A High court sitting in Okitipupa has nullified the Oniju of Iju-Odo Chieftaincy declaration, holding that the State Government had no power to create a new chieftaincy without the consent of the Rebuja of Osooro land, the prescribed authority over chieftaincy matters in the communities within Osooro land, including Iju-Odo Community.
The court declared that the Rebuja of Osooro land is the prescribed authority over chieftaincy matters in Osooro land and that the State Government has no power to create a new chieftaincy without following due process.
In a judgement made available to our correspondent, the court also held that the appointment of the 6th defendant as the Oniju of Iju-Odo was null and void, as it was not done in accordance with the custom and tradition of Iju-Odo.
The judgement partly reads" A DECLARATION that the Rebuja of Osooro land, a Recognized Chieftaincy, is the Prescribed Authority over Chieftaincy matter in the communities within the Osooro including |ju-Odo Community In accordance with customary law of Osooro land and Chiefs Law of Ondo State, Volume 1 CAP Laws of Ondo State 2006.
b. A DECLARATION that under the Chief Laws of Ondo State, the State Government either through its executive Council, the Governor or any of Its functionaries has no powers to create a Chieftaincy but only to apply Part one of the Chiefs Law to an existing minor Chieftaincy for the purpose of making declaration of recognizing Chieftaincy thereof, thus rendering the purported creation of Oniju Chieftaincy declaration by the Executive Council of a non-existent Chieftaincy title within Osooro but not associated with Osooro tand, Megat, null, vold and ineffectual.
c. A DECLARATION that by the Terniof Reference, guidelines and modus operandi of The Honourable Justice GE.T Ajama Commission of Inquiry on Chieftaincy matter set up by the Ondo State Government pursuant to the Chief law and Commissions Inquiry law of Ondo State and the customary law of Osoord land, creatiol of any Recognize Chieftaincy in any of the communities in Osoore land, Okitipupa Local Government Area Is subject
the consent of the Rebuja of Osooro Land to the exclusion of any Oba, thus rendering the creation of non-existence and purported Oniju of IjuOdo Chieftaincy declaration within Osooro land without the consent of the Rebuja of Osooro land, Is arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, null, void and ineffectual.
d. A DECLARATION that the 6" Defendant cannot parade himself or holding himself out as the Oba Oniju of Iju-Odo in Osooro, Okitipupa Local Government Area, Ondo State based on the White Paper being contrary to the customary law of Osooro Chieftaincy and the Chiefs Law of Ondo state having not been elected as an Oba by the kingmiakers in iju-Odo.
e. A DECLARATION that the claimants, the Joroolas, Lumures and Gbasumokos who are from different families, culture and traditions cannot have a joint kingmaker as purportedly stated in the Government white papers.
f. A DECLARATION that in line with native law and customs the selection or election of candidates into the Oba’s stool in Iju-Odo, Osooro in Okitipupa Local Government Is the exclusive preserved of the kingmakers represented by the 3” claimant.
g. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT setting aside the Ondo State Government White Paper to extent of its creating and recognizing the purported Oniju Chleftaincy declaration at page 34 in the Okitipupa Local Government Areaof the white papér within the territory of Osooro land contrary to native by, customs, traditions and customary practices of osooro land Chieftaincy and inconsistent with the terms of reference and Guidelines of Ajama Commission of Inquiry and Chiefs Law of Ondo State.
h. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 1sr -5th Defendants, there agents, privies, representatives and or any other person or persons acting for them from recognizing 6 Defendant as thd Oniju of Iju-Odo in Osooro land, Okitipupa Local Government Area, Ondo State based on the Ondo State Government White Paper at page 34 In Okitipupa Local Government Area having not been nominated, presented and elected or appointed by the kingmakers In iju-Odo.
i. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 6" Defendant, his agents, privies and family members and or any person or persons acting through or for the 6th Defendant from parading himself and or holding did not have kingmakers until the publication of the White Paper on Ajama Chieftaincy Commission. DW1 testified that there was a dispute in respect of the rotational order of ascension to the stool which resulted Into Suit No. HOK/61.2006 In which judgment was delivered in year 2012. DW1 said the installation of the 6® Defendant by the Ondo State Government was to give effect to the judgement delivered In Suit No. HOK/61/2006. DW1 tendered Exhibits DWA to OWD.
The 5th Defendant did not file any process and did not adduce evidence
The 6” Defendant who testified as DW2, relied on his amended statement of defence and counter claimed as follows
1.A DECLARATION that under the Chiefs law of Ondo State, Oniju of Iju-Odo is a recognized chieftaincy and the prescribed authority over iju-Odo kingdom.
