FRANCIS OLANIYI OGUNTADE V. JOSEPH OYEWALE OYELAKIN & ORS. (2019)

Background

This appeal arose from a dispute over the Olokua of Okua chieftaincy stool in Odo-Otin Local Government Area of Osun State. Following the death of Olokua Raji Popoola, rival interests presented competing candidates. The appellant, Francis Olaniyi Oguntade, claimed that his Alaelu family was a branch of the Aina Okobi Ruling House and was therefore entitled to participate in the selection and nominate a candidate. The first respondent, Joseph Oyewale Oyelakin, was nominated by the Abioye family, which maintained that the Alaelu family was not part of the recognised ruling house.

Both sides relied principally on traditional history, supplemented by documentary evidence concerning past chieftaincy contests, family activities and the findings of a government-appointed inquiry. In 1984, the Osun State Government, through the applicable Chiefs Law, established a panel of inquiry into the dispute. The panel’s report, admitted as Exhibit D, found that the Alaelu family was not related to the Aina Okobi Ruling House, that the appellant’s nomination was irregular, and that the selection process should commence afresh.

The appellant challenged the report and sought declarations that his family belonged to the ruling house, that the nomination of the first respondent was unconstitutional and contrary to native law and custom, and that the inquiry’s report was invalid. The Osun State High Court dismissed his claims. The Court of Appeal affirmed that decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts had failed to properly evaluate his oral and documentary evidence and had reached perverse findings.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal properly considered the appellant’s complaints concerning the evaluation of the evidence and the findings of the trial court.
2. Whether the evidence of particular witnesses, especially the evidence said to support the appellant’s traditional history, ought to have altered the decision.
3. Whether the documentary evidence, including Exhibit D and other historical documents, was properly considered and given effect.
4. Whether the appellant had established entitlement to the declaratory reliefs sought on the strength of his own case.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that an appellate court ordinarily does not interfere with findings of fact made by a trial court that saw and heard the witnesses. The trial court has the advantage of observing their demeanour, mannerisms and credibility. Interference is justified only in exceptional circumstances, including where the findings are based on no evidence, are unreasonable, speculative, contrary to the weight of evidence, or occasion a miscarriage of justice. A finding is perverse where no reasonable tribunal could have reached it on the evidence or where the court took irrelevant matters into account or ignored matters that were obvious and material.

The Court further held that concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the Court of Appeal are entitled to substantial respect. The Supreme Court may intervene where such findings are demonstrably perverse or otherwise affected by a serious miscarriage of justice, but the appellant failed to establish any such circumstance. The findings were supported by the totality of the oral and documentary evidence, including Exhibit D.

The Court also restated that a claimant seeking declaratory relief must succeed on the strength of his own case and cannot rely on weaknesses in the defence. Civil cases are determined on the pleadings and the evidence adduced in support of them, generally on the balance of probabilities. Since the appellant failed to prove the native law and custom upon which his declarations were founded, his claims could not succeed.

The rule in Kojo II v. Bonsie was held to be inapplicable. That rule is invoked where there is a direct conflict between competing traditional histories and the court must test those histories against acts within living memory. In this case, the appellant first had to prove the existence and content of the native law and custom supporting his claim. He failed to do so.

The Supreme Court additionally held that Exhibit D remained valid and subsisting. A cause already determined by a competent tribunal, after the parties were heard, should not be relitigated in a subsequent action. Public policy requires an end to litigation, and the appellant was estopped from reopening the same dispute.

Court Findings

The Court found that the appellant did not establish any credible blood relationship between the Alaelu family and the Aina Okobi Ruling House. Evidence concerning joint settlement, participation in festivals and other communal activities was insufficient to prove membership of the ruling house. The respondents’ evidence, considered as a whole, was more persuasive.

The trial court had properly evaluated the evidence rather than relying on isolated testimony. The Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that even if the allegedly overlooked testimony had been considered, it would not have changed the outcome in light of the stronger contrary evidence. The appellant’s repeated arguments did not cure the weaknesses in his case; repetition does not improve an unacceptable argument.

The inquiry had acted within the scope of its mandate, and the appellant had participated in its proceedings through representation, written submissions and oral evidence. No denial of fair hearing or procedural defect sufficient to invalidate the report was proved.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the concurrent decisions of the Osun State High Court and the Court of Appeal. The appellant’s declaratory claims concerning the composition of the Aina Okobi Ruling House, the validity of the first respondent’s nomination and the inquiry report were therefore unsuccessful. Costs of N500,000 were awarded against the appellant in favour of the respondents.

Significance

The decision is significant for Nigerian civil and customary law litigation. It reinforces the strict burden on claimants seeking declarations, particularly in chieftaincy disputes founded on traditional history. It also confirms the limited circumstances in which the Supreme Court will disturb concurrent findings of fact. In addition, the judgment illustrates the importance of res judicata and finality of litigation where a competent inquiry has already determined the material dispute after affording the parties an opportunity to be heard. Finally, it clarifies that documentary material must be assessed together with oral evidence and that the rule in Kojo II v. Bonsie cannot be mechanically invoked whenever parties rely on traditional history.