SECRETARY, OYE LOCAL GOVT & ORS v. OYINLOYE & ORS (2020)

SECRETARY, OYE LOCAL GOVT & ORS v. OYINLOYE & ORS

(2020)LCN/15273(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ADO-EKITI JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Monday, June 08, 2020

CA/EK/10/2019

Before Our Lordships:

Theresa Ngolika Orji-Abadua Justice of the Court of Appeal

Fatima Omoro Akinbami Justice of the Court of Appeal

Paul Obi Elechi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

THE SECRETARY, OYE LOCAL GOVT. 2. HON. COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT & CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS EKITI STATE. 3. THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, EKITI STATE 4. THE GOVERNOR, EKITI STATE. APPELANT(S)

And

CHIEF KEHINDE DADA OYINLOYE (Aworo Onisan) (For Himself And On Behalf Of Aworo Onisan) (For Himself And On Behalf Of Aworo Onisan Chieftaincy Family Of Petu, Oke Isan, Isan-Ekiti 2. Chief MICHAEL OGUNDIPE OLUWASIKU (Aworo Oloke) For Himself And On Behalf Of Aworo Oloke Chieftaincy Family Of Ogbomoji Quarter Isan Ekiti. 3. High CHIEF O.S. BALOGUN (The Onirefin Of Irefin Quarters, Isan-Ekiti) 4. HIGH CHIEF I.O. OYEBI (The Arunsin Of Ogilolo Quarters, Isan-Ekiti) 5. HIGH CHIEF ADEBAYO ALABI (The Olu Of Ilusajumu Quarters, Isan –Ekiti) 6. HIGH CHIEF R.O. OLUWATOKI (The Adara Of Adisa Quarter, Isan – Ekiti) 7. HIGH CHIEF LATEEF SALIU (The Ejimoko Of Abudo Quarters, Isan-Ekiti) 8. HIGH CHIEF S.A. OLADIMEJI (The Obaisa Of Ilale Quarters, Isan-Ekiti) RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT THE QUESTION OF LIMITATION IS A QUESTION OF JURISDICTION

It is submitted that the question of limitation is a question of jurisdiction and to determine whether a court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on any matter, it is the originating process filed by the claimant (i.e. 1st & 2nd Respondents herein) that would be considered i.e. the writ of summons and the statement of claim. See TUKUR V GOVERNOR OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT.117) 517.

It is settled law that where a statute provides for the bringing of an action within a prescribed period in respect of a cause of action that had accrued to a Claimant, proceedings cannot be brought after the time prescribed by such a statute. The Lower Court having found out that the cause of action arose almost 34years ago, his lordship ought to have declined jurisdiction. The 1st and 2nd Respondents having failed to institute this action at the Lower Court before the expiration of the prescribed 6years provided in the said Law cannot be heard to complain again as the action is statute barred. See the case of GULF OIL CO. NIG. LTD. VS OLUBA (2002) 12 NWLR (PT. 780) 92 @ 113 Paras E-F. The dictum of KARIBI-WHYTE JSC (as he then was) in locus classicus of EGBE V. ADEFARASIN (NO 1) (1985) 1 NWLR (PT. 3) 549.

It is submitted that the principle of the statute of limitation is in place to give litigation a life span. Litigation cannot continue in perpetuity; a person cannot sleep on his rights then wake up one day and jump into Court to stir up an old wound, a successful plea of the limitation law will deal a fatal blow to the suit. The 1st and 2nd Respondents herein have all the then time in life to have sought redress in a Court of law since 1984 after the Onisan of Isan-Ekiti Chieftaincy Declaration was registered recognizing and approving the 3rd – 8th Respondents herein as the kingmakers saddled with the responsibility of appointing the Onisan of Isan-Ekiti but they chose to go to sleep and now suddenly wake up over 34years. See the case of DAODU VS AJOSE & ANOR (2010) Vol. 52 WRN 161 (Pp. 171-178) Lines 40-40. See also FAROLY ESTABLISHMENT V NNPC (2011) Vol. 2 WRN 160, IBRAHIM V JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE KADUNA STATE (1998) 14 NWLR (PT. 584) 1 at 32. PER ELECHI, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT WHERE THERE IS NO COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT TO REBUT THE FACTS IN THE SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT, THE DEPOSITION THEREIN ARE DEEMED ADMITTED

It is therefore settled principle of law that where there is no counter-affidavit to rebut the facts in a supporting affidavit, the deposition in the supporting affidavit are deemed admitted. See INAKOJU VS ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (PT. 1025) 423 at 665. PER ELECHI, J.C.A.

