Isinkan vs Akure: How Decades of Historical Records and Court Evidence Shaped Iralepo’s Legal Victory
By OLAOLU IBIDUN
The longstanding chieftaincy dispute between Isinkan and Akure has reached a significant point following a judgment of the Akure High Court dismissing the Deji’s case against the recognition of the Iralepo of Isinkan by the Ondo State Government.
From a 1924 Nigeria Gazette to colonial intelligence reports, government correspondence, chieftaincy memoranda and previous court judgments, an array of documentary evidence featured prominently in the legal battle over the recognition of the Iralepo of Isinkan, as the Akure High Court dismissed the claimant’s suit (Deji of Akure, Oba Aladetoyinbo Ogunlade Aladelusi Odundun II) and upheld the fifth defendant’s counterclaim (Oba Oluwagbemiga Olofin-Adimula Arulewolasi III).
The longstanding chieftaincy dispute between Isinkan and Akure has reached a significant point following a judgment of the Akure High Court dismissing the Deji’s case against the recognition of the Iralepo of Isinkan by the Ondo State Government.
At the heart of the proceedings was an extensive body of documentary evidence tendered by the fifth defendant, Oba Oluwagbemiga Olofin-Adimula Arulewolasi III, the Iralepo of Isinkan, comprising historical records, government correspondence, archival materials, chieftaincy memoranda and previous judicial decisions spanning several decades.
After considering the issues and evidence presented by the parties, the court held that the Deji’s case lacked merit and dismissed it in its entirety.
The court also upheld the Iralepo’s counterclaim, ruling that he had successfully established his claims through evidence.
The judgment placed particular emphasis on the distinction between earlier litigation concerning the prescribed consenting authority and the present challenge to the Ondo State Government’s recognition of the Iralepo stool.
A documentary trail spanning more than a century
One of the most striking features of the case was the range of historical records admitted by the court in support of the fifth defendant’s position.
Among the exhibits were the Nigeria Gazette No. 32, dated June 26, 1924, and the Akure Intelligence Report of December 1934. These were accompanied by correspondence addressed to the Iralepo of Isinkan and a letter from Oba Alayeluwa Adelegan Adesida III, dated October 9, 1978.
The court also admitted a memorandum on the proposed upgrading of the Iralepo stool, dated September 9, 1978, as well as a letter with reference number AK.LG.50/33/12, dated July 7, 1982.
Other documentary exhibits included The First Century of St Thomas Anglican Church, Isinkan, Akure (1916–2016), a May 1989 edition of the Daily Motion newspaper, and a document from Akure South Local Government bearing reference number AKSLG/882/68.
The list extended to extracts from the proceedings of the Morgan Commission dated June 8, 1977, and an Akure Native Court judgment delivered on August 13, 1971, in Suit No. AK/15/71.
Collectively, the exhibits provided a documentary record covering different periods of Isinkan’s history, administrative dealings involving traditional authorities and previous judicial proceedings connected with the dispute.
For the defence, the significance of this evidence lay in its breadth and the opportunity it provided the court to examine the historical and administrative background of the Iralepo stool beyond the competing assertions of the parties.
Government records and the recognition of Iralepo
The documentary evidence also extended to the process through which the Ondo State Government recognised the Iralepo stool.
The fifth defendant, the Iralepo testified that his predecessor had been recognised by the state government and issued a staff of office as an Oba.
He further told the court that he appeared before the Justice C.E.T. Ajama Judicial Commission of Inquiry on Chieftaincy Matters, where he submitted a memorandum. The claimant, he confirmed, also submitted a counter-memorandum for consideration by the commission.
According to the witness, the commission recommended him, and the recommendation was subsequently confirmed by the state government’s Executive Council.
The government’s White Paper, issued following the commission’s recommendations dated August 24, 2022, became central to the court’s determination.
In addressing the claimant’s argument that an earlier Court of Appeal judgment operated as res judicata against the fifth defendant’s counterclaim, the judge held that the argument was misplaced.
The court explained that the principal issue in the earlier cases was the identity of the prescribed consenting authority, whereas the present suit challenged the commission’s recommendation and the state government’s subsequent recognition of the Iralepo stool without the consent of the Deji of Akure.
