site logo
Skip to case content
Case Digest

PRINCE JACOB OJO OYEWO V. THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF EKITI S (2022)

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Coram
  • Olukayode Ariwoola JSC (Presided and Read the Lead Judgment)
  • Uwani Musa Abba-Aji JSC
  • Mohammed Lawal Garba JSC
  • Adamu Jauro JSC
  • Tijjani Abubakar JSC
Parties

Appellant:

  • Prince Jacob Ojo Oyewo

Respondent:

  • The Executive Governor of Ekiti State
Suit number
SC. 201/2010
Delivered on

Background

This case involves a dispute over the traditional stool of the Onisan of Isan Chieftaincy in Ekiti State. The appellant, Prince Jacob Ojo Oyewo, claimed it was the rightful turn of his ruling house to fill the position. After he contested the stool against Sunday Owolabi Ajiboye (the 2nd respondent), the Executive Governor (1st respondent) appointed Ajiboye despite his previous conviction. Displeased, Oyewo filed a suit in the High Court seeking nullification of Ajiboye's appointment and other related orders.

Issues

The Supreme Court had to determine whether:

  1. The lower court was justified in formulating an issue from an incompetent ground without inviting parties' counsel for their input.
  2. The trial court’s decision to allow the appellant time to pay the required deposit for filing was proper given that statutory compliance was crucial.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court established that a court can reformulate issues from the grounds of appeal but must ensure that they derive from competent grounds. The court emphasized that it is also crucial for parties to be given a hearing when issues are raised suo motu.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that:

  1. The issue raised by the lower court was not suo motu since it stemmed from the trial court's decision on a matter that was already being contested.
  2. The appellant failed to comply with the necessary condition precedent for instituting his case, as required by the Edict regarding chieftaincy disputes; thus, his suit remained incompetent.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit. The court affirmed the decision of the lower court, which had ruled correctly on the preliminary objections regarding the appellant’s failure to comply with legal requirements.

Significance

This case clarifies the procedural mandates for bringing actions challenging chieftaincy appointments and establishes the importance of adhering to condition precedents within litigation processes, confirming that non-compliance can lead to the dismissal of a case.

Counsel:

  • Adetunji Oso, Esq. (with Umar Abdulhameed, Esq.) - for the Appellant
  • Folashade Alli (Mrs.), Esq. - for the Respondent