DUTY OF THE COURT IN DETERMINING WHETHER A SUIT IS STATUTE BARRED

In determining whether a suit is statute barred, the Court would have to inspect only the Writ of Summons and the averments in the Statement of Claim to determining when the cause of action accrues. See Abubakar VS B.O. & AP LTD (2007) 18 NWLR (PT.1066) 319, MULIMA VS USMAN (2014) 16 NWLR (PT.1432) 160. PER ELECHI, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT AN ACTION IS STATUTE BARRED IS ONE TOUCHING ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

It is trite that the issue of whether or not an action is statute barred is one touching on the jurisdiction of the Court. For once an action has been found to be statute barred although a plaintiff still has his cause of action, his right of action that is legal right to prosecute that action has been taken away by statute. In that circumstance, no Court has the jurisdiction to entertain his action. SeeAJAYI VS MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR, ONDO STATE (1997) 5 NWLR (PT. 504) 237.PER ELECHI, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE RIGHT CLAIMED IN A CHIEFTAINCY MATTER COMES UNDER TORTUOUS ACTIONS

PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Ruling of Honourable Justice J.O. Adeyeye of the Ekiti State High Court of Justice, sitting at Ado Ekiti, delivered on the 13th day of December, 2018. In the ruling his lordship dismissed the preliminary objection raised to the suit of the 1st and 2nd Respondent by the Appellants. Aggrieved by that decision, the Appellant appealed to this Honourable Court vide the Notice of Appeal which was later amended by the order of this Honourable Court granted on the 14th day of May, 2019.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents were the Claimants at the trial Court. Their reliefs as contained in their Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed on 25th April, 2018 are as follows:
“a. A DECLARATION that by history, customs and tradition of Isan- Ekiti, the 1984 Onisan of Isan Ekiti Chieftaincy Declaration wrongly procured without the knowledge of the Claimants and which the claimant became aware of in 2016 does not reflect the history, customs and traditions with respect to the kingmakers for the selection, appointment and installation of Onisan of Isan – Ekiti.
b. A DECLARATION that by history, customs and tradition of Isan- Ekiti, the authentic kingmakers of Onisan of Isan Ekiti are the Iwarapa Mefa which include Aworo Onisan, Aworo Oloke, Ejio Olusa, Baapo (Ibapo), Balomi and Baidu and not the first to sixth Defendants.
c. AN ORDER setting aside the Onisa of Isan Ekiti Chieftaincy Declaration registered on 23rd October, 1984 which Declaration recognised first to sixth Defendants as the kingmakers to Onisan Isan- Ekiti.
d. A DECLARATION that by history, customs and tradition of Isan – Ekiti, the 1960 registered Onisan of Isan-Ekiti chieftaincy Declaration is the relevant Chieftaincy Declaration with respect to the identity and numbers of the kingmakers for the selection, appointment and installation of Onisan of Isan Ekiti.
e. AN ORDER directing the seventh to tenth Defendants not to recognise or deal with the first to sixth Defendants as kingmakers to the Onisan of Isan Ekiti Chieftaincy.
f. A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION Restraining the first to sixth defendants from parading themselves or acting henceforth as kingmakers to the Onisan of Isan–Ekiti Chieftaincy.”

