JAIYEOLA & ORS v. OLANIYI & ORS (2022)

JAIYEOLA & ORS v. OLANIYI & ORS

(2022)LCN/16929(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, January 21, 2022

CA/AK/199/2017

Before Our Lordships:

Rita Nosakhare Pemu Justice of the Court of Appeal

James Gambo Abundaga Justice of the Court of Appeal

Yusuf Alhaji Bashir Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. MR. OMOBOYEDE JAIYEOLA (For And On Behalf Of Oyerin Ruling House). 2. MR. GBADEGASIN JAIYEOLA (For And On Behalf Of Oyerin Ruling House). 3. OLADOSU OYELAMI (For And On Behalf Of Akinrinola Ruling House). 4. AYOOLA OJEWOLE (For And On Behalf Of Akinrinola Ruling House) APPELANT(S)

And

1. SULE OLANIYI (For Themselves And On Behalf Of Oniwepe Ruling House To Baale Of Ato Chieftaincy). 2. JIMOH MUSTAPHA 3. THE GOVERNOR OF OSUN STATE. 4. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OSUN STATE 5. OBA O. O. OYESOSIN II 6. THE CHAIRMAN EJIGBO LOCAL GOVERNMENT 7. MOSES SANGOLEKE OTUN BALOGUN RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

THE IMPLICATION OF LAW WHERE A DECLARATION HAS BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF RECOGNIZED CHIEFTAINCY AND REGISTERED

The law is very clear that where a declaration has been made in respect of a recognized chieftaincy and registered, it represents the applicable customary law regulating the selection and appointment of a candidate to a vacant chieftaincy stool. The provision of such a registered declaration should prevail until amended. See OGUNDARE V OGUNLOWO (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 509) 360 and FASADE & ORS VS BABALOLA & ANOR (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt. 830) 26. LPELR–1243 SC. In the case of ADEKEYE & ORS V ADESINA & OR (2010) LPELR–103 SC it was held that where a declaration is made in respect of a recognized chieftaincy and registered, the matter of custom or native law therein stated shall be deemed to be the customary law regulating the selection of a person to be the holder of the chieftaincy to the exclusion of any customary usage or rule or tradition. The registered declaration is therefore a declaration of the customary law and usages pertaining to the selection and appointment to the particular stool it relates. PER BASHIR, JC.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE REDUCTION IN THE STATUS OF A CHIEFTAINCY TO A MINOR RANK CAN CHANGE THE CUSTOMARY LAW RELATING TO IT

In essence, the reduction in the status of the chieftaincy to a minor rank will not change the customary law relating to it. It remains the same as provided in the declaration irrespective of the status later accorded the chieftaincy by the Government. Although, the learned Appellants’ counsel has sought to distinguish this case with the case of OLADELE V AROMOLARAN II (supra) but rather unsuccessful because the two cases simply addressed the same issue which is the reduction of status of a recognized chieftaincy to a minor stool. The decision of the Supreme Court must be applied.
This therefore obviates the necessity to lead evidence on the custom and tradition for the selection and appointment of a new chief as the provision of the 1958 Declaration is still efficacious and applicable notwithstanding the derecognition of the chieftaincy. PER BASHIR, JC.A.

WHETHER OR NOT JUDGEMENT SET ASIDE CAN BE APPEALED AGAINST

YUSUF ALHAJI BASHIR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the decision of the Osun State High Court Coram J. O. Ogunleye J, delivered on the 24th day of April, 2017 wherein the Court granted the following reliefs in favour of the Respondents as per their further amended statement of claim dated 5th February, 2013 and filed on 7th February, 2013 thus:
(1) I hereby declare that the Chieftaincy Declaration to the Baale of Aato registered on 13th day of August, 1958, is the subsisting Declaration of the custom of Aato people regulating the selection and appointment of the Baale of Aato in Ejigbo Local Government.
(2) I hereby declare that on the death of Oba Sunmonu Jaiyeola on 14th May, 1990, the next ruling house from which a candidate is to be selected and appointed is the ONIWEPE Ruling House whose right immediately vested.
(3) I hereby declare that the letter dated 8th May, 1996, Ref. No. CD8/13/T/63 from the office of the 1st and 2nd Defendants to the 3rd Defendant directing that a new Baale of Aato be appointed in accordance with the Native Law and Custom and not according to the existing registered Declaration is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.
(4) I hereby direct that the new Baale of Aato be selected and appointed in accordance with the existing registered Declaration of August 13, 1958.
(5) I hereby grant an Order of perpetual injunction restraining all the Defendants from selecting, appointing and approving any candidate other than that from ONIWEE Ruling House in accordance with the said 1958 Registered Declaration.
(6) I hereby grant an order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st to 5th Defendants from carrying out the directive of the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the said letter which is directed to the detriment of the Claimants.

