HRH OBA AYODELE ADETUNJI AJAYI & ANOR v. PASTOR Z. AKINDAHUNSI & ORS
(2019)LCN/13452(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 10th day of June, 2019
CA/EK/74/2018
RATIO
WORDS AND MEANING: VAGUE
In Nuhu v. Ogele (2003)LPELR-2077 (SC) Pats- Acholonu JSC (as he then was held that
Term vague connotes something woolly, equivocal, a state of affairs that does not land itself easily to comprehension, something blurry and nebulous, uncertain or shadowy.
Also BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 9th Ed at page 1689 where vague is defined as “imprecise, not sharply outlined, uncertain.PER PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: DEFINTION
Jurisdiction is the authority to determine disputes between the parties. See AG Federation v. AG Abia State (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 379) 1218, SLB Consortium Ltd v. NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt 1252) 317, Gafar v. Govt of Kwara State (2007) ALL NLR (Pt 360 1415.
For a Court to have jurisdiction over a particular matter, certain features must be present. They are
(i) The Court is properly constituted as regards members and qualification.
(ii) The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction and
(iii) The case comes before the Court by due process of law and upon fulfilment of any condition. Precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1966) Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6.PER PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.
THE HIGH COURTS HAS THE DUTY TO DETERMINE CHIEFTANCY DISPUTES
By the provisions of Section 6 (6) (b) and Section 272 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the High Court of Justice of Ekiti State has the jurisdiction to determine Chieftaincy disputes whether minor or otherwise. See Adeola v. Ayeoba (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt 458) 355 and Otapo v. Sunmonu (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt 58) 587, Adegbenro v. Akintilo (2009) 11 NMLR 335.PER PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS MUST BE CERTIFIED BEFORE THEY CAN BE ACCEPTED IN COURT
The above provisions was interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Tabik Investment Ltd v. GTB PLC (2011) ALL FWLR (PT 602) 1592 amongst other cases where it was stated thus
Before a public document can be tendered and accepted by the Court, it must be certified. A public documents is certified if
(a) It was paid for
(b) There is an endorsement/Certificate that it is a true copy of the document in question
(c) The endorsement/certificate must be dated and signed by the officer responsible for certification, with his name and official title.”PER PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.
THE COURT CANNOT ACT ON LEGALLY INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
It is that the Court is not permitted in any event to admit and act on legally inadmissible evidence, if such evidence has been admitted even by over-ruling an objection to its admission, the Court must reject same when giving its final judgment even if that amounts to over-ruling itself to do so. See also Olukade v. Alade (1976) 1 ALL NLR (Pt 1) 67, Ayanwale v. Atanda (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt 68) 22, Sadhwani V. Sadhwani Nig Ltd (1989) 2 NWLR (pt 101) 72, Agbaje v. Adigun (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt 269) 261 per Uwaifo JSC.”PER PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.
Appearances
T.M. Ogunmoroti Esq. with him T. Kolawole and S. OyebanjiFor Appellant
AND
Gbenga Ojo Esq. for 1st-3rd Respondent/Appellant
O.O. Akinlabi ACLO for 4th-6th Respondent.For Respondent
JUSTICES
UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PAUL OBI ELECHI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. HRH OBA AYODELE ADETUNJI AJAYI
(The Arinjale of Ise Ekiti)
2. MR. SALIU BOLARINWA LAWAL Appellant(s)
AND
1. PASTOR Z. AKINDAHUNSI
2. CHIEF (MRS) FELICIA EKUNDAYO
3. HON. OMOEJI JOSHUA AKINWUMI
(For themselves and on behalf of Obaji Odo
Chieftaincy family Ise Ekiti.
