of claim seeking six (6) reliefs, out of which five (5) are for declarations.

Taking into consideration the case as presented by the claimants through the PW1 & the PW2 and the contradictions/inconsistencies making the testimonies of the claimants’ witnesses unreliable and unbelievable; as well as the conflicts between the oral testimonies of the claimants’ witnesses and the documentary evidence, Exhibits A1-A4, it will be inequitable for this Court to grant the declaratory reliefs being sought by the claimants in this suit.
In the circumstances of this case, I hold that the claimants have not discharged the onus placed on them by law to entitle them to the reliefs/claims being sought. Accordingly, this suit is hereby dismissed for being premature and lacking in merit. I award N10,000.00 as cost in favour of the defendants.”

The portions of the judgment of the lower Court on appeal that have been set out above, have no doubt taken many pages of this judgment. Relevant portions of the said judgment have been re-produced to expose the reasoning of the lower Court in arriving at its various findings in the instant case in its judgment. The portions of the judgment of the lower Court in arriving at its conclusion that the Appellants’ case is premature in my considered view cannot be faulted. This is because the lower Court in coming to its conclusion in this regard, displayed a thorough and correct appreciation of the case of the Appellants having regard to the averments in their amended statement of claim and reliefs claimed therein. The reliefs sought by the Appellants in their case have been re-produced hereinbefore. The first of the 5 equitable reliefs in the nature of 4 declarations and an order for injunction sought by the Appellants, was for the lower Court to void the 2007 registered declaration in respect of the questioned chieftaincy because it is void as it is not in conformity with the provisions of the Chiefs Law before it was registered; the second of the reliefs is for the lower Court to declare the 2007 registered declaration as being contrary to the known native law and custom regulating the appointment or succession to the questioned chieftaincy; the third of the reliefs is for the lower Court to declare that the Ugbedo family is a ruling house in respect of the questioned chieftaincy going by the applicable native law and custom of Ugbe-Akoko; the fourth is for a declaration that the 1st Appellant is the person qualified to fill the vacancy in the questioned chieftaincy based on the previous agreement and under the native law and custom in Ugbe-Akoko and the fifth is for an order of injunction. The non-equitable relief sought by the Appellants is for the setting aside of the 2007 registered declaration in respect of the questioned chieftaincy. The Appellants’ case as conceived and presented (no matter how much they tried to conceal the same) is to have the lower Court set aside the 2007 registered declaration and for the said Court to find established by the Appellants another custom that goes to establish the Ugbedo family as a ruling house in respect of the questioned chieftaincy.

​The Appellants in setting up their case would appear not to realise that the Chiefs Law not only makes the customary law in respect of any chieftaincy to be as it is contained in a registered declaration in respect of any chieftaincy that has one applicable to it, to the exclusion of any other customary law; but that the said Chiefs Law in the knowledge that customary law in respect of any matter is dynamic and not unchangeable or not always rigid, made adequate provisions for the update as it were, of the customary law relating to a chieftaincy as contained in a registered declaration, by way of amendment or alteration of any such registered declaration where there is one in existence. In this regard see Section 6(1) of the Chiefs Law and the case of OYEFOLU V. DUROSINMI (2001) LPELR-2869(SC) wherein the Supreme Court dwelling on “the purpose of a registered chieftaincy declaration” amongst others stated thus:-
“Section 11 of the Obas and Chiefs Law of Lagos State, 1981 provides as follows:- “Where a declaration in respect of a recognized Chieftaincy is registered under this Section, the matters therein stated shall be deemed to be the customary law regulating the selection of a person to be the holder of the recognised chieftaincy to the exclusion of any other customary usage or rule”
It is thus plain that a registered Chieftaincy declaration such as Exhibit E is declaratory of the tradition, customary law and usages relating to the selection and appointment to a particular chieftaincy stool and obviates the necessity of proof by oral evidence of such tradition, custom and usages on each occasion that the issues arises for determination by the Courts. See Jeje Oladele and Others v. Oba Aromolaran II and Others (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 453) 180. As Muhammad, J.C.A. put it, and quite rightly, in my view:
“The purpose of a registered declaration is to embody in a legally binding written statement, the customary law of a particular area, setting out clearly the method regulating the nomination and selection of a candidate to fill a vacancy in the chieftaincy of that area. This is to avoid uncertainty in the customary law of the area”.

