PRINCE ADENIYI ADEKUNLE v. PA. OJO ADELUGBA & ORS
(2011)LCN/4327(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 24th day of February, 2011
CA/AE/82/2010
RATIO
LOCUS STANDI: MEANING OF LOCUS STANDI AND WHAT A CLAIMANT MUST SHOW IN SATISFY THE COURT THAT HE HAS THE LOCUS STANDI TO COMMENCE AN ACTION
Locus standi is unquestionably a threshold issue and in order that a court may have jurisdiction, the Plaintiff must have locus standi to commence or institute the action. As the expression,’locus, standi’ stands; it consists of two latin words meaning a “place to stand”. That used in connection with a court action, it means a place to stand in a suit. It is usually used in connection with a Plaintiff who has commenced a suit. It is however settled that it denotes a legal capacity to institute proceedings in a court of law. Thus, the term locus standi entails the legal capacity of instituting, initiating or commencing an action in a competent court of law or tribunal without any inhibition or hindrance from anybody or person whatsoever, including the provisions of any law. The fundamental aspect of locus standi is that it focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint heard before court. In other words, it is a status which the Plaintiff must have before heard in court. It is a condition precedent to determination on the merit although it is not dependent on the success or merit of the case. In order to achieve the status of locus standi, the claim of the Plaintiff must reveal the following:- (a) A legal or justifiable right, (b) Show sufficient or special interest adversely affected. (c) A justifiable cause of action. Therefore a Plaintiff will have locus standi in a matter only if he has special interest or alternatively, if he can show that he has sufficient or special interest in the performance of the duty sought to be enforced or where the interest is adversely affected. All these are however subject to the facts of each case. Whether an interest is worthy of protection is a matter of judicial discretion which often varies according to the remedy asked for. See Ojukwu vs Okukwu (2008) 36 NSC QR 1279; A.G. LAGOS VS Eko Hotels Ltd. (2007) 44 LRCN 290; Nyame vs FRN vs FRN (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1193) 344 @ 400. PER UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.C.A.
LOCUS STANDI: WHAT DETERMINES WHETHER A PLAINTIFF HAS LOCUS STANDI TO SUE
It is settled principle of law that it is the statement of claim that determined a plaintiff locus standi to sue. This principle is restated in a number of cases. see Global Transport Oceanico SA & Anor vs. Free Enterprises Nigerian Ltd (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt. 706) 426 @ 443; Elendu vs Ekwoaba (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt. 306) 704. PER UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.C.A.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: WHETHER A PLAINTIFF MUST IN HIS STATEMENT OF CLAIM DISCLOSE SUFFICIENT INTEREST OR THREAT OR INJURY TO ENABLE HIM TO INVOKE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS
It is also settled principle that the plaintiff must in statement of claim disclose sufficient interest or threat or injury to enable him to invoke the judicial process. See Prof. T.M Yusuf vs Government of Edo State Visitor Edo State Unversity & Ors (2001) NWLR (Pt. 731) 517 @ 533; Adesanya vs The President (1981) 2 NCLR 358; Adefule vs Oyesile (1989) NWLR (Pt (122) 377; Ajilowura  vs Disu & ors (2006) 140 LRCN 1930. PER UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.C.A.
LOCUS STANDI: WHAT THE JUDGE IS EXPECTED TO EXAMINE IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT A PLAINTIFF HAS LOCUS STANDI
…in deciding whether a plaintiff has locus standi, the judge is expected to meticulously examine the statement of claim to see if it disclosed a reasonable cause of action vested in the plaintiff. The averment in the statement of claim filed by the plaintiff which define the confines of the plaintiff cause of action must disclosed in clear terms the right and obligation or interest of the plaintiff which have been or are about to be violated. See Bewaji vs Obasanjo (2008) 9 NWLR (PT. 1093) 540 @ 596; Amah vs Nwankwo (2007) 12 NWLR (PT. 1049) 522; UBA PLC vs BTL IND.LTD (2006) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 61. PER UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.C.A.
LOCUS STANDI: NATURE OF THE TERM “LOCUS STANDI”
Locus standi is also linked to the question of jurisdiction of a court. If the plaintiff does not have locus standi or the required standing to institute an action, the court cannot properly assume jurisdiction to entertain the matter. It is a sine quo non to the exercise of jurisdiction because judicial powers are constitutionally limited to cases in which the parties have locus standi. The locus standi of a Plaintiff in essence is a condition precedent to courts jurisdiction. Thus, before the court can proceed to the hearing of a matter on the merit the plaintiff must have locus standi. See Bewaji vs Obasanjo (supra); Unoka  vs Agili (2007) 11 NWLR (PT 1044) 122; Umar vs W.G.G. (Nig) Ltd (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 640) 250. Therefore, for a Plaintiff to be able to obtain reliefs in a cause, he must have the necessary standing to sue. PER UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.C.A.
