CASE TITLE: TAAJO & ORS v. OYERO & ORS (2026) LPELR-84305(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 3RD JULY, 2026
PRACTICE AREA: CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS
LEAD JUDGMENT: BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on conditions precedent to the commencement of a Chieftaincy Dispute.
FACTS:
This is an appeal against the ruling of the Oyo State High Court. The Appellants as Claimants commenced an action against the Respondents as Defendants seeking several declarations and orders.
According to the Appellants, after the death of the last Baale of Apata Ganga, the descendants of the 7th Appellant, it was the turn of the 1st – 3rd Appellants family to present a candidate for the stool of Baale Apata Ganga. The 1st – 3rd Appellants’ family met, where the 3rd Appellant was unanimously selected and nominated, and his name was forwarded to the 2nd Respondent, the Olubadan of Ibadan, for approval as the prescribed authority. However, during the meeting, the Appellants were chased away. In reaction, the Appellants wrote to the 2nd Respondent complaining about the unfair treatment, but the 2nd Respondent has not responded to the said letter to date. The Appellants, having waited for a reasonable period of time with no decision taken on their representation by the 2nd Respondent on the appointment of the 1st Respondent, wrote another letter to the 2nd Respondent and thereafter commenced an action before the lower Court against the Respondents jointly and severally.
The issue was the appointment of the 1st Respondent as the Baale of Apata Ganga and his approval by the 2nd Respondent, the Olubadan of Ibadan land, through the issuance of a Certificate of Office as the Baale of Apata Ganga. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a Motion on Notice praying for the striking out of the Appellants’ suit on the ground that the Appellants failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 22 (3) and (4) of the Chiefs Law, Cap. 28, Laws of Oyo State of Nigeria, 2000, which constitutes a condition precedent for any aggrieved party in a minor chieftaincy in Oyo State. The Appellants filed their Counter-Affidavit in opposition to the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Application. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a Further Affidavit in support of their Application in response to the Appellants’ Counter-Affidavit. The lower Court heard the Application, and it upheld the objection of the 1st and 2nd
Respondents struck out the Appellants’ suit for being incompetent.
Aggrieved with the ruling, the Appellant filed this appeal at the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court of Appeal adopted the sole issue formulated by the 1st and 2nd Respondents for the determination of this appeal;
Whether the lower Court was not right when it held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Appellants’ suit, having regard to the Appellants’ failure to exhaust the condition precedent prescribed under Section 22 (3) and (4) of the Chiefs Law, Caps 28, Laws of Oyo State, 2000?
DECISION/HELD:
The appeal was allowed.
RATIOS:
- ACTION- CONDITION PRECEDENT: Importance of fulfilling a condition precedent; effect of failure thereto
- CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS- MINOR CHIEFTAINCY: Statutory provision that deals with the appointment and approval of appointment of minor chiefs
- CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS- CHIEFTAINCY DISPUTES: Conditions precedent for the challenge of the appointment and/or deposition of a chief; instance(s) when same will not apply
- CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS- CHIEFTAINCY DISPUTES: Whether a party must exhaust all domestic remedies provided by the Chiefs Law before going to Court
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