The judge noted that the claimant had himself submitted a memorandum before the commission but subsequently challenged its recommendation and the government’s action.
The distinction was crucial to the court’s reasoning on whether the previous litigation barred the present proceedings.
Court of Appeal and Supreme Court judgments admitted
The defence also relied on previous judicial decisions, including the Court of Appeal judgment in Appeal No. CA/B/129/2005, admitted as Exhibit Z, and Supreme Court judgments marked Exhibits AA1 and AA2.
During cross-examination, Oba Olofin-Adimula confirmed that his father and one Olukayode had appealed the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court.
He testified that the Supreme Court dismissed his father’s appeal in 2015 for lack of diligent prosecution and also dismissed a subsequent application to relist the appeal.
The witness further maintained that another suit in which he was the seventh defendant was distinct from the present proceedings and did not share the same cause of action.
The claimant – the Deji, however, relied on Exhibit Z in arguing that the earlier judgment established estoppel and prevented the court from entertaining the fifth defendant’s counterclaim.
Rejecting that argument, the judge held that the earlier cases and the present action concerned different issues, with the latter focusing on the challenge to the Ajama Commission’s recommendation and the subsequent government recognition of the Iralepo stool.
The court’s position underscored the importance of determining the precise issues decided in previous cases before applying the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel to subsequent proceedings.
‘Deji’s consent was not required’
Beyond the documentary exhibits, the testimony of Oba Olofin-Adimula addressed the question of whether the Deji of Akure’s consent was a legal prerequisite for the recognition of the Iralepo of Isinkan.
Under cross-examination, the witness maintained that the Deji’s consent was not required before the Iralepo could be recognised as a traditional ruler.
He also testified that his father was installed by the people of Isinkan, insisting that the Deji did not install him and had no role in the installation.
Olofin-Adimula confirmed that the application before the Ajama Commission sought recognition of the Iralepo stool under Part I of the Chiefs Law, while the commission’s report treated the Iralepo issue under Part II.
These issues formed part of the wider legal contest over the powers of the Ondo State Government, the classification of the Iralepo stool and the role of the prescribed consenting authority.
Where was the counter-evidence from Akure?
The extensive documentary record raises an important question about the evidence available to counter the Iralepo’s case.
While the Deji challenged the relevance and admissibility of several exhibits and relied on Exhibit Z in advancing his arguments on estoppel and res judicata, the judgment excerpt does not identify a comparable array of historical and administrative documents tendered by the Deji to rebut the records presented by the Iralepo.
The court also overruled objections to several documents tendered by the Iralepo, holding that they were relevant to the issues in dispute and that the photocopies challenged by the claimant were copies of previously certified true copies.
The judge further rejected the Deji’s objection to the procedural competence of the counterclaim, noting that the claimant had filed a reply and defence to it but waited until the final written address to challenge its validity.
These rulings cleared the way for the court to consider the parties’ substantive claims against the documentary and oral evidence before it.
The decisive pronouncement
In its conclusion, the court stated:
“From the totality of all the issues duly considered and from the evidence placed before this court by all the parties to this case, it has become so clear that the case of the Claimant must fail for grossly lacking in merit.”
The judge consequently dismissed the Deji’s case in its entirety and held that the fifth defendant’s counterclaim succeeded because he had successfully proved his claims through evidence.
The decision marks a significant development in the legal contest over the recognition of the Iralepo stool, particularly in relation to the effect of the Ajama Commission’s recommendations and the Ondo State Government’s subsequent action.
More broadly, the case illustrates the role of documentary evidence in chieftaincy disputes, where historical accounts, government records, traditional institutions and previous judicial decisions often intersect.
For Isinkan, the judgment represents a favourable judicial outcome in the dispute over the recognition of its traditional institution.
Ultimately, the court’s stated conclusion was clear – the Deji’s suit failed, and the Iralepo’s counterclaim succeeded on the evidence presented.
The array of historical documents and official records admitted during the proceedings remains a central feature of the case, providing the documentary context within which the court reached its decision.