CHIEFTAINCY MATTER: CLASSES OF PERSONS THAT POSSESS THE LOCUS STANDI TO SUE IN A CHIEFTAINCY DISPUTE
In chieftaincy disputes, as, in the instant case, two classes, of persons possess the locus standi to sue. A candidate or a contestant and the family or ruling house can also sue. See Elesho vs the Governor of Ogun State (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 133) 420 @ 726; Prince Ademola Odunneye vs Prince David Olo Efunnuga (1990) 7 Saka Agodamu (2009) 37 WRN 59 @ 65. PER UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.C.A.
STATUTORY PROVISION: PROVISION OF SECTION 7(1) OF THE ONDO STATE CHIEFS EDICTS, NO.11 OF 1984 AS IT RELATES TO CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A PERSON SHALL BE QUALIFIED TO BE A CANDIDATE TO FILL A VACANCY IN A RECOGNIZED CHIEFTAINCY
Section 7(1) of the Ondo State Chiefs Edicts, No.11 of 1984, as applicable in Ekiti State provides:- “7(1) A person shall, unless he is disqualified, be qualified to be a candidate to fill a vacancy in a recognized chieftaincy if – a) he is proposed by the ruling house or the persons having the right to nominate the candidate according to customary law; and (i) If he is a person whom the ruling house or the persons having the right to nominate candidates are entitled to propose, according to customary law, as a candidate; or (ii) He is unanimously proposed as candidate by the member of the ruling house or the persons entitled to nominate candidate.”
LOCUS STANDI: WHEN IS A PERSON SAID TO HAVE AN INTEREST IN A THING
A person is said to have an interest in a thing when he has rights, advantages, duties and liabilities connected with it whether present or future, see Prince Odunneye vs Prince Efunuga (1990) 12 SCNJ 1 @ 8; Adetona Vs Zenith International Bank Ltd (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 277. PER UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.C.A.
JUSTICES:
UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
HARUNA MOH’D TSAMMANI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
PRINCE ADENIYI ADEKUNLE – Appellant(s)
AND
1. PA. OJO ADELUGBA
2. PASTOR ISAAC ALUKO
3. CHIEF ARIBISALA
4. CHIEF OLU AREOLA
5. CHIEF SOLOMON AKINYEMI
6. CHIEF KAYODE OSHO
7. CHIEF AMOS JEGEDE
8. MISS ADEFOYEKE O. OJO
9. THE SEC., IKOLE L. GOVT.
10. THE SPECTAL ADVISER, CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS
11. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL & COMM. FOR JUSTICE
12. THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR EKITI-STATE – Respondent(s)
UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.C.A. (Delivering the leading judgment): This is an interlocutory appeal against the ruling of Hon Justice M.A. Agbelusi of the High Court of Justice, Ikole-Ekiti, delivered on the 22nd March, 2010 striking out the suit of the Plaintiff/Appellant ground that he lacks the necessary locus standi to maintain the action.
The Appellant as plaintiff at the lower court instituted this action against the Respondents, the Defendants at the lower court, claiming declaratory and injunctive reliefs in respect of the chieftaincy stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti, a recognized Chieftaincy. The Appellant claims as per paragraph 33 of his Statement of claim are as follows.
Whereof the plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant jointly and severally as follows:-
1. A declaration that the selection or nomination of the plaintiff to fill the vacant stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti is valid and legal.
2. A declaration that the notice of intention to set aside the nomination of the Plaintiff to the vacant stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti is illegal.
3. An order directing the 12th Defendant to approve the nomination of the plaintiff as the Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti.
4. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, their agents, servant, privies or any other person from appointing warrant chiefs or taking any further step to disturb the nomination or selection of the plaintiff as Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti.
The Appellant filed a motion on notice accompanied by Affidavit of urgency for an order of Interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st – 7th Respondent from commencing another process of nomination or selecting candidates for the vacant stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti pending the determination of the substantives suit; and
An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 9th to 12th Respondent from taking any further steps to install or present instrument of appointment and staff of office to any office candidate as Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti pending the determination of the substantive suit.