Being dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellants who were the 6th to 9th Defendants at the Court of trial filed a notice of appeal contained at pages 834–839 of the Record of Appeal, which was transmitted on 18th August 2017.

In the Appellants’ brief of argument settled by Olugbemga E. Ogunniran Esq. two issues were formulated for determination. Thus:
(1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have found and held that the plaintiffs have proved their case and rely on facts contained in Exhibit 1 in HEJ/9/2013 when the facts contained in the exhibit were not pleaded or established the genealogy of the plaintiffs and their entitlement to the Alaato or Baale of Ato Chieftaincy Stool? (Distilled from Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the Notice of Appeal).
(2) Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have found and held that the judgment of the Oyo State High Court sitting at Ogomosho in Suit NO. HOG/6/89 per Aderemi J. has overtaken the content of Exhibit 2 and whittles down the effect of the recognized Chieftaincies (Revocation and Miscellaneous) Order 1976. (Distilled from Grounds 4 and 5 of the Notice of Appeal).

Chief Bayo Lawal, M. O. Aderonmu Esq. and M. A. Lateef settled and filed the 1st, 2nd and 5th Respondents’ brief of argument on the 26th February, 2019. Counsel formulated a lone issue for determination which goes thus:-
“Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have relied on Exhibit 1 as a valid and subsisting chieftaincy declaration which ought to govern the ruling house entitled to select a candidate to the vacant stool of Alaato”.

Lastly, the Appellants filed reply a brief to the 1st, 2nd and 5th Respondents filed on the 9th day of April, 2019.

Arguing the appeal, Appellants’ counsel submits that the learned trial Judge erred in law when he relied on the contents of Exhibit 1 in HEJ/9/2013 on the strength of the case of UZODINMA V IZUNASO (No. 2) (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1275) 30 without considering the pleadings of the parties in the suit. That it is settled that pleadings determine the issues on which the Court will adjudicate. Evidence at variance with pleadings goes to no issue. That the plaintiffs at the Court of trial did not plead Exhibit 1 in HEJ/9/2013. Counsel cited OKORO V DAKOLO (2006) LPELR – 2461 (SC) and many other cases.

Counsel further submitted that even though they did not object to the admissibility of Exhibit 1 in HEJ/9/2013 that did not make the contents of the document uncontroverted as the Court does not have the power to admit document not admissible in evidence, and where the document is admitted inadvertently, as in this case, the Court has obligation to exclude the document in its judgment which the learned trial Judge failed to do.

Counsel further argued that the trial Judge rather regarded the content of Exhibit 1 in HEJ/9/2013 as beacon light to the custom and tradition of Aato as it relates to the chieftaincy of Alaato. That the chieftaincy declaration cannot be regarded as evidence in proof of the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Oniwepe entitlement to the Alaato or Baale of Aato stool. The question of entitlement to a chieftaincy stool is a question of customary law which must be proved. The learned Judge, counsel further submitted, heavily relied on the chieftaincy declaration which provides that there are four (4) Ruling Houses as the proof of entitlement whereas the Appellants contended in their pleadings that there are three (3) Ruling Houses. So in order to resolve this issue, the learned trial Judge cannot rely on the chieftaincy declaration in issue to find for the Respondents. The duty of the Court is to determine the prevailing customary law in order to determine whether the Oniwepe family is entitled to the throne of Alaato. After all that declaration was not accepted as the custom of the people by the Appellants. See ESUWOYE V BOSERE & ORS (2016) 7 MJSC (Pt. 1) 76.

Counsel concluded that there is need to lead traditional evidence in order to resolve the question. The Appellants’ counsel urged us to resolve this issue in his favour.