A DECLARATION that having Been elected as an Oba and his election approved by the Executive council with presentation of staff of office and certificate, in 2014, he remains the Oniju of iju-Odo and the prescribed authority over iju-odo
A DECLARATION that the Lemegha Badore, the Claimants’ family, having taken their their turn in line with rotation amongst the four families that constitute iju-Odo kingdom.
4. AN ORDER restraining Chief Sehindemi Oguntoye, the Ojomu of Osooro or any other person now and in future from parading himself as the Regent of Iju-Odo kingdom.
5. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court giving effect to the recommendations of Ajama commission of inquiry on Iju-Odo chieftaincy.
6. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL injunction restraining the 1° to 3° Claimants from challenging the authority of the 6th defendant as the Oniju of IjuOdo.
AN ORDER directing the Claimants and their counsel to apologise to him In writing and for the Claimants to pay a bottle of gin, a goat and five kolanuts as an appeasement to Ehiale (Ancestors of the land of IJu-Odo for desecration caused by sacrilegious treatment meted on Oba Oniju of Wu-Odo.
8. Cost of N500, 000.00 for act of defamation
DW2 adopted and relied on his written deposition made on $/5/2028 and & 7/11/2024. The testimony of DW2 is materially the same with that of DW1.
He tendered documents admitted as Exhibits DWE to DWI,
Upon the close of evidence? counsel, to the respective parties filed and exchanged final written MATES.
The 1st to 4th Defendants’ counsel formulated 5 Issues for determination as follows:
1, Whether or not inthe circu stances of this case, the 6" Defendant was lawtully’er justifiably and validly appointed as the Oba Orofun/Oniju of *Ajp-Odo in Okitipupa Local Government Area od Ondo State by 1st to 4th Defendants OR
Whether or not in the circumstances of this case 1st to 4tg Defendants (ODSG) followed due process in ine with extant chiefs law of Ondo state 2006 in the approval of the nomination, selection and appointment of the 6thDefendant as Oba Orofun/Oniju of [ju-Odo in Okitipupa Local Government Area of Ondo State
2. Whether or not Ondo State Government (Defendants) must kowtow to the Consent of Rebuja of Osooro land Oba Gbadebo Bajowa as the prescribed authority before the approval for appointment the nomination, selection and installation of a Recognized Chief/Oba Orofun/Oniju of Iju-Odo 6 A (th) Defendant) under Vol. | Cap 27 Chiefs Law of Ondo State of Nigeria, 2006.
3 Whether or not the Defendants accord the claimants fair hearing before the final determination of their petition/protest on: Iju-Odo chieftaincy stool. .
4 Whether the 1st to 4th Defendants relied on Ajama White Paper to create Oniju of \ju-Odo Chieftaincy Declaration by recognizing 6 Defendant as Oniju of fu-Odo.
5. Whether or not the Claimants has discharged the onus of proof placed on them in this case to be entitled to any or ail the retiefs claimed before this court.
Submissions were. made in support ofthe issues and counsel impress It upon the Court to dismiss-the claimants’ Bult with aggravating and excruciating cost.
The 6th Defendant’s counsel formulated 2 issues for determination as follows:
Whether the installation of the 6th Defendant as the traditional ruter i.e the Oniju of tju-Odo was a creation of the report/white paper on Ajama judiciat commission of inquiry.
2. Whether upon creating new stool for ju Odo in 2004 by the 1st to 5th Defendants Rebuja of Osoore is the prescribed authority over Iju-Odo.
Arguments were made in respect of the Issues and counsel concluded by urging the Court to dismiss the Claimants’ sult and grant the counter claim of the 6th Defendant.
The Claimants’ counsel formulated 4 Issues for determination as follows:
1. Whether by the totality of evidence adduced by the parties in this case, the purported Oniu of Iju Odo chleftaincy declaration of iju Odo correctly represents the chieftaincy customs or tradition of IJu-Odo people in Osooro.
2. Whether the defendants could unilaterally change the Orofun chieftaincy title of Iju-Odo exclusively preserved to the clalmants.to the purported Oniju of Iju-Odo chieftaincy.
3. Whether claimants have proved theif Case té be entitled to the reliefs sought In this suit. ed
Whether the 6th defendant/counter claimant has proved his counter claim to be entitled to the rel|#fs sought in this sult.
He proffered argument in aid of the issues and urged the Court to grant the Claimants’ reliefs and dismiss the counter claim of the 6" Defendants.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Whether the 1st to 4th Defendants have the prerogative to create and indeed tawhitly created thé Oniju of Iju-Odo Chieftaincy.
The resolution of the sole issue will impact both the claimants sult and the 6th Defendant’s counter claim i.e the resolution of the issue will determine which will succeed between the claimants’ case and the 6th Defendant’s counter claim.