While the application was pending, the Respondent filed a Notice of preliminary Objection against the hearing of the Appellants suit on the 15th February, 2010, upon the following grounds
1. The suit is incompetent and bad.
2. The suit does not disclose any reasonable cause of action.
3. The plaintiff lacks the requisite locus standi to maintain this action.
After hearing arguments from respective counsel on the preliminary objection, the learned trial judge held that the Plaintiff lacks the necessary locus standi to maintain the action and struck out the plaintiff’s suit.
It is against the said ruling that the Appellant has appealed to this court upon alone ground of appeal; vide a Notice of Appeal filed on the 26th March, 2010. The lone ground of appeal with its particulars are hereby produced.
The learned trial judge erred in law and on the facts in holding that the Plaintiff/Appellant had no locus standi to institute the action.
PARTICULARS:
I. The plaintiff by paragraph 1, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the Statement of claim shows that he has locus standi to institute the action,
II. The Plaintiff being a contestant and the person nominated by the kingmakers to occupy the stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti can institute the action in his personal capacity.
The parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. In the Appellant’s brief of argument settled by Ropo Filani, Esq., a lone issue was distilled for the determination of the appeal, to wit.
Whether or not the lower court was right in holding, that the Appellant had no locus standi to institute the action.
The 1st to the 9th Respondents did not file any brief of argument. In fact they did not contest the case both at the lower court and before this court. When asked in open court, they stated that they will abide by the decision of the court. In fact the consequence of not filing a brief of argument by a Respondent under the Rules of court is only that the Respondent will not be heard in oral argument. See Order 17 Rules 10 of the Rules of this court 2007. Any reference to Respondents in this judgment means reference to 10, 11th and 12t Respondents only.
The 10th to 12th Respondent filed a joint brief of argument though their counsel F.O. Olaolorun, Esq., of the Ministry of Justice, Ado-Ekiti. In the brief, learned counsel adopted the lone issue formulated by the Appellant’s counsel, Mr. Filani Esq., for the determination of the appeal. This issue is also adopted by the court for the determination of the appeal.
The issue is:-
Whether or not the lower court was right in holding that the Appellant had no locus standi to institute the action.
In arguing this issue, learned counsel for the Appellant Ropo Filani, Esq., considered the definition of the term “Locus Standi” through the case law to simply denote a legal capacity to institute proceeding in a court of law based upon sufficient interest in a subject matter to pursue a certain cause or matter, and the interest to pursue a certain cause is not dependent on the success or merit of a case but a condition precedent on the success or merit. He cited and relied on the case of Josiah Kayode Owodunni vs Registered Trustees of Celestial Church off Christ & Ors (200) 10 NWLR (Pt. 675) 314.
Filani Esq, submitted that the Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti recognized chieftaincy stool which produces Oba and referred to section 8 of the chiefs (Amendment) Edict of Ondo state as applicable to Ekiti State which provides for the process of selection, nomination appointment of Obas. He submitted that in determining whether a party has locus standi to present a suit, it is the writ of summon and referred to case of Hon. Muyiwa inakoja & Ors vs Hon. Abraham Adeolu Adeleke & ors (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423. Learned counsel also referred to paragraph 1, 15, 16, 20, 21 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 33 of the Appellant Statement of Claim and submitted that in chieftaincy disputes, two classes of persons possess the locus standi to sue, A candidate or contestant can sue and the family or Ruling house can also sue. He cited and relied on the following, cases in support of this Principle of law: Elesho vs Governor of Ogun State (1990) 2 NWLR (PT. 133) 420 @ 426; Prince Ademola Oduneye vs. Prince David Oloefunuga (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 164) 618 @ 623; and Azees Agboola vs Mallams Saka Agbodamu (2009) WRN Vol. 37, 59 @ 65.
Mr. Falani Esq, further submitted that the Appellant being a member of Serungle ruling house and the ruling house whose turn it was to fill the vacant stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti and the Appellant being a person nominated to fill the said vacant stool by the kingmakers as shown in paragraph 1, 15, 16, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 of the statement of claim has locus standi this action. He submitted that the claim, of the Appellant is declaratory and that the Appellant has unfettered access to court seek declaratory relief even when his cause of action has arisen. He relied on the following cases; Odugbo vs. Abu (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 732) 45 @ 111-112, per Ogundare, JSC (OF BLESSED MEMORY): Ikine Edjerodo (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 745) 446 @ 482 per Onu, JSC. Mr. Filani, Esq., then urged the Court to allow the appeal and to set aside the decision of the lower court.
In his own response, learned counsel for the 10th to 12th Respondents, F.O. Olaolorun, Esq., submitted that section 7 of the Ondo State Chiefs Edict of 1984 as applicable provide for person qualified to be candidates to fill a Vacancy in a recognize chieftaincy as :-
(a)… he is proposed by the Ruling house or the person having a right to nominate…
(b) He is a person whom the ruling house or the person having the right to nominate candidates are entitle to propose according to customary Law, as a candidate; or
(c) He is unanimously proposed: as a candidate by the members of the ruling house.