ISSUE NO. TWO
The learned counsel to the Appellants argued that the learned trial Judge erred in finding that the judgment of the Oyo State High Court Ogbomosho in Suit No. HOG/6/89 Exhibit 2 has overtaken and whittled down the effect of the recognized Chieftaincies (Revocation and Miscellaneous) Order 1976 as the effect of the revocation order is to make provision of Part 2 of the Chiefs Law not to be applicable to the chieftaincies not listed in the order. And the Alaato or Baale of Aato is not listed whereas the judgment of the Oyo State High Court Ogbomosho relates to the proceedings of the commission of inquiry of 18th and 25th January, 1986 and does not have anything to do with the application of Part 2 of the Chiefs Law.

Counsel further submitted that with the Recognized Chieftaincies (Revocation and Miscellaneous) Order 1976, the Alaato or Baale of Aato chieftaincy became a minor chieftaincy and the provision of Part 2 of the law ceased to be applicable to the Alaato chieftaincy in particular the presumption in favour of chieftaincy declaration ceased to be applicable. Any proof will now be in accordance with Section 22 of the Chiefs Law.

Counsel agreed that there is a judgment from the High Court of Oyo State sitting at Ogbomosho Suit No. HOG/6/86 which they did not appeal against, but the fact that the judgment is not appealed against does not make the judgment still alive and breathing as the commission of iniquity to which the declaration of Court relates ceased to be in existence as such the judgment relating to it’s proceedings cannot be alive.

The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the trial Court was in error when it found that the Alato or Baale of Aato chieftaincy declaration is not listed on the revocation. The Court failed to consider the effect of the revocation which clearly states that Part 2 of the Chiefs Law will no longer be conclusive proof of the customary law in relation to Baale or Alaato or Aato chieftaincy as Section 9 of the Chiefs Law which made the content of the Chieftaincy Declaration to be conclusive proof is no longer applicable. Now the status of only 3 Ruling Houses should be reverted. The Respondents as Plaintiffs counsel submit is bound to lead evidence in proof of the prevailing traditional law. See ALESE V ALADETUYI (1995) 7 SCNJ 40 at 48.

The counsel further submitted that the judgment of the Oyo State High Court Ogbomosho has not whittled down the effect of the Revocation Order 1976. That the chieftaincy declaration cannot suffice as evidence of customary law without facts being pleaded in relation to the conformity of the declaration to the customary law it professes to codify. The chieftaincy declaration was not accepted by the Appellants as there were series of protests after the publication of the declaration against the inclusion of the Oniwepe Ruling House.
Appellants’ counsel urged this Court to resolve Issue No. Two (2) in favour of the Appellants.

In conclusion learned counsel prayed us to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Osun State High Court per J. O. Ogunleye delivered on 24th April, 2017.

1ST, 2ND AND 5TH RESPONDENTS’ COUNSEL
Chief Bayo Lawal, M. O. Aderonmu Esq. and M. A. Lateef Esq. on behalf of the 1st, 2nd, and 5th Respondents filed the Respondents’ brief on 26/2/2019 which was deemed on the 27th February 2019, wherein this lone issue was formulated as calling for determination namely:-
“Whether the trial Judge was right to have relied on Exhibit 1 as a valid and subsisting chieftaincy declaration which ought to govern the ruling house entitled to select a candidate to the vacant stool of Alaato”.
Counsel reproduced the Respondents’ averments in paragraphs 1, 11–21 of their further amended statement of claim to show the exact nature of the dispute they submitted to the Court of trial being the plaintiffs which is essential that in 1958 a Chieftaincy Declaration was enacted for Alaato of or Oba Alaato.

The said declaration was tendered and admitted as Exhibit 1 during the trial and that it is doubtless that the procedure and facts relating to the making of the declaration Exhibit 1 was pleaded in the paragraphs of the further amended statement of claim reproduced. So the Appellants’ counsel was wrong in arguing that fact relating to the content of Exhibit 1 was not pleaded.