It Is a general principle that a party who seeks relief from the court has the burden of proving the existence of the facts he relied upon for seeking the reliefs, However, there are circumstances in which the burden may shift to the other party.
See EKEOPARAH V. GOV OF LAGOS STATE & ORS (2019) LPELR50716(CA) (PP. 10 PARAS. A) where the Court of Appeal per TUKUR ,J.C.A held that:
"A party who Is claiming a relief from the Court, generally hos the burden of proving the existence of facts upon which he Is basing the grant of his cloim. The legal burden of proof is thot burden which the law places upon a person who would have judgment delivered against him, if no evidence was led on the pleadings before the Court. This person “ts usually the Plaintiff/Claimant/Petitioner as the case may be, but might be the Defendant in certain circumstances, such as where a presumption of law operates in favour of the Plaintiff's claims.
Once the legal burden of proof hgs been discharged, the burden of proof shifts to the other party. This is known as evidential burden of proof”.
It is the person who asserts, as the claimants fn thls sult, that bears the burden to prove the existence of facts relied upon. The Claimants have the duty to succeed on the strength of their case and not on the weakness, if any, of the defendant. .
From the totality of the evidence adduced by the parties, what | deduce as the grouse of the Claimants are that the stool of Oniju of iju Odo as created by 1" to 4" defendants fs alien to the custom and tradition of Ijz Odo. The Claimants contention Isthat the only chieftaincy known to {ju-Odo is the Orofun of iju-Odo. Therefore, the appointment and recognition of the 6" Defendant as the Oba Oniju of Iju-Odo Is contrary to the custom and tradition of lju Odo because he did not pass through the process of appointment by the kingmakers. The Claimants also contend that the Ajama Commission cannot make guidelines for appointment of the Oba of Iju Odo without recource to the Rebuja of Osooro who Is the prescribed authority.
The Defendants did not contend that the title of Oba of Iju ~Odo was Orofun prior to the appointment of the 6 Defendant. The Defendants did not also contest the fact that the 6" Defendant was appointed by the 1st to 4th Defendants. The Defendants did not dispute that the 6" Defendant was not selected/appointed or presented by kingmakers before the appointment by the 1st to 4th Defendants.
In view of this, It is my view and i so hold that the burden is lifted from the shoulders of the Claimants to that of the Defendants to prove how the Orofun of tju-Odo transformed to Oniju of liu Odo. The Defendants at this stage also bear the burden to prove that the 6" Defendant was appointed in compliance with the custom and tradition of Iju-Odo
The position of the betendart are as follows:
1, that the 6th Defendant was appointed in year 2014 in compliance with the judgment of the High Court in Suit No. HOK/61/2006.
2. That there was no Kingmaker prior to the Ajama Commission’s Report of year 2022 Ay ow
3. that the title of Orofun was changed by the 1 to 4th Defendants and gazetted.
I have painstakingly read the said judgement in Suit No. HOK/61/2006, admitted as Exhibt DWA in this instant case, delivered by his lordship Hon. Justice Olasehinde Kumuyi (Chief Judge) as he then was, | find no mention of the chieftaincy of Oniju of Iju-Qdo. On the contrary, both the main claim and counter claim in the said Suit No. HOK/61/2006 relates to Orofun of Iju-Odo.
Therefore, the appointment of Oba Oniju of Iju-Odo cannot be in sald to be in compliance with a Judgment in Suit No. HOK/61/2006 In respect of Orofun of ijuOdo.
If indeed there was no kingmaker as at 2014 when the 6" Defendant was appointed, then the Defendants have explanations to.make regarding the method or mode used for the selection, presentation and appointment of the 6™ Defendant to the non-existing Oniju of lju-Odo Chieftaincy. The defendants remained elusive in this regard.
Evidence of the 1st to 4th Defendants, through OW1, In respect of the establishment of the Oniju of iju-Odo Chieftaincy seems contradictory. In paragraph S, OW1 testified that the Onijuof Iju-Odo was created in year 2004. in paragraph 16, DW1 stated that the 6" Defendant was crowned as Oniju of tjuOdo in year 2014 by the Ondo State Government. However, in paragraph 28 DW1 testified that the 6™ Defendant was appointed as Orofun of tju-Odo on 24% November, 2014 and was later changed by the Ondo State Government to Oniju of Iju-Odo. If indeed the Oniju of Iju Odo chieftaincy has been in existence since 2004, why was the 6"" Defendant appointed on 24" November, 2014 as Orofun of Iju-Odo in the first instance before changing to Oniju of Iju-Odo.