Learned counsel then submitted that the Appellant did not in any way come within the persons provided for under the Law to be a candidate of Owa of Odo Ayedun. He submitted that the Appellant was never proposed by the Ruling house, as he was just one of the names of princesses from the Ruling house taken for ‘Ifa’ consultation for selection and eventual proposition for the stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun. He submitted that when the ‘Ifa’ spoke, only one of the candidates, Olusola Aregbesola was picked and that the appellant along with others were rejected. Mr. Olalorun, Esq, further, further submitted that ‘Ifa’ consultation is the procedure presented by the law for the selection of a candidate and that it is only when the ‘Ifa’ picked more than one person that the issue of voting arises. He therefore submitted that in so far as it was only one person that Ifa selected, voting thereafter is an exercise in futility, it cannot confer locus on any of the candidates not picked.
Still dwelling on this issue, learned counsel submitted that the word ‘propose means to suggest for approval and that it is somebody that is proposed that is approved and that it is somebody that is proposed that is approved or rejected. It is his view that the Appellant has never been Proposed or disapproved for he vacant stool of Owa Ayedun let alone ,Subjected to approval or rejected by appropriate authority for him to derived a right there from. Mr. Olaolorun, Esq, also submitted that the process of making an Oba involve different stages of nomination, selection, approval and finally installation. It is also ‘submitted that the court response to the application for injunctive reliefs is influenced by the stage at which the Applicant approaches the court. He cited MILAD ONDO STATE VS ADEWUNMI (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 182) 280 @ 292.
Learned Respondent’s counsel further contended that the Applicant is never known to law as a candidate in the eyes of Section 7 of the chiefs Edict (supra) and therefore derive no locus standi to maintain the action as one cannot Put something on nothing. He cited and relied on the case of Bewaji vs Obasanjo (1998) 9 NWLR (PT. 92) 540 at 546. He submitted that where a person lacks the requisite locus standi to maintain an action, approaching the court of Law to demand for a right which does not exist is a gross of court process and an aberration. That the reliance placed on case of Odugbo vs. Abu (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 732) by the Appellant is unhelpful. He also submitted that the Appellant’s interpretation of the decision, in Kayode Owodunmi vs Registered Trustees of Celestial Church of Christ (2000) 10 NWLR (PT. 675) 314, wherein he ‘defined locus standi as legal capacity to institute proceedings in court of law is not correct. That the legal capacity and sufficient interest in instituting the suit is not dependent on the success or merit of the case is gambling. Mr. Olaolorun, esq., also submitted that the reliance on the decision in Inakoju vs Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423 by the appellant to the effect that in the determining whether a party has locus standi to maintain a suit, the writ summons and statement of claim are considered are true position of the law and that it was the writ of  summons and the statement of claim that was considered by the learned trial judge to hold that the appellant lacks the locus standi to maintain the action citing also the case of Bewaji vs Obasanjo (supra).
Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial judge was right in holding that the Appellant was never a candidate for any ruling house. He submitted that six (6) of them were presented for ‘Ifa’ consultation so that a candidate can emerged and that one Olusola Aregbesola was picked as the candidate. That the Appellant was acting alone and reliance was placed on the case of Emezi vs Osuagwu (2005) 12 NWLR (PT.939) 233 @ 345. He submitted that it is not every member of a chieftaincy family as such that had interest in ‘the chieftaincy title and the interest, is Sacrosanct and he was given room to exercise the right. That the Appellant was called upon to test his popularity and defend his interest but he refused. Learned counsel further submitted that, the Appellant has failed to disclose how his interest arose so as to take the benefit of, the provision of section 11 and 12 of the Chiefs Edict, 1984. Citing Bewaji vs Obasanjo (supra) Learned counsel concluded that the real essence of the rule of locus standi evolved to protect the court, from being used as a playground by professional litigants, busybodies, meddlesome interlopers and clanks who have no real stake or interest in the subject matters of litigation they are seeking to Peruse. He urged the court to resolve the issue in favour of the Respondent.
I have carefully considered the submissions of both learned counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent and the legal authorities’ cited thereof in respect of their respective stance. The all important question for determination in the entire appeal is the locus standi of the Appellant to institute the action, the subject of the present appeal.
Locus standi is unquestionably a threshold issue and in order that a court may have jurisdiction, the Plaintiff must have locus standi to commence or institute the action.