4. ISE-ORUN LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
5. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF EKITI STATE
6. MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVT. & CHIEFTAINCY AFFAIRS. Respondent(s)
PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the final judgment of the High Court of Ekiti State Holden at Ise Ekiti presided over by Honourable Justice A. Adeosun. The judgment was delivered on the 7th May, 2018. The Court granted in part the reliefs sought by the claimant/respondent. Reliefs 2,3 and 4. That the 2nd Appellant is not a bonafide member of Obaji-Odo Chieftaincy family of Ise Ekiti and therefore not eligible to contest for the vacant throne of Obaji-Odo of Ise Ekiti and set aside the appointment. Relief 6 the recognition of the 3rd respondent was refused. The Court held that the 3rd respondent was validly appointed but the process was aborted between Ejelu and Iare, the two other organs involved in the appointment of the Obaji Chieftaincy. The Court ordered for fresh nomination. Relief 7 the refund of the salaries and emoluments collected by the 2nd Appellant during his illegal reign as Obaji- Odo was refused. Relief 8 injunction against the 2nd Appellant was granted while relief 9 on the solicitors fee was also refused. Expectedly the 1st and 2nd defendants were not satisfied with the
1
judgment and filed a Notice of Appeal dated 11th May, 2018. By an application dated 6th December, 2018, the Appellants sought for leave to file additional 7 grounds of Appeal. The leave was granted on the 22nd January, 2019.
FACTS OF THE CASE.
By a writ of summons/statement of claim dated 25th June 2016 and filed on the 29th June 2016, the 1st-3rd Respondents sought the following reliefs against the Appellant and 4th -6th Respondents.
(1) Declaration that under the native laws and custom of Ise Ekiti, the entitlement to position of Obaji Odo Chieftaincy title is exclusive prerogative of full blood male children of the Chieftaincy family.
(2) Declaration that the 2nd Defendant is not bonafide member of Obaji Odo Chieftaincy of Ise Ekiti and not qualified to be Obaji Odo of Ise Ekiti.
(3) Declaration that the appointment of the 2nd Defendant by the 1st Defendant as the Obaji Odo of Obaji Chieftaincy family is contrary to the native laws and customs of the Obaji Odo Chieftaincy and therefore null and void.
(4) An order of the Court setting aside the appointment of the 2nd Defendant by the 1st Defendant as the Obaji Odo
2
of Ise Ekiti.
(5) Declaration that the nomination of the 3rd Claimant as the Obaji Odo by the Obaji Odo Chieftaincy family is valid.
(6) An order of the Court directing the 1st Defendant in consonance with the native law and customs of Ise Ekiti on appointment of Obaji Odo to recognise/appoint the 3rd Claimant as the Obaji Odo of Ise- Ekiti State.
(7) An Order of the Court compelling the 2nd Defendant to give an account of all the salaries monies collected from the 3rd Defendant and tender same to the 2nd Claimants, the regent performing the duties of Obaji Odo until the appointment or confirmation of Claimant, the rightful Obaji Odo of Ise Ekiti.
(8) Injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant from parading himself as the Obaji Odo of Ise Ekiti.
(9) Solicitors fees and cost of the action.”
Judgment was delivered by the lower Court on 7/5/18 granting the claim of the 1st -3rd Respondent in part. Dissatisfied, the Appellants filed a notice of appeal against part of the said judgment on 14/5/18 not favourable to them.
Dissatisfied as well the 1st -3rd Cross-Appellants appealed against part of the said judgment not
3
favourable to them.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION.
(1) Whether the Honourable Court has jurisdiction to grant relief 2 being a vague claim and the anxilliary relief to the said relief 2 to wit; reliefs 3, 4 and 8 of the 1st -3rd Respondents.
Grounds 5 and 9
(2) Whether exhibit 10 was admitted in error and its expulsion from the record has not occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
Ground 4
(3) Whether from the pleadings and available evidence on record, the 1st -3rd Respondents proved their case as to entitle them to the reliefs granted or awarded to them by the learned trial judge.
Grounds 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10
UNDER ISSUE NO 1
Mr Taiwo Ogunmoroti, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted right away that a Court of law has no jurisdiction to grant a vague relief as shown thereto, and relied onWema Bank PLC V. Osilaru (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1094) 150 at 174.