Counsel further submitted that from the content of Exhibit 1 there are four (4) Ruling Houses entitled to propose candidates to the stool of Alaato of Aato and the four (4) Ruling Houses are:-
(1) OWIWEPE
(2) AKINRINOLA
(3) OLUBOYE
(4) OYERIN
submits further that the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 supported Exhibit 1 and had established their case that Oniwepe is a recognized Ruling House in Aato town of Ejigbo Local Government of Osun State. He relied on the case of EYA V OLOPADE (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 505) 533 where it was held that when documentary evidence supports oral evidence, the oral evidence becomes more credible. Therefore, the trial Judge is right in placing reliance on Exhibit 1. The Chieftaincy Declaration to the Alaato of Aato registered on 13th day of August 1958 under the Chiefs Law.

Learned counsel cited and relied on the case of AFOLABI V GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 734 at 738 where it was held:-
“A chieftaincy declaration made under the Chiefs Law 1978 is the customary law in force in the area which it covers. By Section 11(2) of the Chiefs Law 1978 such declaration continues to have effect until it is amended and the amended declaration is registered”.

Respondents’ counsel urged this Court to uphold his submission that the Alaato of Aato Chieftaincy Declaration of 1958 having not being amended or deregistered is the effective instrument regulating the selection and appointment of Alaato of Aato in the absence of any other instrument in that behalf. He relied on OYEFOLU V DUROSIMI (2001) FWLR (Pt. 69) 1422.

Counsel submitted that the Declaration of 1958 is in conformity with the customary law for the selection of the Baale or Alaato of Aato.

With respect to the argument by the Appellants that the Aato Chieftaincy has been moved to a minor chieftaincy by virtue of the Revocation Order, counsel to the Respondents submitted that it is immaterial whether the chieftaincy is minor or recognized. He urged us to take cognizance of the decision of the Supreme Court in OLADELE V AROMOLARAN II (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 453) 180. And AYOADE V MILITARY GOVERNOR OF OGUN STATE (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 309) 111 at 127.

As to the continuous validity and subsistence of Exhibit 1 counsel drew our attention to the judgment in HOG/6/1986 Exhibit 2 which is an action by the 1st and 2nd Respondents and their family. They got judgment from the Oyo State High Court Ogbomosho nobody appealed against this decision. So the trial Court was right to have found and held that in view of that judgment: The Alaato Chieftaincy Declaration of 1958 is still valid and subsisting instrument regulating the selection and appointment of the Alaato of Aato. Counsel cited AGBAJE V INEC (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1501). In support of the legal preposition that a decision of Court not appealed against is deemed accepted and remains binding on the parties.

Submits further that the Appellants have failed to produce evidence of the decision of Government showing that the 1958 Declaration will no longer guide the appointment of Aato stool. Mere assertion without proof goes to no issue. Section 121 of Evidence Act, 2011.

Finally, the learned Respondents’ counsel submits that there is no doubt that the Chieftaincy Declaration of 1958 is the subsisting and valid instrument that portrays the native law and custom of the people of Aato and thus regulating the appointment and installation of Alaato of Aato from four Ruling Houses on rotational basis.

So, he urged us to uphold the decision of the learned trial Judge and to dismiss this appeal.

By way of an answer, the Appellants’ counsel filed the Appellants’ reply brief on 9/4/2019. The learned counsel argued that the 1st, 2nd and 5th Respondents in their brief of argument did not respond to the issues raised on admissibility of Exhibit 1 in HEJ/9/2013 and the judgment of Oyo State High Court has whittled down the effect of the recognized Chieftaincies (Revocation and Miscellaneous) Order 1976. That the Respondents only went on to argue fresh fact which is not the purpose of Respondents’ brief.

The Appellants in fact succeeded in repeating or rephrasing the arguments he rendered in his main Appellants’ brief then urged this Court to allow his appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower Court.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
Before we proceed into the resolution of the issues involved in this appeal, it is necessary to understand the background and facts of this case. The pleadings in this matter reveal that the case is all about the chieftaincy stool of the Baale or Alaato of Aato in Ikirun Local Government Area of Osun State. The stool became vacant in 1990 upon the death of the then incumbent. The Respondents’ members of the Oniwepe family or Ruling House sought to occupy the vacant stool by virtue of the Alaato Chieftaincy Registered Chieftaincy Declaration, 1958 in accordance with the rotational order provided thereunder.