As the expression,’locus, standi’ stands; it consists of two latin words meaning a “place to stand”. That used in connection with a court action, it means a place to stand in a suit. It is usually used in connection with a Plaintiff who has commenced a suit. It is however settled that it denotes a legal capacity to institute proceedings in a court of law. Thus, the term locus standi entails the legal capacity of instituting, initiating or commencing an action in a competent court of law or tribunal without any inhibition or hindrance from anybody or person whatsoever, including the provisions of any law. The fundamental aspect of locus standi is that it focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint heard before court. In other words, it is a status which the Plaintiff must have before heard in court. It is a condition precedent to determination on the merit although it is not dependent on the success or merit of the case. In order to achieve the status of locus standi, the claim of the Plaintiff must reveal the following:-
(a) A legal or justifiable right,
(b) Show sufficient or special interest adversely affected.
(c) A justifiable cause of action.
Therefore a Plaintiff will have locus standi in a matter only if he has special interest or alternatively, if he can show that he has sufficient or special interest in the performance of the duty sought to be enforced or where the interest is adversely affected. All these are however subject to the facts of each case. Whether an interest is worthy of protection is a matter of judicial discretion which often varies according to the remedy asked for. See Ojukwu vs Okukwu (2008) 36 NSC QR 1279; A.G. LAGOS VS Eko Hotels Ltd. (2007) 44 LRCN 290; Nyame vs FRN vs FRN (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1193) 344 @ 400.
The question herein is, how can a locus, standi of a plaintiff be determined? It is settled principle of law that it is the statement of claim that determined a plaintiff locus standi to sue. This principle is restated in a number of cases. see Global Transport Oceanico SA & Anor vs. Free Enterprises Nigerian Ltd (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt. 706) 426 @ 443; Elendu vs Ekwoaba (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt. 306) 704.
It is also settled principle that the plaintiff must in statement of claim disclose sufficient interest or threat or injury to enable him to invoke the judicial process. See Prof. T.M Yusuf vs Government of Edo State Visitor Edo State Unversity & Ors (2001) NWLR (Pt. 731) 517 @ 533; Adesanya vs The President (1981) 2 NCLR 358; Adefule vs Oyesile (1989) NWLR (Pt (122) 377; Ajilowura  vs Disu & ors (2006) 140 LRCN 1930.
Therefore, in deciding whether a plaintiff has locus standi, the judge is expected to meticulously examine the statement of claim to see if it disclosed a reasonable cause of action vested in the plaintiff. The averment in the statement of claim filed by the plaintiff which define the confines of the plaintiff cause of action must disclosed in clear terms the right and obligation or interest of the plaintiff which have been or are about to be violated. See Bewaji vs Obasanjo (2008) 9 NWLR (PT. 1093) 540 @ 596; Amah vs Nwankwo (2007) 12 NWLR (PT. 1049) 522; UBA PLC vs BTL IND.LTD (2006) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 61.
Locus standi is also linked to the question of jurisdiction of a court. If the plaintiff does not have locus standi or the required standing to institute an action, the court cannot properly assume jurisdiction to entertain the matter. It is a sine quo non to the exercise of jurisdiction because judicial powers are constitutionally limited to cases in which the parties have locus standi. The locus standi of a Plaintiff in essence is a condition precedent to courts jurisdiction. Thus, before the court can proceed to the hearing of a matter on the merit the plaintiff must have locus standi. See Bewaji vs Obasanjo (supra); Unoka  vs Agili (2007) 11 NWLR (PT 1044) 122; Umar vs W.G.G. (Nig) Ltd (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 640) 250. Therefore, for a Plaintiff to be able to obtain reliefs in a cause, he must have the necessary standing to sue.
Having stated the position of law on the subject under recourse, it becomes pertinent to examine the Appellant’s Statement of Claim. Mr. Filani Esq, for the Appellant contended that the Appellant by paragraphs 1, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31 and 33 of his  Statement of Claim disclosed, sufficient interest to cloth him with locus standi to institute this action. The said paragraphs of the statement of claim are pertinent to the determination of this matter and they are hereby reproduced.
Paragraph 1:
“The Ptaintiff is a prince, a principal member of Serungunle Ruling House who lives at D/7 Oke Owa Street, Odo Ayedun Ekiti and also a candidate nominated for the vacant stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti.”
Paragraph 15:
“There are two ruling houses to the stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti, they are: (i) SERUNGUNLE ruling house and (ii) OGBIMOYIN ruling house. This was clearly set out under section (2) of the Chief Edict, 1994 of Customary Law regulating the selection of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti Chieftaincy. This “Declaration” is hereby pleaded.”
