Oba Ghandi Afolabi Olaoye Orumogege III has filed 8 grounds of appeal before the Court of Appeal holden at Ibadan, seeking the nullification of the judgment.
Olaoye whose selection and installation as the Soun of Ogbomosoland was on October 25 nullified by an Oyo State High Court sitting in Ogbomoso in his notice of appeal said he was dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court 2 presided over by Justice Kareem Adeyemika Adedokun when it granted the reliefs of Prince Muhammed Kabir Olaoye.
He maintained that Justice Adedokun carried out a miscarriage of justice against him, when he held that his nomination violated the Soun Cheiftaincy Declaration
He said the judge erred in law when he used oral evidence to vary the content of a written document admitted as Exhibit KB6 before the court in his judgment thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice, pointing out among others that oral evidence in law cannot be used to vary, alter or contradict the content of written document.
He said further the only list submitted by Laoye ruling house to the kingmakers and the 5th respondent was Exhibits KB 6 which contained 18 candidates as screened by Olaoye family screening committee and 23 names as candidates that obtained expression of interest forms noting the court erred when it speculated on document not tendered before it.
Oba Ghandi Afolabi Olaoye also accused the judge of erring in law in the strict interpretation given to paragraph 5 of the Soun Cheiftaincy Declaration of 1958 and the authorities relied on, when the issue of multiple nomination was not submitted for adjudication by any of the parties, positing, “The issue of multiple nomination which principally forms the reasoning in the cases relied upon by the learned judge was not an issue before the learned trial judge but the selection of the 6th Appellant against the expectation of the 1st respondent.”
He added that parties in the proceedings were not afforded the opportunity to address the court on the issue of multiple nominations by Laoye family which was raised suomotu by the learned trial judge just as he emphasized that the Laoye ruling house complied with procedures to fill vacancies as contained in the Oyo State Chiefs Law 2000, which he said Soun Chieftaincy Declaration is a subsidiary legislation to and so opined the court failed to ascertain the intention of the legislature as far as the Oyo State Chiefs Law is concerned in the case.
Oba Olaoye further asserted the judge erred in law when he stated the nomination of the candidate from Laoye ruling family ought to have been transmitted to the kingmakers and not to the 4th defendant (the local government as done in the instant case), insisting the steps in filling vacancies is principally provided for in Section 15 and the Chiefs Law Cap 28 Laws of Oyo state 2000, followed in his nomination and selection.
He therefore, based on this ground, affirmed the law regulating the procedure to be adopted to fill the vacancy in a ruling house did not support the findings of the judge.
He further faulted the assertion of the judge that the local government exercised “overbearing” influence in the process rather than being mere observers pointing out rather that the judge failed to consider the duty imposed on the local government by the Chiefs Law of Oyo State as an observer in the entire process and even that no evidence was presented to support this.
In declaring his nomination and emergence as “irregular, illegal, invalid, null and void” and consequently setting aside his nomination and approval he noted this is “serious miscarriage of justice,” on the grounds that the decision of the judge was at variance with his earlier decision in a similar case in suit no HOG/20/2023 delivered on October 3 which had similar facts and issues in which then, the judge declared the steps taken by the defendants as “proper valid and legal” as well granting “the counterclaim of the 1st defendant who is the same as the 12th defendant in the case on appeal” and that the family submitted all the list of eligible candidates after the screening exercise by reason of their failure to agree on single candidate.
Similarly, it was averred Justice Adedokun erred in law by constituting himself as an appellate court but denying parties affected by the judgment a fair hearing in respect of his earlier judgment of October 3 which it was observed contradicted the one of October 25, submitting, “the learned trial judge became functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to suomotu pronounce again in the judgment in suit no HOG/20/2022 while delivering judgment in suit No HOG/27/2022 having delivered judgment in the case” and that neither of the parties applied in any form for a reconsideration of the judgment earlier delivered in the case.
He maintained it is wrong for the judge to vary judgments when it is not an appeal, “the court cannot approbate and reprobate a the same time,” it was noted.
He additionally faulted the judgment that he should stop parading himself as Soun of Ogbomoso or portray himself so by wearing any regalia to that effect arguing that it is miscarriage of justice to grant application for injunction after the installation processes had been completed wrongly or rightly – “When chieftaincy matter is not a perishable commodity to warrant an order of mandatory injunction.”
He insisted the judgment is against the weight of evidence and insisted the court speculated in arriving at the judgment.
Based on these he is seeking relief for an order of appeal, to set aside the judgment of the High Court and granting his counterclaim.
The appellants in the case are Chief S.S. Otolorin (Areago of Ogbomoso and chairman kingmakers), Chief Salawu Ajadi (Jagun), Cheif Tijani Abioye (Bara), Chief Adeniran Ojo (Ikolaba), Chief Yusuf Kasali Oladipupo (Abese) and Pastor Afolabi Ghandi Olaoye while the respondents are Prince Muhammed Kabir Olaoye and six others.
