Judicial Interpretation of Registered Chieftaincy Declarations

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Abuja On Friday, the 7th day of May, 2021

Before Their Lordships
Musa Dattijo Muhammed
Chima Centus Nweze
Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju
Abdu Aboki
Tijjani Abubakar
Justices, Supreme Court

SC. 476/2017

Between

PRINCE MUSAFAU OMOWALE KASSIM APPELLANT

And

1. PRINCE ADEBOLA ADESEMOWO
2. THE MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR
OF OGUN STATE
3. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF OGUN
STATE
4. THE SECRETARY, IJEBU-NORTH
LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONDENTS

(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable John Inyang Okoro, JSC)

Facts

Upon the demise of Oba Daniel Adetayo Kupakude 1, the Orimolusi of Ijebu-Igbo, in 1994, it became the turn of Ojuromi Ruling House to fill the vacancy created by his death. In line with the Chiefs Law of Ogun State, Cap 20, Laws of Ogun State, a meeting of kingmakers was called by the Ojuromi Ruling House to select the Oba-elect. The Appellant and the Respondent were among the candidates nominated from the Ojuromi Ruling House, and at the meeting which held on 6th January, 1997, the Appellant was selected to fill the vacant stool by a majority of six votes, against the 1st Respondent who had three votes.

Dissatisfied, the 1st Respondent filed an action at the High Court of Ogun State seeking inter alia, a declaration that the nomination of the Appellant was illegal, null and void. He also sought an Order of injunction, restraining the 2nd and 4th Respondents from giving effect to the said selection and appointment of the Appellant as Oba elect. The case of the 1st Respondent was that the selection exercise by the kingmakers was irregular, and the Appellant was not eligible to be proposed as a candidate for the vacant stool. After the conclusion of trial, the court delivered its judgement wherein it held that the selection of the Appellant was valid, and in accordance with the Orimolusi Chieftaincy Declaration and the Chiefs Law of Ogun State. However, the trial court held that the participation of a certain Chief J.A. Onadeko, who was the 14th Defendant at the trial Court, was improper, and his participation invalidated the meeting of the king makers.

Aggrieved with the different findings of the trial court, both the Appellant and the 1st Respondent filed separate appeals before the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/1/69/99 and Appeal No. CA/1/267B/99. The two appeals were later consolidated, and heard together. In its judgement, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial court, only to the extent that the Appellant was entitled to be selected as a candidate to fill the vacant stool of Orimolusi of Ijebu Igbo; however, the Court of Appeal held that the Appellant is from the female line, and ought to have been considered only where there is no suitable candidate from the male line according to the Orimolusi Chieftaincy Declaration. The Appellate Court also held that the 8th, 9th, 14th and 15th Defendants were not entitled to participate at the kingmakers meeting, though their participation did not render the meeting invalid as held by the trial court, but only invalidated their votes. The Court of Appeal thereby, ordered a fresh exercise by qualified kingmakers to select a qualified candidate from the male line, in the absence of which candidates from the female line should be considered and presented for selection.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues for Determination

The court considered the following issues in its determination of the appeal:
1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred when it decided that the “male line” by virtue of the Orimolusi Chieftaincy Declaration, means an unbroken line of male and that the Appellant was from the female line of the Ojuromi Ruling House.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the 7th – 9th and 13th – 15th Defendants admitted in their pleadings that the 8th, 9th, 14th and 15th Defendants were not kingmakers, and were thus, not qualified to participate in the selection exercise of the Orimolusi elect.

Arguments

On the first issue, counsel for the Appellant argued that the Court of Appeal misconstrued the term “male line” as provided in paragraph (iii)(a) and (b) of the Orimolusi Chieftaincy Declaration and therefore, erroneously concluded that the Appellant was from the female line of the Ojuromi Ruling House. He submitted, relying on OLADOKUN v THE MILITARY GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE & 13 ORS (1996) 8 NWLR (Pt. 467) 387, 407, that the ascendancy to the throne of Orimolusi does not connote a direct and continuous male lineage of progenitorship in unbroken order, but one of reference to and inclusive of a grandfather or ancestor who so qualifies. In response, counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that once a person is a member of the ruling house or the son of a previous holder of the Orimolusi of Ijebu Igbo, they are both qualified to be entitled to the throne under paragraph (iii)(a) of the Orimolusi Chieftaincy Declaration. He contended that there was abundant evidence that the 1st Respondent was the son of the Orimolusi of Ijebu-Igbo who reigned between 1929 and 1947, whereas the Appellant is only related to the Ojuromi Ruling House through his mother. Hence, the Court of Appeal was right to have adjudged the Appellant as a candidate from the female line. Counsel for the 2nd to 4th Respondent on his part, submitted that there was nothing in the evidence before the trial court to suggest that “male line” in the context of the Orimolusi Chieftaincy Declaration, means a line commencing from males and continuing through males.