The Appellants raised serious objection to the eligibility of the Oniwepe family, and their entitlement to the throne as a result the Respondents approached the Osun State High Court in Suit No: HEJ/9/1996 seeking for the reliefs herein before stated. This case was consolidated with HEJ/9/2013 which ended in their favour. Hence this appeal by the Appellants who were aggrieved by the decision of the High Court.

What is involved in this appeal therefore is the validity or otherwise of the Chieftaincy Declaration of 1958 particularly with respect to the eligibility of the Oniwepe Ruling House to the throne of the Baale of Aato.

There is no doubt whatsoever that in December 1957, the Alaato of Aato Chieftaincy Declaration was made to regulate the customary practice in the selection and appointment of Baale or Alaato of Aato. And it was registered in 1958. This document was tendered as Exhibit 1 during the hearing of this matter at the lower Court.

The law is very clear that where a declaration has been made in respect of a recognized chieftaincy and registered, it represents the applicable customary law regulating the selection and appointment of a candidate to a vacant chieftaincy stool. The provision of such a registered declaration should prevail until amended. See OGUNDARE V OGUNLOWO (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 509) 360 and FASADE & ORS VS BABALOLA & ANOR (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt. 830) 26. LPELR–1243 SC.

By the provision of the Ejigbo District Council Chieftaincy Declaration for Alaato of Aato, ascendancy to the throne of Alaato of Aato is by four Ruling Houses in rotation. The recognized Houses are:-
(1) Oyerin
(2) Oniwepe
(3) Akinrinola
(4) Olubooye

The Court of trial accepted this position and ruled in favour of the Respondents who are members of the Oniwepe Ruling House, a family the Appellants is contending are not entitled to the throne because the Declaration of 1958 which recognized them as a ruling family has been revoked by the Recognized Chieftaincies (Revocation and Miscellaneous) Order 1976. Thereby bringing the number of the Ruling Houses to three and making it mandatory for the plaintiff to plead and proof that Oniwepe is the fourth Ruling House. Being that the stool has automatically become a minor stool for which evidence of the tradition and custom of the people of Aato must be led.

In the case of ADEKEYE & ORS V ADESINA & OR (2010) LPELR–103 SC it was held that where a declaration is made in respect of a recognized chieftaincy and registered, the matter of custom or native law therein stated shall be deemed to be the customary law regulating the selection of a person to be the holder of the chieftaincy to the exclusion of any customary usage or rule or tradition. The registered declaration is therefore a declaration of the customary law and usages pertaining to the selection and appointment to the particular stool it relates.

In this case however, the learned Appellants’ counsel argued that the stool of the Baale of Aato has been derecognized and reduced to a minor chief. So, evidence of tradition and custom is necessary. But the Supreme Court in the case of OLADELE V AROMOLARAN II (1996) NWLR (Pt. 453) 180 per Ogundare, JSC has effectively answered the question thus:-
“Where a registered declaration exists, it is in my view admissible evidence of the customary law relating to the selection and appointment of the chief it pertains to. It does not matter the chieftaincy is a recognized or minor chieftaincy”.
In essence, the reduction in the status of the chieftaincy to a minor rank will not change the customary law relating to it. It remains the same as provided in the declaration irrespective of the status later accorded the chieftaincy by the Government. Although, the learned Appellants’ counsel has sought to distinguish this case with the case of OLADELE V AROMOLARAN II (supra) but rather unsuccessful because the two cases simply addressed the same issue which is the reduction of status of a recognized chieftaincy to a minor stool. The decision of the Supreme Court must be applied.
This therefore obviates the necessity to lead evidence on the custom and tradition for the selection and appointment of a new chief as the provision of the 1958 Declaration is still efficacious and applicable notwithstanding the derecognition of the chieftaincy.

On OLADELE V AROMOLARAN II (1996) NWLR (Pt. 453) 180, Appellants’ counsel argued this case is not applicable here. But I disagree with him. Apart from the fact that this submission is not supported by any judicial or statutory authority, it is also illogical after all verifier reacting pronouncements which fully turned on the substance of this case was made by their Lordships in that matter. To say it is inapplicable simply runs riot to all acceptable principle of stare decision.
Therefore, by this stand of the law, a registered declaration does not become inapplicable when the chieftaincy it relates is reduced in status from being recognized to a minor chief. Although the opposite is the minority view of the dissenting Supreme Court Justice in the case of OLADELE V AROMOLARAN which with due respect will not override the majority decision.

