OGUNLUSI V. ADEDIPE (1995)

Background

The respondents, members of the Olaso family, commenced proceedings in the Ondo State High Court, Ado-Ekiti, concerning the Abodi of Iremo minor chieftaincy. They claimed that the chieftaincy had two ruling houses, Olaso and Upon, and challenged the appointment of the second appellant, Pius Talabi Fajuyi, by the first appellant, Chief James Ogunlusi, as kingmaker.

The trial court found that both factions descended from Olomola, the first Abodi, but held that the appointment process had not complied with the applicable customary procedure. It declared the steps taken in relation to the second appellant’s appointment null and void and ordered that the process be commenced afresh. The appellants appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the trial court granted reliefs that were not claimed by the respondents.
2. Whether the respondents proved their case, having regard to alleged contradictions, paucity of evidence, and the evaluation of the evidence by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi

A court must not grant a relief that has not been claimed. However, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, the court may grant a relief to which a party is entitled on the facts and pleadings, provided that it does not grant more than the party claimed. The trial court’s declaration that Olomola was the relevant ruling house, rather than declaring two separate ruling houses of Olaso and Upon, was a permissible and lesser declaration supported by the evidence.

For the appointment of the Abodi of Iremo, the appropriate customary procedure required the family to select a candidate and present that candidate to the Chief Aremo. The Chief Aremo was then required to summon the relevant chiefs for the customary meeting, swearing-in and installation processes, after which the new Abodi would be presented to the Ewi of Ado-Ekiti, the prescribed authority, for approval under section 13(2) of the Ondo State Chiefs’ Edict 1984.

Court Findings

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not make any radical or unclaimed award. The declaration concerning Olomola was supported by the evidence and did not prejudice the respondents’ other reliefs.

The court further held that the appellants had not followed the customary appointment procedure. The appointment and the steps taken towards the installation of the second appellant were therefore properly declared null and void. The trial court was also entitled to restrain further steps in the defective process and order that the process be started de novo.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence. The respondents’ descent from Olomola and their connection with Odo-Ado were sufficient to establish their entitlement to participate in the succession process.

Conclusion

The appeal was unanimously dismissed. The respondents were awarded costs of N1,000.

Significance

The decision illustrates the limits on judicially granting unclaimed reliefs and confirms that a court may grant a lesser relief supported by the pleadings and evidence. It also emphasises strict compliance with customary procedures governing the appointment and installation of a minor chief, including the role of the prescribed authority.