Arguing the second issue, counsel for the Appellant submitted that the pleadings have to be considered as a whole, to determine if there has been an admission or not. He urged the court to hold that 8th, 9th and 15th Defendant were qualified to act as kingmakers in the selection of the Appellant as Orimolusi of Ijebu Igbo. Counsel for the 1st Respondent argued that the statement contained in paragraph 23 of the Further Amended Statement of Defence is unequivocal, and cannot be said to be a typographical error as held by the trial court. He submitted that the Court of Appeal was correct to arrive at the conclusion, that the statement amounted to an admission. In his submission, counsel for the 2nd – 4th Respondent argued that the onus is on the Claimant to succeed on the strength of his own case, and even where there is an admission in any paragraph of the Defendant’s pleadings, the court ought to examine the evidence and the subsequent paragraphs in the pleadings of the parties, in arriving at a decision on the matter.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale

Deciding the first issue, the court held that it is the duty of the court to apply the provisions of a Chieftaincy Declaration to the facts of the case established by evidence, particularly as the court has no power to assume the functions of the Chieftaincy Committee as regards the making or amendment of Customary Law governing the selection and appointment of Traditional Chiefs in such relevant case. Where evidence is led by a party which is contrary to the provisions of a registered Chieftaincy Declaration, such contrary evidence should be discountenanced by the court, as no evidence shall be led to defeat the contents of a Chieftaincy Declaration. The court relied on OLADELE v AROMOLARAN II (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 453) 180 and ADIGUN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF OYO STATE (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 53) 678.

Further, the court held that in the interpretation of a Chieftaincy Declaration, the court is guided by the general principles of interpretation of statutes, bearing in mind that the community concerned has already stated what the applicable customary law is. The court is enjoined to give the words used their natural meaning where they are clear and unambiguous, unless to do so would lead to an absurdity – IBRAHIM v BARDE (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt. 474) 513 at 577B. The court held that the proper interpretation of Clause (111)(a)&(b) of the Orimolusi of Ijebu-Igbo Chieftaincy Declaration is that, consideration would first be given to members of the ruling house or the son of the previous holder of the title, of the male line, and it is only where there is no qualified candidate of the male line, that consideration would be given to the female line. Relying on the definition of “male line” in STROUD’S JUDICIAL DICTIONARY, the Court held that the male line referred to in the Chieftaincy Declaration means an unbroken line of males commencing from males and continuing through males, and not merely a trace of the male ancestor; and having regard to the emphasis on the male line in the words used in the Declaration, it could not have been the intention of the makers of the Declaration that if a person from the female line becomes a holder of the title due to the failure of the male line, his male descendants will automatically metamorphose into candidates of the male line. The court held that there was undisputed evidence before the trial court that both the Appellant and the 1st Respondent both trace their roots through a common grandfather, Oba Adesemowo, who only came to the throne through his mother who was a descendant of Ojuromi as a result of a failure of the male line. The Court of Appeal was thus, right to have held that both the Appellant and the 1st Respondent are of the female line of the Ojuromi Ruling House and ought only to be considered when there is no qualified candidate from the male line.

On the 2nd issue, the Court held that an admission is a voluntary acknowledgment made by a party of the existence of the truth of certain facts, which are inconsistent with his claim in action. It is a concession made by a party of the existence of certain facts, which are relevant to the cause of the adversary. The court held that the facts contained in paragraph 23 of the 7th -9th and 13th – 15th Defendant’s further Amended Statement of defence that the 8th and 9th Defendants became chiefs after the death of Oba Adetayo in 1994, and had not been recognised as kingmakers to be eligible to participate in the affairs of the kingmakers, were too detailed to be regarded as a grave drafting error as erroneously held by the trial court. Apart from the fact that this was a clear and unequivocal admission of their ineligibility to participate at the meeting, the evidence adduced before the trial court, particularly the unshaken and unchallenged evidence of PW8 and the 4th Respondent testifying as PW2, supported the pleading on the ineligibility of the 8th, 9th, 14th and 15th Defendant.

Appeal Dismissed.

Representation
Dr. Olumide Ayeni, SAN with others for the Appellant.

Debo Odugunwa with Kolade Akinyele for the 1st Respondent.

Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)