<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>
</br<>

The Appellants who were the 7th to 10th Defendants before the trial Court in response to the case of the Respondents filed their conditional Memorandum of Appearance dated 22nd day of May, 2018 and filed same day. The Appellants after entering conditional appearance filed Notice of preliminary objection dated 3rd of July, 2018 but filed on 4th of July, 2018 challenge the jurisdiction of the trial Court to hear, take cognizance and determine the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ case as constituted, principally on the grounds that the case is statute barred, wrongly commenced by Writ of Summons and abuse of Court process.

It is submitted that the purport of the Appellants’ Notice of preliminary objection is that the 1st and 2nd Respondents are late in instituting the action against the Appellants having failed to challenge Onisan of Isan-Ekiti Chieftaincy Declaration that was made and registered in 1984 within six years as provided by the Limitation laws, Cap. L9, Laws of Ekiti State, 2012 (not until 25th April, 2018) 34 years after recognizing the 3rd -8th Respondents as the kingmakers saddled with the responsibility of appointing the Onisan of Isan-Ekiti whenever the stool is vacant, that the 1st and 2nd Respondents can only access the Court of Law through the prerogative Writ of Certiorari and not Writ of Summons and that the action is an abuse of Court is an abuse of Court process, the 1st -2nd Respondents having instituted same matter which was struck out before another Court of coordinate jurisdiction. Argument was taken by the trial Court on 18th day of October, 2018 and all the parties adopted their processes.

In a considered ruling, the trial judge dismissed both the Appellants and the 3rd-8th respondents notices of preliminary objection for lacking in merit. The Appellant being dissatisfied by the ruling filed their notice of appeal on the 24th December 2018 but was later amended by the order of this Honourable Court on the 14th May 2019.

The Appellants herein formulate a sole issue for the determination of this Appeal:
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT WAS NOT WRONG IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION OVER THIS MATTER BY HOLDING THAT THE ONISAN OF ISAN-EKITI REGISTERED CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION OF 1984 WAS OBTAINED BY FRAUD AND CONCEALED BY THE APPELLANTS AND THEREFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS’ ACTION WAS NOT STATUTE BARRED – GROUND ONE.

ARGUMENT & SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUES.
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT WAS NOT WRONG IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION OVER THIS MATTER BY HOLDING THAT THE ONISAN OF ISAN-EKITI REGISTERED CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION OF 1984 WAS OBTAINED BY FRAUD AND CONCEALED BY THE APPELLANTS AND THEREFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS’ ACTION WAS NOT STATUTE BARRED- GROUND ONE.
It is submitted that the lower Court was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction over this matter. The learned trial judge while dismissing the Notice of Preliminary Objection of the Appellants that the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ suit is statute barred having been instituted 34 years after the cause of action arose held that the averment in paragraphs 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 40 of the Claimants (now 1st and 2nd Respondents) Statement of Claim took this case out of the ambit of Section 4(1) (a) of the Limitation Law, Cap. 19, Laws of Ekiti State, 2012. In arriving at the decision, the learned trial judge placed reliance on Section 25 of the Limitation law, Cap L9, Laws of Ekiti State, 2012 and the case of SIFAX (NIG.) LTD & 4 ORS Vs MIGFO (NIG) LTD. & ANOR (2018) 9 NWLR (PT. 1623) 138 at 193.

Learned Appellant’s counsel submitted that the decision of the trial judge on this issue is untenable and indefensible in law placing reliance on Section 4 (1) (a) of the Limitation Law, Cap. 61, Laws of Ondo State, 1978 (as then applicable to Ekiti State) which is impari material with Section 4(1) (a) of the Limitation Law, Cap. L9, Laws of Ekiti State, 2012, which provides as follows:
The following action shall not be brought after the expiration of 6 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued, that is to say –
a. Action founded on simple contract or tort;
b. Action to enforce a recognizance;
c. Action to enforce an award, where the submission is not by an instrument under seal;
d. Actions to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any enactment, other than a penalty of forfeiture or some by way of penalty of forfeiture.
(Underlining ours for emphasis)

The action of the 1st and 2nd Respondents as contained in the writ and statement of claim is really founded on tort. See Boluwaji Falana & 4 Ors V Samuel Omodele Oloro & 2 Ors (2013) 10 WRN 85 at 106.

