OLALOYE V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, OSUN STATE (2014)

Background

This appeal arose from a dispute concerning the traditional office of Olori-Olomooba, meaning the head of the princes of Aagbaland in Osun State. The office was significant because its holder was said to have the authority to convene the relevant ruling-house meeting and present a candidate to the kingmakers for the vacant stool of the Alaagba of Aagba. Following the death of the Alaagba, Oba Felix Abioye, a dispute developed between Prince Joseph Olaloye, the 1st appellant, and Mr. Elizer Ogunwole, the 3rd respondent. The appellants maintained that the office was filled by rotation among the three ruling houses—Ahunloye, Odeyale and Fatorisa—and that the 1st appellant had been selected as Olori-Olomooba. The 3rd respondent’s position was that the office was governed principally by seniority and that, as the oldest qualified male prince, he was the rightful holder.

The appellants commenced proceedings before the High Court of Osun State, seeking declarations that the 1st appellant was the Olori-Olomooba and was exclusively entitled to present a candidate from the Fatorisa Ruling House to the kingmakers. They also sought injunctions restraining the 3rd respondent from parading himself as Olori-Olomooba and restraining public authorities from recognizing him. The 3rd and 6th respondents filed a counterclaim seeking declarations confirming the 3rd respondent’s title, validating the steps he had taken in the selection process, restraining the 1st appellant from claiming the title and directing the continuation of the installation process.

The trial court dismissed the appellants’ claims and granted the counterclaim. The appellants appealed, arguing that the judgment was unsupported by the evidence and that the counterclaim was incompetent because some of the events relied upon occurred after the action had been instituted.

Issues

1. Whether the judgment of the trial court was supported by the evidence adduced before it.
2. Whether the trial court was right to entertain and grant the counterclaim of the 3rd and 6th respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the High Court. It held that the primary burden in a civil claim rests on the person who asserts a fact. Under section 137 of the Evidence Act, the appellants had to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the 1st appellant had been validly appointed Olori-Olomooba in accordance with the applicable custom and tradition. Their evidence was materially inconsistent and contradictory. The 1st appellant stated in his evidence-in-chief that he had been appointed at a meeting of the three ruling houses, but under cross-examination he admitted that no such meeting had taken place. Other witnesses also gave conflicting accounts concerning the identity of the head of the relevant compound, the role of age and the procedure for appointing the Olori-Olomooba.

The court reiterated that a claimant must succeed on the strength of his own case, not on the weakness of the defence. Contradictory evidence on a material fact is unreliable and cannot satisfy the civil standard of proof. The court also emphasized that parties must be consistent in their pleadings and evidence and cannot approbate and reprobate by adopting one position in their pleadings and another during testimony.

Court Findings

The appellate court found that the respondents’ evidence was supported by documentary exhibits, including letters and records confirming the 3rd respondent’s recognition as Olori-Olomooba and his role in the Fatorisa Ruling House. Evidence from traditional authorities and persons connected with the ruling houses indicated that seniority or age was an important criterion and that the 3rd respondent was the oldest qualified prince. That evidence was substantially unchallenged. The court held that unrebutted evidence should ordinarily be accepted and acted upon.

The court further held that the trial court had properly evaluated the evidence. Evaluation of evidence and the assessment of witness credibility are primarily functions of a trial court, which sees and hears the witnesses. An appellate court will not interfere with findings of fact supported by the record unless the trial court failed to evaluate the evidence, adopted a wrong approach, or reached a perverse conclusion. No such circumstance was established in this case.

Documents tendered by the appellants in a mixture of Yoruba and English, without proper translation into the language of the court, were rightly disregarded. A judge cannot act as a witness by translating documents personally. The court also applied the principle that where a party pleads reliance on relevant documents but fails to tender them, the court may presume under section 149(d) of the Evidence Act that the documents would have been unfavourable to that party. Counsel’s submissions could not replace evidence, and the appellants’ counsel was criticized for quoting a witness’s testimony out of context in an attempt to create an admission against interest.

On the counterclaim, the court held that a counterclaim is a distinct and independent action. It must be determined on its merits even though it arises from the same dispute as the principal claim. The appellants failed to prove that the respondents had been served with the originating processes before the relevant selection meeting. In addition, the 4th appellant participated in the selection process without protest, thereby weakening the argument that the process was necessarily incompetent or conducted in defiance of the pending suit. The counterclaim was therefore properly entertained and granted.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed. The declarations and injunctions granted in favour of the 3rd and 6th respondents were upheld, including the recognition of the 3rd respondent as Olori-Olomooba and the validation of the consequential steps taken in relation to the selection of a candidate for the Alaagba stool. No order as to costs was made because the dispute was regarded as an intra-family royal dispute in which peaceful coexistence among the ruling houses should be encouraged.

Significance

The decision restates important Nigerian evidence and civil-procedure principles. It confirms that customary offices must be proved by credible evidence of the relevant custom; contradictory testimony will not establish a customary entitlement. It also illustrates the importance of documentary evidence in resolving disputes involving traditional succession and the limited role of an appellate court in reviewing factual findings. Finally, the decision confirms that a properly pleaded counterclaim is independent of the main action and must be adjudicated on its merits.