Paragraph 16:
“At the demise of Oba S.D, Ojo, the former Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti, it became the turn of another ruling house by name SERUNGUNLE ruling house to present a candidate to fill, the vacant stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti”
Paragraph 20:
“The procedure to be followed in filling the vacancy to the stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti is as follows:
a. Within three (3) months after the death of an Oba, or soon thereafter, ruling house whose turn it is to present a candidate or candidates to do so within fourteen days from the date of such notification.
b. The head of the ruling house involved shall summon a meeting of the ruling house to be held in the house of the eldest male member of the family to select a candidate who will be presented to the kingmakers.
c. The head of the ruling house shall be the Chairman at the meeting and he shall call for nomination.
d. The head of the ‘ruling shall within (3) days of the nomination present all the names of interested candidates to the kingmakers for their acceptance or rejection.
e. The kingmakers shall meet under the chairmanship of Obajemu within fourteen (14) days of receiving the name or names of the candidate or candidates nominated and consider his or their suitability to custom.
f. The name or names of the candidate or candidates shall be submitted by the kingmakers for consultation of Ifa by a person appointed by them for the purpose.
g. where there is no unanimity by the kingmakers, the kingmakers shall decide the candidate by a simple majority of votes.
h. The election shall take place in the presence of the secretary to the Local Government and the head of ruling house as observers”
Paragraph 21:
“By a Public Notice dated the 8th day of October, 2009, the secretary to Ikole Local Government declared that the stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun was vacant and advised interested candidates from Serungunle Ruling House to make their interest known to the kingmakers. The said Public Notice is hereby pleaded.
Paragraph 22:
“By a letter dated 8th of October, 2009 the Secretary to Ikole Local Government, Honourable Olaiya Adebayo directed Pa Ojo Adelugba (the head of Serungunle Ruling House) to set all the necessary machinery in motion for the purpose of filing the vacant stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti. The said letter shall be relied upon at the trial of this case”.
Paragraph 23:
“By a letter dated 10th of October, 2009, all male members of Serungunle Ruling House were invited to a meeting slated for the 17th of October, 2009, at the house of Pa Ojo Adelugba for nomination to fill the vacant stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti. The said letter of invitation shall be found upon at the trial of this case”.
Paragraph 24:
“At the meeting of 17th of October, 2009, held in the house of the 1st defendant, six (6) Princes namely:- (1) Olusola Sakin Aregbesola (ii) Adekunle Adeniyi (iii) Pastor (Dr.) S.A. Ojo and (vi) Adeoye Aregbesola showed interest in the vacant stool, The minutes of meeting dated 17th of October, 2009 is hereby pleaded”
Paragraph 25:
“The names of the above named princes were accordingly presented to the five living kingmakers”
Paragraph 26:
“By a meeting held on the 2nd of November, 2009 at Okelase Street, Odo Ayedun Ekiti in the presence of the Secretary to Local Government, Divisional Police Officer Ikole Ekiti, representative of Chieftaincy Department, representative Chairman of Kingmakers), Chief Olukotun, Chief Obalumope, Chief Odole, Chief Olomodumojo, Chief Obalemo, Pa Adelugba (1st Defendant) observer from Igile ruling house and three Ifa Priests. Prince Adekunle Adeniyi (The Plaintiff) was picked to fill the vacant stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti. The minutes of the said meeting of 2nd of November, pleaded”.
Paragraph 27:
“The Chairman of Kingmakers (3rd Defendants) forwarded a letter to the plaintiff informing him that he has been chosen to fill the vacant stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti. The said letter is hereby pleaded”
Paragraph 28:
“The plaintiff also, sent his letter of acceptance to the 3rd Defendant, This letter of acceptance is hereby pleaded”
Paragraph 29:
“The 10th Defendant called a meeting of all Princes, Kingmakers and elders of Odo Ayedun Ekiti on the 19th of November, 2009”.
Paragraph 30:
“The plaintiff immediately protested against the calling of that meeting to the 12th defendant and copied the 9th, 10th and 11th defendants. The said letter shall be retied upon at the trial or this case”
Paragraph 31:
At the meeting of 19th of November, 2009, the 10th defendant informed all the people present of the intention of Government to set aside the already completed nomination exercise and commence another process by appointing warrant chiefs as kingmaker”
Paragraph 33:
“The Plaintiff avers that the 9th to 12 defendants should not take any step to disturb the nomination of the plaintiff to fill the vacant stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti”
“WHEREFORE the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants jointly and severally are as follows:-
a. A declaration that the selection or nomination of the plaintiff to fill the vacant stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti is valid and legal.
b. A declaration that the notice of intention to set aside the nomination of the plaintiff to the vacant stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti is illegal.
c. An order directing the 12th defendant to approve the nomination of the plaintiff as the Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti.
d. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, privies or any other person from appointing warrant chiefs or taking any further step top disturb the nomination or selection of the plaintiff as Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti.
