…Files Appeal, asking appellate court to set aside order
A first class traditional ruler in Ondo State, the Oluoke of Oke-Igbo in the Ile-Oluji/Oke-Igbo Local Government Area of the State, Oba Babajide Lawrence Oluwole, has on Tuesday, asked the Court of Appeal in Ondo State to quash a ruling of the state High Court which nullified his appointment as Monarch
Recall that a State High Court sitting in Ondo city, had on April 13, nullified the appointment of the monarch, following a suit filed by two princes from the Aare Kugbaigbe ruling house, Rufus Adekanye and Temitope Adeoye, Head and Secretary of the House respectively.
They had challenged the appointment of the monarch by the state government in court and had joined the Kingmakers in the town as parties to the suit.
The plaintiffs had argued that the defendant was not a member of the Aare Kugbaigbe Ruling House which turn was to present a candidate to the throne, adding that the stool is still vacant.
Justice Ademola Enikuemehin in his ruling, had found in favour of the plaintiffs, and held that Oluwole was not a member of the ruling house which turn was to produce the king.
The court had therefore, ordered that “the Olu-Oke of Oke-Igbo Chieftaincy in the Ile-Oluji/Oke-Igbo Local Government Area of Ondo State is subject to the Declaration in Part two of Justice Adeloye Judicial Commission Of Inquiry On Chieftaincy Matters and the Chiefs Law CAP 27 Volume 1 Laws of Ondo State 2006.”
The court had stated further that “Under the Olu-Oke of Oke-Igbo Declaration contained in Part Two of Justice Adeloye Judicial Commission Of Inquiry On Chieftaincy Matters, eligibility to the throne is restricted to the descendants of (1) Odo Eleyowo (2) Aare Kugbaigbe (3) Kuole Oloje (4) Aderin Ologbenla (5) Ajibike Adedimeji of the male linage who is thus constituted as the five Ruling Houses of the Chieftaincy.
Dissatisfied with the lower court’s verdict, the defendants through their counsel Mr Olalekan Ojo (SAN), on Tuesday, filed a Notice of Appeal, challenging the entire rulling of the lower court.
The appellants are listed as: Chief Babajide Lawrence Oluwole, Chief Clement Ogunlana, Chief Abiodun Oyewusi, Chief Oye Elusiyan, Chief Doyin Olatunji, Chief Tunde Odejobi, Chief Sola Adeniran, Chief Damilola Ogungbemi, Chief (Mrs) G.M. Somefun, Chief Obalale, and Chief J.O. Oketade-Yegbata
Listed as respondents are: Prince Rufus Adekanye, and Prince Temitope Adeoye (on behalf of themselves and the Aare Kugbaigbe Rulling House of the Olu-Oke of Oke Igbo Chieftanicy, Oke Igbo)
Other respondents are :Governor of Ondo State, Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Attorney General of Ondo State and the , Secretary, Ile-Oluji, Oke- Igbo Local Government.
In his seven grounds of appeal, the appellant also exhibited four particulars of errors by the lower court, and consequently invited the appellate court to make findings in his favour.
The appellants first avers that the trial judge erred in law by failing to deliver judgement within 90 days after parties had concluded their written addresses.
Appellants argue that the trial judge erred in law, by relying on the contents of exhibit C (a book authored by the first appellant) when the said exhibit C was merely produced before the trial court, in obedience to the Subpoena Duces Tecum served on first appellant without calling any witness to give evidence with respect to same
They argue that the lower court erred in law by treating portions of the evidence of DW3 during cross examination, as evidence or admission against the interest of the appellants, when the so called admission was not made by any of the appellants.
They aver that the trial judge erred in law by granting the first and second respondents , injunctive and declaratory reliefs against the appellants, without properly evaluating totality of the evidence before the trial court, and thereby, came to a decision occasioning miscarriage of justice.
The appellants consequently, wants the appeal court to set aside the judgement of the lower court and dismiss the first and second respondent’s claim against the appellants.
In the alternative, the appellants seek an order of the appellate court, remitting the suit back to the State High Court, for fresh trial before a new judge.