Learned Counsel contended that to fully appreciate whether this action is statute barred or not, recourse must be had to when the cause of action arose vis-a-vis the date of filing of the matter as endorsed on the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. If the time pleaded in the Statement of Claim is beyond the time allowed by the Limitation Law, the action is statute barred.

To elucidate more argument on this issue, learned counsel posed and answered the following questions “When did the cause of action in this matter arise? The Onisan of Isan-Ekiti Registered Chieftaincy Declaration was made in 1984 and one can easily conclude that the cause of action arose in that year and the 1st and 2nd Respondents can only challenge that Registered Declaration within the first 6 years after the registration regard being had to Section 4 (1) (a) of the Limitation Law, Cap. L9, Laws of Ekiti State, 2012 which is impari material to Section 4(1) (a) of the Limitation Law Cap. 61, Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria, 1978 (as was applicable to Ekiti State at that material time). The other germane question is: When did the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed their action? From the endorsement on the Writ of Summons, the action was filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents on the 25th day of April, 2018. The period between when the cause arose in 1984 and the time of filing this matter by a simple mathematical calculation is almost 34years ago.

On the allegation that the Registered Chieftaincy Declaration of Onisan of Isan-Ekiti of 1984 was obtained against the 1st and 2nd Respondents by one Chief J.A. Gboyega, Learned counsel contended that contrary to the averments of the 1st and 2nd Respondents in paragraph 34 and 35 of their statement of claim that they only became aware of the white paper on Morgan Chieftaincy Review commission and the 1984 Registered Chieftaincy Declaration of Onisan Chieftaincy in 2016.

However page 137 of the records show that the old Ekiti North Local Government issued a public notice for the filing of the vacant stool of Onisan dated 18th day of March, 1987 directing the 3rd to 8th Respondents to put the machinery in motion for the appointment of Onisan. It was this Notice that the 3rd-8th Respondents acted on that culminated in the appointment of the immediate past Onisan Oba Sunday Owolabi Ajiboye as stated in the Chieftaincy Kingmakers Certificate dated 3rd of April, 1987. It is therefore submitted that the learned trial judge was clearly wrong to have held that the 1984 Onisan of Isan Chieftaincy Declaration was obtained fraudulently and concealed against the 1st and 2nd Respondents. This is because the 1st and 2nd Respondents were kingmakers, they or their predecessors-in-office ought to have challenged the declaration either in 1984, before the expiration of six (6) years limitation period or after the appointment and approval of late Oba Sunday Owolabi Ajiboye in 1987 and 1991 respectively.

Also submitted is that the 1st and 2nd Respondent or their predecessors-in-office (as their titles are held in perpetuity) cannot claim ignorance of the Constitution of Morgan Review Commission in 1977, the recommendation of which the Government accepted by the issuance of the Government white paper in 1981 and the subsequent Registered Declaration of Onisan Chieftaincy of 1984. If on the other hand they lack knowledge of the process leading to the making of the Declaration and the Declaration itself, it is trite that knowledge of the Claimant is immaterial and it is not a condition precedent on the part of the Claimant for the determination of the limitation period. It is not enough that there should be tortuous act unknown to the injured party or the enjoyment of property without title while the rightful owner is ignorance of his right. See the case of EBOIGBE VS NNPC (1994) 5 NWLR (PT. 34) 649 at 959; CBN VS HARRIS (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1575) 54 at Pp. 88, Paras B – E, 90 Paras E – F.

The authority of SIFAX (NIG) LTD & 4 ORS VS MIGFO (NIG) LTD & ANOR (Supra) cited by the Respondent was wrongly applied by the trial judge to this case as it is not on all fours with the facts of this case.

