site logo
Skip to case content
Case Digest

ALOMAJA VS. ADEWALE (2004)

Court of Appeal (Benin Division)

Coram
  • RABIU DANLAMI MUHAMMAD, JCA
  • M.S. MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, JCA
  • NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, JCA
Parties

Appellants:

  • STEPHEN OLUWOLE ALOMAJA
  • SAMUEL OLUFEMI ELEGBE
  • SAMUEL DANIYAN

Respondents:

  • JOHN ADEWALE
  • GABRIEL OLADUNNI
  • KAYODE BABALOLA
  • THE SECRETARY, AKOKO NORTH EAST LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  • IKARE
  • COMMISSIONER FOR SPECIAL DUTIES
  • MILITARY GOVERNOR’S OFFICE, AKURE
  • ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, ONDO STATE
  • THE MILITARY GOVERNOR, ONDO STATE
Suit number
CA/B/116/98
Delivered on

Background

The case involved an appeal in a chieftaincy matter concerning the Oluboropa of Iboropa, initiated by the appellants against the respondents regarding the validity of chieftaincy declarations. The appellants contended that the 1960 Approved Registered Declaration regarding the Oluboropa of Iboropa was the sole and valid declaration for the chieftaincy, whereas the respondents proposed an opposing viewpoint based on a white paper issued by the Ondo State Government in 1989 which invalidated the appellants' claim.

Issues

The primary issues before the court included:

  1. Were the exhibits A and B effective and valid to warrant a reversal of the lower court's judgment?
  2. Did the trial court err in declaring that these documents ceased to have effect?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that:

  1. The registered chieftaincy declaration must comply with section 24(2)(a) of the Chiefs Edict 1984, which required submission to the Commissioner for approval and re-registration.
  2. Exhibits A and B were invalid as they had not been submitted or re-registered as required by law.

Court Findings

The court concluded that:

  1. Exhibits A and B were indeed made in 1960 under previous legislation and had not been upheld under the current Chiefs Edict 1984.
  2. Due to the failure to submit these declarations, they became ineffective, and thus the appellants could not rely on them to claim rights to the chieftaincy.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing the importance of adherence to statutory requirements for chieftaincy declarations.

Significance

This case is significant as it underscores the rigorous legal framework surrounding chieftaincy matters in Nigeria, particularly the implications of statutory compliance under the Chiefs Edict. It illustrates the necessity for parties seeking recognition of chieftaincy rights to ensure that their claims are first validated through appropriate governmental channels, thereby preventing administrative and legal disputes stemming from non-compliance.

Counsel:

  • Fatai Ajiboye, Esq. - for the Appellants
  • Alhaji S. B. Olanipekun - for the 1st to 3rd Respondents
  • C. K. Akinrinsola, Esq. - for the 4th - 7th Respondents