The question therefore is which of the narratives should this court choose? However, it is not the business of the court to choose fora party which of the contradictory position to rely upon as posited by the Supreme Court in the case of ZAKIRAI V. MUHAMMAD & ORS (2017) LPELR-42349 (SC) that:
“The law insists that where there are material contradictions in the evidence adduced by a Party, the Court is enjoined to reject the entire evidence as it cannot pick and choose which of the conflicting version to follow: Per AUGIE 4¢ Cl Po. 70-71. paros. F-A}
As earlier noted in this judgment, the defence and evidence adduced by DW2 (the 6" Defendant} is materially the same with that of OW1. All the Defendants, save 5th Defendant, who did not file any process, toed the same path In this case.
Apart from the power or discretion of the 2™ Defendant to amend, revoke or accept a declaration, pursuant to the recommendation of body of inquiry or chieftaincy committee, there is no provision of the Chiefs Law, Laws of Ondo State, 2006 gives the 1 to S” Defendants any power or discretion to create a new chleftaincy for any community or rename the ieftaincey ot any community.
The Ajama Commission’ Report and the Whilte paper Issued thereto was made and issued in respect of a non-existent Oniju of Iju-Odo Chieftaincy. The Ajama Commission cannot be used to rewrite or reframe the history of tju-Odo without the input of the people of Iju-Odo.
Consequently, i find me Nine case ofthe claimants and their reliefs are granted as prayed:
3. A DECLARATION that the Rebuja of Osooro land, a Recognized Chieftaincy, is the Prescribed authority over Chieftaincy matter in the communities within the Osoaro including lju-Odo Community In accordance with customary law of Osooro land and Chiefs Law of Ondo State, Volume 1 CAP Laws of Ondo State 2006.
A DECLARATION that under the Chief Laws of Ondo State, the State Government either through its executive Council, the Governor or any of Its functionaries has no power to create a Chieftaincy but only to apply Part one of the Chiefs Law to an existing minor Chieftaincy for the purpose of making declaration of recognizing Chieftaincy thereof, therefore the
other party. See EKEOPARAH V. GOV OF LAGOS STATE & ORS (2019) LPELR50716(CA) (PP. 10 PARAS. A) where the Court of Appeal per TUKUR ,J.C.A held that: ‘
"A party who Is claiming a relief from the Court, generally has the burden of proving the existence of facts upon which he is basing the grant of his claim. The legal burden of proof is that burden which the law places upon a person who would have judgment delivered against him, if no evidence was led on the pleadings before the Court. This persons usually, the Plaintiff/Claimant/Petitioner as the case may be, but might be the Defendant In certain circumstances, such as where a presumption of law operates in favour of the Plaintiff's claims. Once the legal burden of proof ‘Ags been discharged, the burden of proof shifts to the other parte This is known as evidential burden of proof”.
It is the person who asserts, as the claimants in this suit, that bears the burden to prove the existence of facts relied upon. The Claimants have the duty to succeed on the strength of their case and not on the weakness, if any, of the defendant. ® .
From the totality of the evidence adduced by the parties, what | deduce as the grouse of the Claimants are that the stool of Oniju of ju Odo as created by 1st to 4th defendants is alien to the custom and tradition of iju Odo. The Claimants contention fethat the only chieftaincy known to Iju-Odo Is the Orofun of Iju-Odo. Therefore, the appointment and recognition of the 6th Defendant as the Oba Oniju of iju-Odo is contrary to the custom and tradition of Iju Odo because he did not pass through the process of appointment by the kingmakers. The Claimants also contend that the Ajama Commission cannot make guidelines for
g. AN ORDER Is hereby made setting aside the Ondo State Government White Paper to the extent of its creating and recognizing the Oniju of IjuOdo Chieftaincy In the Okitipupa Local Government.
h. The 1st -5th Defendants, their agents, privies, representatives and or any other person or persons acting for them are hereby RESTRAINED from recognizing 6th Defendant as the Onliju of Iju-Odo In Osooro tand, Okitipupa Local Government Area, Ondo State Giaving not been nominated, presented and elected or appointed if the kingmakers in ijuOdo.
i. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION fs Lace restratning the 6th Defendant, his agents, privies an¢hfarnily Members arid or any person or persons acting through or for the 6 defendant fram parading himself and or holding him out as the Oniju of |ju-Odo tri Osooro, Okitipupa Local Government Area, Ondo State.
The counter claim of the & defendantis dismissed in its entirety.
Dated this 31st day of July, 2025,
Prince J.0. Famakin Esq. for the Claimants
Dr. Adeolu Efotan Esq. for the 1st to 4th defendants
Prince Ajibola Morebise Esq. for the 6th Defendant.
However, The people of Iju-Odo and Osooro land have welcomed the judgment, seeing it as a victory for their customs and traditions.
"This judgment is seen as a check on the powers of the State Government to create new chieftaincies without following due process. a resident said
Post a Comment