According to learned counsel, it was the Government of old Ondo State that constituted the Hon. Justice Adeyinka Morgan Chieftaincy review Commission in 1977, to inter alia investigate the customary law pertaining to the appointment of all Recognised Cieftaincies in each Local Government Area, make recommendations as to possible changes in the existing Chieftaincy Declarations (Onisan of Isan-Ekiti Chieftaincy Stool inclusive), the Commission announced to the general public over the air and invited interested parties to submit memoranda. The 3rd to 8th Respondents submitted Memorandum and appeared before the Commission and adopted their Memorandum, the 1st and 2nd Respondents failed or neglected to submit any Memorandum or appear before the Commission, at the end of the exercise, the Commission recommended the 3rd – 8th Respondents as the authentic kingmakers of Onisan Chieftaincy Stool, the Government accepted the recommendation by issuing a White Paper to that effect in 1981, upon the issuance of the White Paper a new Declaration was made in 1984 approving the 3rd – 8th Respondents as the kingmakers, the 3rd – 8th Respondents in 1987 appointed the immediate past Onisan of Isan-Ekiti, Oba Sunday Owolabi Ajiboye which appointment was approved by the Government in 1991 and when Oba Ajiboye joined his ancestors on 6th November, 2015, the 3rd – 8th Respondents also appointed the incumbent Onisan, Oba Gabriel Adejuwon in 2017 (Pages 124 -127 of the record are instructive)

From the above, it is submitted that a commission of enquiry that sat in the public and entertained memoranda from virtually all the towns in old Ondo State then be concealed against the 1st & 2nd Respondents. Not even the white paper and the registered chieftaincy Declaration being public document be concealed fraudulently and mischievously against the 1st & 2nd Respondents. That cannot be so according to learned counsel contention.
The 1st and 2nd Respondents did not file a counter-affidavit in opposition to the Appellants Notice of Preliminary objection.

In conclusion, the Court is urged to uphold the preliminary objection, allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the Lower Court.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents equally formulated a lone issue for the determination of the Court to wit:
Whether considering the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, the Lower Court was wrong in holding that the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ suit was not statue barred (Ground 1).

It is submitted that the issue of whether or not an action is statute barred is one touching on jurisdiction of Court. For once an action has been found to be statute barred, although a plaintiff still has his cause of action, his right of action, that is legal right to prosecute that action has been taken away by statute. In that circumstance, no Court has the jurisdiction to entertain his action. See AJAYI v MILITARY ADMINSTRATOR, ONDO STATE (1997) 5 NWLR (PT. 504) 237.

It is contended that a right claimed in a chieftaincy matter as well any right claimed in a civil action comes under the heading of tortuous actions which by the Limitation Law Cap L6 Laws of the Ekiti State 2012 must be instituted within 6years from the date of the accrual of cause of action. Looking at the Writ Summons and Statement of Claim in the instant suit, it is clear that the suit falls under tortuous action.

According to learned counsel, a look at the Writ of Summons and the averments in the Statement of Claim in the instant suit, it is manifestly clear that the 1st and 2nd Respondents in 2016 became aware of the existence of the Onisan of Isan Chieftaincy Declaration which was registered in 1984. The 1st and 2nd Respondents without their knowledge were replaced as kingmakers to Onisan of Isan in the said 1984 Chieftaincy Declaration. The 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Chieftaincy family found out that the registration existence and everything relating to the 1984 Onisan of Isan Chieftaincy Declaration were concealed from them.

It is submitted that by virtue of averments in the Statement of Claim, time stood still and only began to run from February 2016, when the 1st and 2nd Respondents became aware of the wrong through the letter written by the 3rd to 8th Respondents. See MULIMA VS USMAN (Supra) SIFAX NIG LTD VS MIGFO NIG LTD 2018 9 NWLR (Pt. 1623) 138.

It is submitted that the Lower Court was right to hold that by the state of pleadings of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, time begin to run from 2016 and when they became aware of the existence of the Declaration which was concealed from them. In other words, that their action was not statute barred. See MULIMA VS USMAN (Supra), SIFAX NIG LTD VS MIGFO (NIG) LTD (supra)

Also submitted by counsel is the averments in the pleadings of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, Section 25 of the Limitation Law of Ekiti 2012 is applicable.