The above Paragraphs are clear and self-explanatory. It is that the Appellant is a member of Serungunle ruling house and the ruling house whose turn I was to fill the vacant stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti and the Appellant being the person nominated to fill the said vacant stool by the kingmaker.
In chieftaincy disputes, as, in the instant case, two classes, of persons possess the locus standi to sue. A candidate or a contestant and the family or ruling house can also sue. See Elesho vs the Governor of Ogun State (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 133) 420 @ 726; Prince Ademola Odunneye vs Prince David Olo Efunnuga (1990) 7 Saka Agodamu (2009) 37 WRN 59 @ 65.
The Respondent contended that by the provision of section 7 of the Ondo State Chief Edict 1984 as applicable in Ekiti State the Appellant did not in any way come within the persons provided for under this law to be candidate of Owa Odo Ayedun. It is his contention that the Appellant was never proposed by the ruling house. Section 7(1) of the Ondo State Chiefs Edicts, No.11 of 1984, as applicable in Ekiti State provides:-
“7(1) A person shall, unless he is disqualified, be qualified to be a candidate to fill a vacancy in a recognized chieftaincy if –
a) he is proposed by the ruling house or the persons having the right to nominate the candidate according to customary law; and
(i) If he is a person whom the ruling house or the persons having the right to nominate candidates are entitled to propose, according to customary law, as a candidate; or
(ii) He is unanimously proposed as candidate by the member of the ruling house or the persons entitled to nominate candidate.”
(2) Not applicable.
The contention of the Respondent counsel is that the Appellant was never proposed by the ruling house. That he being just one of those princes whose names were taken to ‘Ifa’ for consultation, selection and  eventual proposition for the stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun and that when the ‘Ifa’ spoke, only one the candidate Aregbesola was picked and the Appellant along with other were rejected. That this being the case the Appellant has no locus standi to institute this action.
The Law is settled and admits of no argument that in chieftaincy cases, two classes of persons possesses the standing to sue. They are a candidate or contestant for the disputed chieftaincy stool who may assert his own right that is being asserted is that of a Plaintiff family or Ruling house by reason of the hereditary interest. In that case, it is the family, usually their representative who can bring an action on the premise that it is the civil right of the family that was being violated.
In the instant case, the Appellant has pleaded facts in his statement of Claim Particularly the paragraph reproduced in this judgment asserting his own to the chieftaincy  stool. He raised issues which threatened his position and a violated of his right and by these averments in the statement of claim; he has shown his interest and the standing to sue for himself. The present appeal is therefore distinguished with the case of Emezi vs Osuagwu (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt. 939) 340, heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the Reaspondent. In Emezi’s case (supra), apart from stating that he is a native of Ndegbelu village, which is not enough, and that he has interest in the subject matter as a candidate for the stool the Appellant did not go further to show how he became a candidate or that he was a nominee of the Ndegbelu village, and it that case the claim ought to be is a representative capacity or behalf of the Ndegbelu village. This is not the position in the instant case. The Appellant herein filed the action in his personal capacity and has shown sufficient interest in the subject matter as detailed in his statement of claim.
The Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti is a legally recognized Oba. Section 8 of the Chief (amendment) Law of Ondo State as applicable in Ekiti Sate provides for Procedure for the section, nomination and eventual positioning for the stool of Owa Odo Ayedun Ekiti. In the instant appeal, the procedure for selection and nomination was followed by the kingmakers to which the Appellant emerged victorious among the six princesses, and his name was presented to the five kingmakers and by a meeting held on the 2nd of November, 2009 at Okelase Street, Odo Ayedun Ekiti in the presence of the secretary of Local Government Divisional Police Officer Ikole Ekiti, representative of Chieftaincy Department, representative of, Council of Obas, Chief Obalumope, Chief Odole, Chief Olomodumojo, Chief Obalemo, Pa Adelugba (1st Defendant) observer from Igile ruling house and three Ifa priests, Prince Adekunle Adeniyi, (the Appellant)was picked to fill the vacant stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti. This is contained in the minutes of 2nd November, 2009. The chairman of the kingmakers, the 3rd Respondent forwarded a letter to the plaintiff/Appellant informing him that he has been chosen to fill the vacant stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti. This is contained in a letter attached to the Statement of claim. The plaintiff/appellant also sent his letter of acceptance to the 3rd Respondent which is also attached to the Statement Claim.
