PRINCE RASAK YESUFU OGIEFO V. HRH JAFARU ISESELE I & ORS (2024)

Background

Following the death of His Royal Highness Isesele Ojeifo II, the Onogie of Ewu, on 6 August 1997, a dispute arose over succession to the stool. The 1st respondent was the deceased Onogie’s eldest surviving male child, while the appellant was his grandson through the deceased’s eldest son, who had predeceased the Onogie.

The 1st respondent claimed entitlement under the Ewu customary law declared in Bendel State Legal Notice No. 70 of 1979, which prescribed succession by primogeniture. The appellant contended that Ewu custom entitled surviving adult males of the ruling house to succeed if they performed the required rites. The 1st respondent commenced proceedings in the High Court of Edo State seeking declarations and injunctions. The appellant and other defendants counterclaimed for recognition of the appellant as the legitimate successor.

During the pendency of the proceedings, Edo State enacted Legal Notice No. 1 of 2004, which purported to amend the succession declaration to include a grandson. The trial court granted the 1st respondent’s claims, dismissed the counterclaim, and declared the 2004 Legal Notice unconstitutional, null and void and inapplicable. The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, affirmed the trial court’s judgment, allowed the 1st respondent’s cross-appeal, and dismissed the cross-appeal of the 4th to 6th respondents.

Issues

1. Whether succession to the Onogie of Ewu was governed exclusively by primogeniture under Bendel State Legal Notice No. 70 of 1979.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal correctly treated the 1979 declaration as the applicable and exclusive customary law notwithstanding evidence of other Ewu customs.
3. Whether the 1st respondent was the legitimate successor and whether the appellant, as a grandson, could perform the rites necessary for accession.
4. Whether the 2004 Legal Notice, enacted during the pendency of the proceedings, could affect the accrued dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

Under section 11 of the Bendel State Traditional Rulers and Chiefs Law 1979, a registered declaration concerning a traditional ruler has statutory force and is deemed to be the customary law regulating selection to the title to the exclusion of any other customary usage or rule. Consequently, the Bendel State Legal Notice No. 70 of 1979 was the exclusive determinant of succession to the Onogie of Ewu and did not require proof by traditional evidence.

The 1979 declaration provided for succession by primogeniture, barred females, and provided for succession by the eldest surviving brother and his heirs only where the deceased Onogie left no surviving male issue. Since the deceased Onogie left the 1st respondent as his eldest surviving male child, the appellant, being a grandson, was not the heir apparent.

Only the heir apparent could perform the burial rites and ceremonies preparatory to installation. Any purported performance by a non-heir apparent was ineffective and could not confer succession rights.

A party cannot challenge or argue contrary to a holding of the Court of Appeal that was not appealed against. The unchallenged concurrent finding that the 1979 Legal Notice was the applicable law was therefore accepted as correct, conclusive and binding. The Supreme Court also held that concurrent findings of fact would not be disturbed absent a satisfactory demonstration that they were perverse.

Court Findings

The Court found that the appellant’s grounds and arguments challenging primogeniture and the applicability of the 1979 Legal Notice were incompetent because they contradicted an unchallenged holding of the Court of Appeal. In any event, the statutory declaration conclusively governed the succession dispute.

The Court accepted the concurrent findings that the 1st respondent was the eldest surviving son, had been presented as heir apparent, had performed the requisite burial and installation rites, and had been installed as Onogie of Ewu. The appellant’s attempted rites were of no legal or customary effect.

The Court further endorsed the lower courts’ treatment of the 2004 Legal Notice as incapable of undermining the pending proceedings. Its enactment during the litigation was characterised as an attempt at self-help and as conduct showing disdain for the judicial process.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 14 February 2014 in Appeal No. CA/B/19/2006. The cross-appeal by the 4th, 5th and 6th respondents was also dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay ₦3,000,000 in costs to the 1st respondent, and the cross-appellants were ordered to pay ₦2,000,000 in costs.

Significance

The decision confirms that a statutory or registered chieftaincy declaration displaces proof of inconsistent customary practices and exclusively determines succession to the relevant traditional title. It also reinforces the procedural rule that unchallenged findings are binding on appeal, the restraint of the Supreme Court toward concurrent factual findings, and the principle that government must not use legislative action during pending litigation to pre-empt or undermine the court’s determination.