OLOBA v. AKEREJA

“(1) declaration that the defendant is not a member of Sapetu family of Igbara-Oke;
(2) declaration that the defendant has no claim to the rights, privileges, honour and estate of the said Sapetu family of Igbara-Oke;
(3) injunction restraining the defendant from parading himself as a member of the said Sapetu family of Igbara-Oke;
(4) further injunction restraining the defendant, his servants and agents from doing anything inconsistent with the rights, interests and entitlements of the Sapetu family;
(5) special damages of N200.00 for parading himself as indication (sic) in paragraph 3 above.”
Following the service upon him of the summons, the defendant/respondent filed a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court and more especially in the following terms:
Motion of Notice

Under Order 8 Rule 2 Customary Court Rule of Ondo State, Take Notice that this Honourable Court will be moved on Tuesday the 15th day of January, 1980 at the hour of 8.00a.m. in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as defendant/applicant can be heard for an order that this Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the above case and that the President of the Court is related to the plaintiff by marriage and maternally and for such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.”
The application was supported by a 14 paragraph affidavit paragraphs 4, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of which read:
“4. That the plaintiff told me and other members of my branch in Sapetu chieftaincy that we are not related to the chieftaincy nor are we entitled to the chieftaincy title, but we refused;
7. That the plaintiffs claims are based on Sapetu chieftaincy title and so this Court has no jurisdiction over the plaintiffs case under the Chiefs’ Law Cap 19 Laws of Western Region applicable to Ondo State;
“4. That the plaintiffs No.2 claim on his civil summons says that the defendant has no claim to the rights, privileges, honour and estate of the said Sapetu family. That it is clear that the whole matter is about Sapetu chieftaincy title and that the estate the plaintiff refers to is very large as they include buildings, farmlands and other properties;
10. That the estate is inheritance of Sapetu family inherited from generation to generation and the value today is more than 50,000.00 Naira;
11. That the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court in matters of inheritance is limited to N5000.00 under the Customary Court Edict of 1978;
12. That the President of the Court, Mr. Adigun married Abigael Adigun from the plaintiffs family and so the President is an in law to the plaintiff.”
The plaintiff/appellant deposed to and filed a counter-affidavit. Paragraphs 6, 8, 10, 17, 18 and 19 read:
“6. That the action before this Honourable Court does not raise any chieftaincy dispute;
8. That the basis of the action is that the defendant is not a member of Sapetu family of 19bara-Oke;
10. That there is a chieftaincy for the family and this is the Sapetu of Igbara-Oke;
18. That the family action or claim before this honourable court is not for land, houses, farmland and other properties;
19. That there is no action or claim by the family stipulating value before this honourable court.
The court, after hearing the parties and considering the facts deposed to in the affidavit and counter-affidavit, overruled the objective to jurisdiction in the following words:
“Considering the afore-mentioned facts on the motions before this court, court believed that it has competent jurisdiction to hear the substantive case in respect of which these motions arose.”
The defendant was not satisfied and so he appealed to the High Court on 2 grounds:
(1) that the trial Court erred in law in holding that it has jurisdiction over the plaintiffs case when it is clear from the claim of the plaintiff, the affidavit and the counter-affidavit filed by the parties that the subject matter of the plaintiffs action relates .
(2) that the trial Court erred in law in holding that it has jurisdiction over the plaintiffs case when the value of the properties involved was not stated by the plaintiff and the value stated by the defendant was not contradicted either.”
The appeal came before Afonja, J. sitting at the High Court of Justice of Ondo State of Nigeria, Akure Judicial Division holden at Akure. After hearing arguments of counsel for the parties, he gave a considered judgment dismissing the appeal. On ground 1, he held that the subject-matter of the claim before the trial Court does not relate to a chieftaincy matter. On ground 2, he said:
“It is clear, ex facie, that the claim is not for title to any real or personal property of the Sapetu family but fundamentally for a determination as to whether or not the appellant is truly a member of the said family.”
The defendant was still not satisfied and so he appealed to the Court of Appeal on 3 grounds which read:
“1. The learned appellate Judge erred in law in confirming the order of the trial Court as to jurisdiction to try the plaintiffs claim when it is clear in law that
(a) the trial Court or any court has no jurisdiction over chieftaincy matters as specified in Chiefs Law Cap 19 Laws of Western Region of Nigeria 1959 as applicable to Ondo State;
(b) the trial Court has no jurisdiction to pronounce declaratory judgments or orders since the jurisdiction is set out (sic) under Ondo State Customary Law 1980;
2. The learned appellate Judge misconceived the issue of jurisdiction as to the value of the estate not inserted in the plaintiffs claim when jurisdiction of the trial Court over inheritance was only limited to N5,000.00 by Ondo State Customary Law 1980;
3. The learned appellate Judge did not properly evaluate the affidavit evidence before him and the exhibit attached thereto and thereby came to a wrong decision.”
After hearing arguments, the Court of Appeal (Coram Omo Eboh, Joe Jacks and Ajose-Adeogun, JJ.C.A.) held that the appeal succeeded on ground 1(b) and that arguments on the remaining ground 2 are misconceived and irrelevant. Ajose-Adeogun,