Now, if it is true that the ‘Ifa had spoken that he picked Adeoye Aregbesola to fill the vacant stool of Owa of Odo ayedun Ekiti, what about the meeting held on the 2nd November, 2009 including the representatives of the Chieftaincy Department, Council of Obas, the Police, Secretary to the Local Government and three Ifa priests where the Appellant was picked to fill the vacant stool of Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti? What about the letter issued to him informing him that he has been chosen to fill the vacant post what about his letter of acceptance? It is my humble view that the Appellant was therefore a candidate within the provision of section 7 of the Edict of 1984 as applicable in Ekiti state. The Appellant was nominated by the kingmakers the people having right to nominate and the kingmakers are people having right to nominate under customary law, It is also view that the condition for qualification for, being a candidate to a chieftaincy stool as provided under Section 7 of chieftaincy Edict is disjunctive and not conjunctive.
Where therefore, a candidate falls into any of the ‘three categories’ provided under the Section he becomes qualified and he will have locus to sue. I do not mean to the person proposed is rejected or disqualified will have locus standi to institute an action in a court of law.
Now what better interest in the subject matter, is the Appellant expected to show to cloth him with a locus standi to present this action? The Appellant belongs to the Ruling house whose turn it was to present and nominate candidate to fill the vacant stool of the Owa of Odo Ayedun Ekiti, He was nominated according to law provided for the selection of candidates and issued with a letter for his nomination to which he has accepted in writing.
Since locus standi is the legal capacity to institute proceedings in a court of law, it then means that locus standi will only be accorded a plaintiff who shows that his civil right and obligation have been or are in danger of being violated or adversely affected. There is therefore locus standi whenever there is a justifiable dispute. The Appellant has shown sufficient interest in the action that his civil right and obligations have been or are in danger of being violated or infringed. The Appellant has already discharged this burden. A person is said to have an interest in a thing when he has rights, advantages, duties and liabilities connected with it whether present or future, see Prince Odunneye vs Prince Efunuga (1990) 12 SCNJ 1 @ 8; Adetona Vs Zenith International Bank Ltd (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 277. The import and connotation of the term locus standi gives the Appellant the right or locus to present the case for the reasons stated herein in this judgment and the interest is worthy of judicial protection. I therefore find no any other alternative but to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.
I am therefore of, the humble view based, on what has been said above that this appeal is meritorious and it is hereby allowed. The ruling of the lower court striking out the suit of the Appellant delivered on 22nd day of March 2010 on the ground that the Appellant lacks the locus standi to institute the action is hereby set aside. Consequently, it is hereby ordered that this case is hereby sent back to the Chief Judge of Ekiti State for the trial of the substantive matter before a judge of the High Court other Justice M. A Agbelusi.
There shall be a cost of N30, 000.00 only in favour of the Appellant against the Respondents
HARUNA MOH’D TSAMMANI, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading before now, the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Uwani Musa Abba Aji, J.C.A.
My learned brother admirably summarized the, facts leading to this appeal and painstakingly considered all the issue raised in the appeal. He came to the conclusion that the appeal has merit and consequently allowed same. I have also considered the facts and the issues that arose for determination in the appeal, and I agree entirely with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by my learned brother that the appeal is meritorious. Indeed the Appellant has graphically disclosed his locus to institute the action as can be seen in the averments in paragraphs 1, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31 and 33 of the statement of claim. The learned trial judge should therefore have restricted himself to those averments rather than going into facts or issues which could only be determined at the trial. Those issues or facts cannot therefore be used to defeat in limine the locus standi of the Appellant to institute the action.
For that reason and the detailed reasons given in the lead judgment, I too will and do hereby allow the appeal. I abide by all the consequential orders made therein, including the order as to costs.
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.: I had before now read in advance the judgment delivered by my learned brother U.M. Abba Aji, J.C.A. His lordship has comprehensively dealt with and resolved the sole issue raised by the parties. I adopt the reasoning and conclusion arrived at in holding that the appeal is meritorious, I allow same.
I also set aside the Ruling of the lower court in which it was held that the Appellant had no locus standi to institute the action. I, in the same vein also remit the case back to the Chief Judge of Ekiti State for the trial of the substantive matter by another Judge, other than M.A Agbelusi, J.
I abide by the Order, made as to costs.
Appearances
Ropo Filani, Esq., For Appellant
AND
F.O. Olaolorun, Esq., Legal Officer Minstry of Justice, Ekiti State For Respondent