In paragraph 4.21 and 4.22 of the Appellants’ Brief of Argument, the Appellant argued that the 1st and 2nd Respondents did not file a Counter Affidavit to their notice of Preliminary Objection. But the objection that a suit commended by a Writ of Summons is statute barred is not determined by affidavit or Counter-Affidavit but by the Writ of Summon itself and the averments in the Statement of Claim, the existence or non-existence of a Counter-Affidavit notwithstanding.
The Court is urged to dismiss the appeal and affirm the ruling of the Lower Court.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES:
The resolution of the issues in this matter will be resolved based on the sole issue for determination as formulated by the Appellant.
“Whether the Lower Court was not wrong in assuming jurisdiction over this matter by holding that the Onisan of Isan-Ekiti Registered Chieftaincy Declaration of 1984 was obtained by fraud and concealed by the Appellants and therefore the 1st and 2nd Respondents action was not statute barred.” Ground one.
It is trite that the issue of whether or not an action is statute barred is one touching on the jurisdiction of the Court. For once an action has been found to be statute barred although a plaintiff still has his cause of action, his right of action that is legal right to prosecute that action has been taken away by statute. In that circumstance, no Court has the jurisdiction to entertain his action. SeeAJAYI VS MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR, ONDO STATE (1997) 5 NWLR (PT. 504) 237.