Accordingly the chieftaincy declaration, Exhibit E, is deemed to be the only customary law regulating the selection of a person to be the holder of the office of the Osolu of Irewe. The declaration derives its force and authority from the Obas and Chiefs of Lagos State Law, 1981 and, like any other existing law, is binding on all candidates who seek nomination and selection to fill a vacancy in the chieftaincy of the designated area. The learned trial Judge had no further duty to perform than to interpret and give effect to the provisions of the Chieftaincy declaration, Exhibit E, having regard to its clear and unambiguous meaning.”
See also the case of ADEKEYE V. ADESINA (2010) LPELR-103(SC) wherein the Supreme Court stated thus:-
“Exhibit “G2”, as has been stated, is the Registered Declaration of Oloyan of Oyan chieftaincy and it is settled law that where a declaration in respect of a recognized chieftaincy is validly made and registered, the matter or custom or native law and custom therein stated shall be deemed to be the customary law regulating the selection of a person to be the holder of the recognized chieftaincy to the exclusion of any other customary usage or rule or tradition.
The registered declaration is therefore a declaration of the tradition, customary law and usages pertaining to the selection and appointment to the particular chieftaincy stool/throne, it relates – see …
Where, therefore, there is a registered chieftaincy declaration, such as Exhibit “G2”, the duty of the Court generally is to apply the provisions of the chieftaincy declaration to the facts of the case as established by pleadings and evidence as the Court has no power to assume the functions of the chieftaincy committee as regards the making or amendment of customary law governing the selection and appointment of traditional chiefs – see …
It should, however, be noted that the Court can set aside a chieftaincy declaration under certain circumstances such as where a registered declaration is proved to be contrary to the customs and traditions of the people. In the case of Mafimisebi v. Ehuwa (2007) 2 NWLR (pt.1018) 385 at 431, I had these to say:
“l hold the view that the claims as couched – being declaratory in nature are within the jurisdiction or competence of the Court to grant if there are facts to support same. The Court is not being called upon to make a chieftaincy declaration for the people, neither is it to amend the existing declaration. I hold the considered view that just as the Court has the vires to declare or set aside a registered declaration found to be unconstitutional or contrary to the provisions of any Act or Law including the Chieftaincy Law under which it was made, the Court equally has the competence to declare same null and void when from the evidence, it is clear that the said declaration does not truly represent the customary law it professes to restate”.
Though the above remains the law, for the Court to intervene, relevant facts must be pleaded and evidence adduced thereon to the satisfaction of the Court because the law is that customary law being a matter of fact must be proved by calling evidence unless frequent proof of same has made it to attain the legal status of notoriety so as to be judicially noticed – see … “

That the regard the law has for a registered declaration applicable to a chieftaincy where one exists, is so great or sacrosanct, is shown by the settled position of the law to the effect that even if a recognized chieftaincy is de-recognized to the status of a minor chieftaincy (which is when the Chiefs Law under its Part II allows for customary law in respect of the said minor chieftaincy to be proved), the customary law as contained in the registered declaration applicable to the chieftaincy in question when it was a recognized chieftaincy, continues to apply to the said chieftaincy upon becoming a minor chieftaincy. In this regard see the case of OGUNDARE V. OGUNLOWO (1997) LPELR-2326(SC) wherein the Supreme Court dwelling on “whether the reduction in the rank of a recognised chieftaincy in respect of which a declaration exist changes the customary law as contained in the declaration” stated thus: –
“It was also erroneous for the plaintiffs/appellants to lead evidence of Native law and custom regulating the Baale of Isundunrin Chieftaincy outside the Chieftaincy Declaration of 1958 (Exhibit “D”) which contains a legally binding written statement of the customary law regulating the selection and appointment of a candidate when a vacancy occurs. It must be restated that where a declaration exists in respect of a recognised chieftaincy, the reduction in rank of that chieftaincy to a minor one does not change the customary law as contained in the declaration relating to entitlement, selection and appointment to it. The provisions of such a Declaration should prevail until it is amended. See: …”

​The lower Court in its judgment clearly brought to the fore the fact that the Appellants who had the burden of placing before the said Court the 2007 registered declaration they wanted it to set aside, not only did not do this (as the CTC of the declaration they tendered and admitted as Exhibit D was expunged in its judgment), but also having evaluated Exhibits C1-C4, tendered by the Appellants themselves, saw through the case of the Appellants as being one to achieve their desire to have the 2007 registered declaration amended to include the Ugbedo family, could not have come to any other conclusion than that the Appellants’ action was premature when they did not wait for the outcome of the move they had voluntarily set into motion to have the said 2007 registered declaration amended to include their aforementioned family – Ugbedo family. This is moreso as the said Court further demonstrated that the objective of the Appellants was no different from advancing and giving effect to the agreement that was in existence and made in 1955 and which the Appellants’ relief 5 is about. In any event, I cannot but note that the arguments of the Appellant as to whether or not the lower Court was right in holding that their action was premature cannot be said to be predicated on ground 4 in the notice of appeal. The said ground clearly does not or did not challenge the correctness of the finding of the lower Court that the Appellants’ case was premature. It simply questions the correctness of the order made by the said Court to wit: that the lower Court was wrong in dismissing their case having found that it was premature instead of striking out the said case. What the Appellants have therefore succeeded in doing is that arguments the Appellants have canvassed on their issue 3 are to all intents and purposes at variance with the said issue 3 they distilled from ground 4 in question; and which issue 3 in any case glaringly does not flow from ground 4 in the amended notice of appeal.

