DR. STEPHEN BILLY OLAJIDE V. CHIEF ADEBAYO ADENIYI & ORS. (2019)

Background

This interlocutory appeal arose from proceedings in Suit No. KWS/80/2016 before the High Court of Kwara State concerning the vacant stool of Ollola of Olla. The 1st–4th respondents claimed that, under the custom and tradition of Olla, succession to the stool rotated between the Oke section, comprising the Odi and Iketa Ruling Houses, and the Isale section, comprising the Ariko and Osigiri Ruling Houses. Following the death of the previous Ollola, they contended that it was the turn of the Oke section to produce the next king.

They sought declaratory and injunctive reliefs restraining the kingmakers, the traditional authorities and the Kwara State Government from selecting, appointing or recognising a candidate from the rival ruling houses. They also challenged the report of a three-member Isin Traditional Council ad hoc committee established to resolve the dispute. The action was commenced on 8 March 2016. The Governor of Kwara State and the Attorney-General were subsequently joined, and the appellant was joined as a defendant on 26 September 2017.

Despite the pending litigation, the appellant was nominated, appointed and installed as Ollola of Olla. The material dates in the record showed that his appointment occurred on 19 December 2016, several months after the suit had been filed, while the installation or coronation was also treated as having occurred during the pendency of the proceedings. The claimants therefore applied to the High Court for an order setting aside the nomination, appointment, installation and coronation. On 25 June 2018, the trial court granted the application, holding that the acts had been undertaken in disregard of the pending case and amounted to an attempt to foist a fait accompli on the court.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant’s nomination, appointment and installation had been concluded before the relevant respondents and the appellant were joined as parties to the action.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the appellant’s nomination, appointment and installation at an interlocutory stage.
3. Whether the appeal was competent in view of objections alleging defective grounds of appeal and late compilation and transmission of the record.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal dismissed the preliminary objections. It held that the principal purpose of a ground of appeal is to communicate the appellant’s grievance to the respondent. Where the ground gives sufficient notice of the complaint and does not mislead the parties or the court, an objection based merely on argumentative form should not defeat substantial justice. The court further held that a single competent ground of appeal is capable of sustaining the hearing and determination of an appeal.

On the record of appeal, the court interpreted Order 8, rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 as imposing the initial 60-day period on the registrar of the lower court. If the registrar fails to compile and transmit the record within that period, the appellant has a further 30 days to undertake the task. Since the registrar’s 60 days expired on 7 January 2019 and the record was transmitted on 8 January 2019, the transmission was timely. The court also held that “appellant” includes the appellant’s legal practitioner acting on the appellant’s behalf.

On the substantive question, the court applied the principle that parties must not take steps during litigation designed to overreach the court or render its eventual judgment nugatory. The appointment and installation were undertaken after commencement of the suit and by persons who were aware, or ought to have been aware, that the chieftaincy dispute was before the court. Installation was not a legally insignificant celebration; it was an important part of the process of making an Oba.

Court Findings

The court acknowledged the general rule that courts should not make orders affecting persons who are not parties, because doing so may violate the constitutional right to fair hearing under section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution. However, the appellant and the relevant governmental respondents had been joined before the interlocutory application was determined. The evidence also showed that the traditional chiefs involved in the selection and installation process knew of the pending suit.

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the High Court had finally determined the substantive chieftaincy dispute. The order did not decide which ruling house was entitled to produce the Ollola; rather, it reversed steps taken during the litigation to alter the subject matter of the action. A party cannot use self-help to create a new state of affairs and then argue that the court is powerless to restore the position necessary for a meaningful adjudication.

Relying particularly on Abiodun v. Chief Judge, Kwara State and Tanimowo v. Odewoye, the court held that the appellant’s installation during the pendency of the action could properly be set aside. The doctrine against taking steps that would foist a fait accompli on the court applied notwithstanding the appellant’s contention that some aspect of the nomination predated the suit. The decisive consideration was that the appointment and installation were completed while the dispute over the stool remained pending.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed as unmeritorious. The ruling of the High Court of Kwara State delivered on 25 June 2018 was affirmed. The order nullifying and setting aside the appellant’s nomination, appointment and installation as Ollola of Olla was maintained. Costs of N50,000 were awarded against the appellant in favour of the 1st–4th respondents.

Significance

The decision reinforces the Nigerian courts’ power to protect the subject matter and effectiveness of pending proceedings. It confirms that litigants and public authorities must not proceed with acts capable of undermining the court’s eventual judgment, especially in disputes concerning public or traditional offices. It also clarifies that an interlocutory order may undo a later act performed in defiance of pending litigation without amounting to a final determination of the substantive entitlement to the office. Finally, the judgment adopts a justice-oriented approach to appellate procedure by refusing to allow technical objections to obscure clearly communicated grounds of appeal or a timely transmission of the record.