FASADE VS. BABALOLA (2003)

Background

This case arose from a dispute regarding the chieftaincy of Owa of Igbajo, following the death of the last Owa in 1988. The Owa-Iloro ruling house was responsible for presenting candidates to fill the vacant chieftaincy. Six candidates emerged, with the 1st appellant, Prince Olufemi Fasade, selected by the kingmakers and approved by the local government and state government. Subsequently, the 1st respondent challenged this nomination in court, leading to a series of legal proceedings.

Issues

The main issues for consideration in the Supreme Court included:

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in granting declaratory reliefs based on grounds previously dismissed.
2. Whether the respondents were estopped from litigating due to their prior conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a properly registered chieftaincy declaration governs the customary law applicable for the selection and appointment of a chieftaincy. Any failure to comply with the procedures stipulated in such a declaration would render the nomination invalid unless there was a waiver of those procedures by the parties involved.

Court Findings

Key findings by the Supreme Court included:

1. The registered chieftaincy declaration constituted the applicable customary law and was conclusive until amended.
2. Procedural requirements in chieftaincy declarations could, in appropriate circumstances, be waived.
3. The amendment of a chieftaincy declaration is not a judicial function; changes can only be made by proper authorities under the law.
4. Waiver requires the party to be aware of their rights and voluntarily choose to abandon them.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court found in favor of the appellants. It acknowledged that the respondents had waived their rights concerning the procedural requirements laid down in the chieftaincy declaration. Therefore, the previous judgment of the Court of Appeal granting reliefs to the respondents was set aside, restoring the trial court's decision dismissing their claims.

Significance

This decision underscores the importance of adhering to established procedural requirements in chieftaincy matters. It illustrates how parties may waive their rights regarding customary law procedures, providing clarity on the concept of waiver and its implications in civil cases. This ruling reiterates the court's position on the evidential status of registered chieftaincy declarations as part of the applicable customary law.