What is more, the chieftaincy declaration of 1958 received some judicial impetus in the Suit No. HOG/6/89 Exhibit 2 hereto where the Oyo State High Court sitting at Ogbomosho issued an injunction ruled restraining the authorities from altering the provision of the Chieftaincy Declaration 1958.

There is clear evidence that this judgment has not been set aside as it was not appealed against. So, the injunction as it were, still subsists. On the strength of this judgment, the trial Court is right in according recognition to the 1958 declaration. It is necessary to point out that a judgment of Court remains subsisting and valid. It must be obeyed even if the person affected by it believes that it is void. It will continue to subsist until it is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction and not by a wishful thinking. See BABATUNDE V OLATUNJI (2000) 2 SCNJ 26 AT 33–34; NOEKOER V EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR PLATEAU STATE & ORS (2018) LPELR–44350 SC.

The position of the law above on the bindingness of the judgment of a Court has effectively nullified the entire arguments of the Appellants’ counsel in respect of the judgment of Oyo State High Court Ogbomosho Exhibit 2 when he submitted that:-
“The fact that the judgment is not appealed against does not make the judgment still alive and breathing as the judgment is for a specific purpose relating to fair hearing which had ceased to exist”.

I do not agree with this submission because the learned counsel had failed to avert his mind to the injunction issued by the Ogbomosho High Court, in the suit.

On the other hand, the authorities reiterating the bindingness of the judgment of a Court has fortified the position of the trial Judge when he found and held that the judgment of the Oyo State High Court Ogbomosho in Suit No. HOG/6/89 per Aderemi J. has whittled down the effect of the recognized Chieftaincies (Revocation and Miscellaneous) Order 1976 because that judgment by its injunctive order compelled compliance with the Chieftaincy declaration of 1958.

With respect to the content of Exhibit 1 in HEJ/9/2013 which the learned trial Judge described as beacon of light for the traditional evidence in proof of the Respondents’ entitlement to the stool. It is clear and not disputed that Suit No. HEJ/9/2013 in which the document was tendered had been consolidated with this action and that the document was frontloaded by the Appellants, there is no legal justification for the Appellant to be furious about this document being reckoned with.

Come to think of it, the effect of the tendering in evidence of the Chieftaincy Declaration of 1958 with respect to Baale of Aato whose effect we have since validated in this judgment, there is no need to plead or lead evidence on any tradition or customary practice in the selection and appointment of Alaato of Aato because the declaration has established the custom as well as the 4 Ruling Houses entitled to the stool which the trial Court accepted in its judgment where the learned trial Judge made the following declarations among others.
1. “I hereby declare that the chieftaincy declaration to the Baale of Aato registered on 13th August 1958 is the subsisting Declaration of the custom of Aato people regulating the selection and appointment of the Baale of Aato in Ejigbo Local Government”.
2. “I hereby declare that on the death of Oba Sunmonu Jaiyeola on 14th May 1990, the next Ruling House from which a candidate is to be selected and appointed is the ONIWEPE Ruling House, whose right immediately vested”.
I find no reason to depart from this decision.

On the whole, this appeal has no merit and it is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the Osun State High Court per J. O. Ogunleye J. in Suit No. HEJ/9/1996 delivered on the 24th day of April 2017 is accordingly affirmed.
The sum of N50,000.00 is awarded as cost in favour of the Respondents.

RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.: I had read before now, the lead judgment just delivered by my brother YUSUF ALHAJI BASHIR, JCA.
I agree with his reasoning and conclusions.

The appeal lacks merit and same is dismissed by me.
The judgment of Osun State High Court per J. O. Ogunleye J. in Suit No. HEJ/9/1996 delivered on the 24th day of April 2017 is hereby affirmed.
I abide by the consequential order made as to costs.

JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of reading in draft, the judgment delivered by my learned Brother, BASHIR A. YUSUF, JCA. I am in agreement with his Lordship that this appeal lacks merit, and therefore deserves a resounding dismissal. It is hereby dismissed by me. I abide by his Lordship’s order as to costs.