The right claimed in a chieftaincy matter as well as any legal right claimed in a civil action comes under tortuous actions which by the limitation Law Cap L6, Laws of Ekiti State 2012 must be instituted within 6 years from the date of the accural of the cause of action. Section 4(1)(a) of ONDO STATE 1978 (As then applicable to Ekiti State) which is impari material with Section 4 (1)(a) of Ekiti State 2012 which provides as follows:
The following action shall not be brought after the expiration of 6 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued, that is to say (a) action founded on simple contract or tort.
(b) Action founded on simple contract or tort.
(b) Actions to enforce a recognizance.
(c) Action to enforce an award, where the submission is not by an instrument under seal.
(d) Actions to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any enactment, other that a penalty of forfeiture or some by way of penalty of forfeiture.
The action of the 1st and 2nd Respondents as contained in the writ and statement of claim is really founded on tort. See BOLUWAJI FALANA & 4 ORS VS SAMUEL OMODELE OLORO & ORS (2013) 10 WRN 85 AT 106.
On whether the action of the 1st & 2nd Respondents is statute barred or not, recourse must be had to when the cause of action arose vis–a-vis the date of filing of the matter as endorsed on the unit of summons and statement of claim. If the time pleaded in the statement of claim is beyond the time allowed by the Limitation Law, the action is statute barred.
The Onisan of Isan Registered chieftaincy Declaration was made 1984 after the Morgan Review Commission in 1977 after the issuance of Government white paper in 1981.
It is the said Registered Chieftaincy Declaration of 1984 that the 1st and 2nd Respondents are now challenging alleging that they were replaced as kingmakers to Onisan of Isan without their knowledge. The 1st and 2nd Respondent’s chieftaincy family found out that the registration, existence and everything relating to the 1984 Onisan of Isan chieftaincy were concealed from them and only got to know about same through a letter written by the 3rd – 8th Respondent to them. As a result, they only got to know about it February 2016.
Consequently, they filed their action on the 25th April 2018 and claimed that they are not caught by the Limitation Act and have not defaulted in not bringing their action within 6 years.
In the preliminary objection, it is submitted that the principle of the statute of Limitation is in place to give litigation a life span and cannot continue in perpetuity. That parties like the 1st and 2nd Respondents cannot go to sleep on their rights, then wake up one day and jump into Court to stir up an old wound because a successful plea of the Limitation Law will deal a fatal blow to the suit.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents herein have all the time in life to have sought redress in Court of law since 1984 after the Onisan of Isan-Ekiti Chieftaincy Declaration was registered recognizing and approving the 3rd – 8th Respondents herein as kingmakers saddled with the responsibility of appointing the Onisan of Isan Ekiti but they chose to go to sleep and now suddenly woke up after 34 years. See DAODU VS AJOSE & ANOR (2010) 52 WRN 161. See also FAROLY ESTABLISHMENT VS NNPC (2011) 2 WRN 160, IBRAHIM VS JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION, KADUNA STATE (1998) 14 NWLR (PT. 584) 1 at 32. It is at this juncture that one may ask a pertinent question to writ.
“When did the cause of action in this matter accrue as per the records?”
Looking at the peculiar circumstances of this case, I tend to agree with the Appellant’s position that the cause of action arose in 1984 when the Onisan of Isan Ekiti Registered Chieftaincy Declaration was made and consequent upon which the 1st and 2nd Respondents were replaced as kingmakers to Onisan of Isan. The removal of the 1st and 2nd Respondents was carried out after a public commission of enquiry. In view of the above, I do not seem to agree with the 1st and 2nd Respondents that the registration and everything relating to the 1984 Onisan of Isan Chieftaincy Declaration were concealed from them.
I therefore hold that the Onisan of Isan-Ekiti registered Chieftaincy Declaration of 1984 was not obtained by fraud nor concealed by the Appellants to the detriment of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Since the registration in 1984 of the Onisan of Isan-Ekiti Chieftaincy Declaration and the consequent replacement of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, and the recognition of the 3rd to 8th Respondents as the kingmakers saddled with the responsibility of appointing the Onisan of Isan-Ekiti whenever the stool is vacant, the cause of action accrued from that point in time. This is so because the 1st and 2nd Respondents have been denied the opportunity of participating actively in the appointment of the Onisan of Isan-Ekit. That was the time when opportunity was open for them to access a Court of law to seek for redress within Six years therefrom. See Section 4 (1) (a) of the Limitation Law Cap L9, Laws of Ekiti 2012 which is impari material to Section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation Law,Cap 61, Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria 1978 as was applicable to Ekiti State at that material time.
From the writ of summons, the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed their action on the 25th day of April 2018. From the registration of Onisan of Isan-Ekiti in 1984 up to and including the present is a period of 34 years (Over and above the 6 years period of grace for bring actions.
It is settled law that where a statute provides for the bringing of an action within a prescribed period in respect of a cause of action, that has accrued to a claimant, proceedings cannot be brought after the time prescribed by such a statute. The 1st and 2nd Respondents having failed to institute their action at the Lower Court before the expiration of the six years provided by the Limitation Law, cannot be heard any more to complain as their action is already statute barred. See GULF OIL CO. NIG LTD VS OLUBA (2002) 12 NWLR (PT. 780) 92, EGBE VS ADEFARASIN (NO 1) (1985) 1 NWLR (PT. 780) 92, EGBE VS ADEFARASIN (NO 1) (1985) 1 NWLR (PT. 3) 549. I do not agree with the contention of the 1st and 2nd Respondents that they became aware of the existence of the Onisan Isan Chieftaincy Declaration in 2016 which said declaration was registered in 1984. The authorities of MULIMA VS. USMAN (SUPRA) AND SIFAX NIG. LTD VS. MIGFO NIG. LTDdo not fall in all fours with the peculiar circumstances of this case.
I hereby resolve the lone issue in the preliminary objection in favour of the Appellant. The appeal is meritorious and it is hereby allowed. The Ruling of the Lower Court is hereby set aside.
Appeal allowed.

THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A.: I agree.

FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI, J.C.A.: I have read in advance, the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother PAUL OBI ELECHI, JCA.
I agree with his reasoning and conclusions.
I am also of the view that the issue should be resolved in favour of the Appellant.
I also allow the appeal, and set aside the Ruling of the Lower Court.

Appearances:

Olawale Fapohunda Esq. A/G Ekiti State with L.B. Ojo, (S.G, Ekiti State) (DCL) Julius Ajibare (DPP) Tosin Odudu (ACLO) Ibironke (PLO) Oluwaseun Olasanmi (SLO) Sheila Onah (L.O.) For Appellant(s)

Ademola Adeyemi Esq. for the 1st & 2nd Respondents.
Gbenga Alabadan Esq. for the 3rd-8th Respondents. For Respondent(s)