Without more, I cannot but resolve issue 3 against the Appellants in the light of all that has been stated hereinbefore.

​Appellants’ issue 4 in my considered view requires no elaborate consideration having regard to the very detailed analysis of the case of the said Appellants as undertaken by the lower Court in its judgment. In the said judgment, the lower Court made definitive findings that the Appellants set up parallel cases, did not place before it a proper CTC of the 2007 registered declaration which they wanted it (lower Court) to set aside, and that even if the 2007 registered declaration was set aside, the customary law relating to the questioned chieftaincy will remain the 1957 declaration that was registered in 1961. Surely, it would appear evident that the Appellants who never appealed the finding of the lower Court expunging the CTC of the 2007 registered declaration (i.e. Exhibit D) on the ground that it did not emanate from proper custody; apparently did not appreciate the effect which the expungement of the said Exhibit has on their case, particularly as they never appealed against the same. This is because it is settled law that a Court cannot set aside a document which has not been placed before it. See the case of ONYEKWULUJE V. BENUE STATE GOVT (2015) LPELR-24780(SC) wherein the Supreme Court stated thus:-
“On the importance of exhibiting the proceedings of the inferior tribunal sought to be quashed, this Court in the case of Zamani Lekwot v. Judicial Tribunal on Civil and Communal Disturbances in Kaduna State & Anor. (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 515) 22 at 34 E-F; 35 E-F and 36 B-D held thus: Per Kutigi, JSC (as he then was) at page 34 E-F: “No Court would make an order setting aside or nullifying proceedings or judgments on which it has never set its eyes! I think mere affidavit verifying the facts would to my mind be insufficient. And I so hold.” Per Belgore, JSC (as he then was) at page 35 E-F: “No Court in this country can set aside, nullify or quash any proceedings or decisions not before it. Courts rely on concrete facts before them and not on guess-work and to ask a Court to make a decision on guess-work and matters not exhibited before it is unjust and can, depending on the circumstances of the case, amount to an abuse of Court process.”

​Guided by the above cited decision, and the Appellants having not appealed against the expungement of the 2007 registered declaration which they tendered, there was absolutely no ground or basis upon which the lower Court could have granted the first and in my considered view the main declaration they sought in their action; and as well as the order seeking for the setting aside of the said declaration. The corollary of the foregoing, is that whether or not the lower Court could have resorted to the 1961 registered declaration in respect of the questioned chieftaincy, it is the 2007 registered declaration that continues to subsist. Therefore, inasmuch as this is the case, the lower Court cannot by law and relying on any native law and custom outside the 2007 registered declaration in granting any of the other declarations and order of injunction the Appellants sought in their action.

Flowing from all that has been said hereinbefore, is that the Appellants have failed to demonstrate to this Court, why the Court should interfere with the findings of the lower Court dismissing their claims. This is more so as the settled position of the law is to the effect that where a plaintiff/counterclaimant as the case may be fails to establish by evidence his claims, the same having been heard on the merits, the proper order the Court is to make is one dismissing the case of the said party. See in this regard the cases of ONWUCHEKWA V. EZOGU (2009) LPELR-8267(SC) and EKE V. OKWARANYIA (2001) LPELR-1074(SC). Consequently, Appellants’ issue 4 is resolved against them. Having also stated hereinbefore that the other issues formulated by the Appellants for the determination of the appeal are sufficiently covered by the aforementioned issues 3 and 4, and which issues have been resolved against the Appellants before now, the said other issues, namely issues 1 and 2 are also resolved against the said Appellants without much ado.

In the final analysis, and given the resolution of the 4 issues formulated for the determination of the appeal against the Appellants, this appeal is hereby held to be unmeritorious and is dismissed. The judgment of the lower Court in Suit No. HIK/9/2012 delivered on 11/7/2016, is hereby affirmed.

Costs of N200,000.00 is awarded in favour of the 3rd and 4th as well as the 5th and 6th Respondents, jointly.

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading before now, the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, Ayobode Olujimi Lokulo-Sodipe, JCA. His Lordship has ably considered and resolved the issues in contention in the appeal. I agree with the reasoning and abide the conclusion reached therein. I am not inclined to add to the deliberations.

YUSUF ALHAJI BASHIR, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft, the leading judgment prepared and delivered by my learned brother Ayobode O. Lokulo-Sodipe JCA.

​His Lordship has ably resolved all the issues in this appeal admirably well and I find no need to add anything whatsoever.

​I agree with my learned brother that this appeal has no merit. It is therefore hereby dismissed with a cost of N200,000.00.

Appearances:

F. Omotoso, SAN, with him, E. O. Odusola, For Appellant(s)

Hearing Notice served on the 1st and 2nd Respondents on 9/5/2022 by delivery to the Ministry of Justice; but are absent

Olumide Ogidan, – for 3rd and 4th Respondents

Omosola Odusola, with him, Femi Agara, – for 5th and 6th Respondent For Respondent(s)