He referred the Court to relief 2 of the 1st-3rd Respondents as contained in the writ of summons and statement of claim filed on 29th June 2016 which is as follows;
Declaration that the 2nd Defendant is not a bonafied member of Obaji
4
Odo Chieftaincy of Ise Ekiti and not qualified to be Obaji ?Odo of ISE Ekiti, Ekiti State.
It is contended that the expression or phrase “member of Obaji Odo Chieftaincy” as appeared in relief 2 of the 1st-3rd Respondents in their writ of summons and statement of claim filed on 29th June 2016 is unknown to law and jurisprudence. Because, what a person can legally be or claim to is a member of a chieftaincy family and not a member of a chieftaincy. No doubt, relief 2 is a vague relief and claim paraded by the 1st-3rd Respondents which was erroneously granted by the learned trial judge whereas, the lower Court has no jurisdiction to grant same. He urged the Court to declare relief 2 as a vague relief and strike same out for want of jurisdiction. Therefore once the Court to holds that relief 2 is a vague claim then It is safe to say and argue that there is no relief whatsoever on the membership family status of the 2nd Appellant meaning that the 2nd Appellant is a bonafide member of Obaji Odo Chieftaincy family of Ise Ekiti. In any case, a person challenging the family status of a person has presumably admitted
5
or agreed that he is a member of that family so, the 2nd Appellant is a member of the Obaji Odo Chieftaincy family. See Prince James Aladesiun v. Samuel Fadahunsi & Ors (2013) LPELR 21852 (CA).
The complaint in reliefs 3 and 4 are that
(a) The appointment of the 2nd Appellant is contrary to native law and custom of Obaji Odo Chieftaincy and
(b) To set aside the said appointment. It is contended that the native law and custom being paraded by the 1st-3rd Respondents is that a non-member of the Obaji Odo family can not be appointed as the Obaji Odo. All these are contained in paragraphs 8 and 10 of the adopted written deposition of the 1st Respondent (CW3) on page 12 of the record of appeal.
The Court is urged to strike out relief 2 which is the foundation of 1st -3rd Respondent?s claim for being vague, reliefs 3 and 4 can no longer stand because they are adventitious or anxilliary to relief 2.
?Having prayed the Court to strike out relief 2 which is the foundation of 1st -3rd Respondents? claim for being vague, reliefs 3 and 4 can no longer stand because they are adventitious or anxilliary to relief 2. In effect, relief
6
2 is the main claim to reliefs 3, 4 and 8 which relief has collapsed for being vague. Once a Court has no jurisdiction over a substantive or main claim, the same Court will have no jurisdiction over the anxilliary claim. Since reliefs 3, 4 and 8 are anxilliary to relief 2 they can only both rise together or fall together.
The Honourable Court is urged to allow the appeal and strike our reliefs, 2, 3, 4 and 8 for want of jurisdiction. See Oyewole v. Lasisi (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt. 687) p 342, 354 C-D. This is so because a Court is not a Father Christmas and cannot give to a party what he has not asked for. The 1st -3rd Respondents have not asked for a declaration that the 2nd Appellant is not a bonafide member of the Oba ?Ojo Chieftaincy family but that was what was wrongly granted to them by the lower Court but curiously on page 426 of the record appeal the lower Court held as follows;
I therefore hold that the 2nd Defendant is not a bonafide member of Omo Ile Obaji ?Odo Family of Ise Ekiti. He is therefore not eligible to contest for the vacant throne of Obaji Odo of Ise Ekiti”.
However assuming relief 2 was
7
correctly drafted or prayed for or that the relief is about being member of Obaji ?Odo Chieftaincy family. And so the holding of the learned trial judge on page 426 of the record of appeal quoted above is contrary to relief 2 because the holding talks of Omoile Obaji Odo family while relief 2 says members of Obaji Odo Chieftaincy
CW2 Pastor Zachaeus Ojo Akindahunsi 1st- 3rd Respondents attempted to differentiate the two when he said under cross-examination on page 354 of the record of appeal as follows;
There is a difference between Omoile Obaji who
