site logo

JOHN ISURU AJAYI DAUDU V. ADAM SHELU & ORS (2019)

case summary

Court of Appeal (Benin Division)

Before Their Lordships:

  • Samuel Chukwudumebi Adumein JCA
  • M. A. Abraham Adumein JCA
  • Mudashiru Nasiru Oniyangi JCA

Parties:

Appellant:

  • John Isuru Ajayi Daudu

Respondents:

  • Adam Shelu
  • Oba Garuba
  • Tijani Kadiri
  • Friday Bria
  • Steven Aduro
  • Samuel Dani (For Irhofio Ruling House)
  • Chief Franic Osunde
  • Simple Afemikhena
  • S.A. Lawani
  • Sunday Afekhume
  • C.A. Ogedegbe (For Ewure Ruling House)
  • The Governor of Edo State
  • Attorney General, Edo State
  • Hon. Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Edo State
Suit number: A/B/332/2013Delivered on: 2019-07-15

Background

This case concerns a chieftaincy declaration dispute within the Atte Clan of Edo State, Nigeria. The appeal arose from a decision by the High Court of Edo State, which nullified a chieftaincy declaration made in 1979 through Bendel State Legal Notice (BSLN) No. 162. The legal notice restricted the stool to the Imioveka family of the Ewure ruling house. The 1st-11th respondents argued that the stool should be rotational between the Irhofio and Ewure ruling houses.

Issues

The core issues before the Court of Appeal were:

  1. Whether the trial court had the competence to nullify the 1979 chieftaincy declaration.
  2. Whether the claim was statute-barred under section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Law, limiting actions against public officers.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that:

  1. The trial court had the jurisdiction to invalidate the chieftaincy declaration as it was made without due regard to the fair hearing principle.
  2. The cause of action arose not from the issuance of the legal notice but from the attempt to implement it, which took place much later.

Court Findings

The appellate court found that:

  1. The 1st-11th respondents were not provided their rightful opportunity to participate in the inquiry process leading to the declaration, thus violating their right to fair hearing.
  2. The argument of the 12th-14th respondents invoking Public Officers Protection Law failed as they acted unlawfully in depriving the respondents of their rights.

Conclusion

The Court dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, affirming the trial court’s ruling. The court underlined the importance of adhering to proper legal processes in matters of chieftaincy declarations.

Significance

This case is significant as it reaffirms the principles of fair hearing in administrative processes concerning chieftaincy matters, highlighting the judiciary's role in safeguarding these rights against executive overreach.

Counsel:

  • Chief Charles Adogah SAN - for the Appellant
  • Elder J.O. Aghimien SAN - for 1st-11th Respondents
  • R.O. Kadiri, Esq. Senior State Counsel - for 12th-14th Respondents/Cross-Appellants