ISINKAN-AKURE CHIEFTAINCY TUSSLE: COURT CITES HISTORICAL RECORDS IN AFFIRMING ISINKAN’S AUTONOMY
By IDOWU JONGBO
Akure High Court relies on archival documents dating back to 1934, 1971 and 1977 to uphold Iralepo’s counterclaim
The document named the Iralepo as the head chief of Isinkan and the Osolo as the head chief of Isolo. Their respective populations were recorded as 295 and 529.
Historical documents spanning several decades have featured prominently in the Isinkan–Akure chieftaincy dispute, with an Akure High Court ruling in favour of the Iralepo of Isinkan in its determination of an issue concerning the competence of his counterclaim and the reliefs sought.
In examining the second issue for determination, the court considered archival records tendered by the fifth defendant, the Iralepo, as evidence of Isinkan’s historical identity, territorial claims and traditional relationship with Akure.
The records, some dating back to the colonial era, were presented to establish that Isinkan existed as a distinct community with its own traditional ruler and territorial boundaries.
At the centre of the court’s consideration were Exhibits N, R, W and X, which the judgment described as particularly relevant to the dispute.
1934 intelligence report identifies Isinkan as a distinct settlement
One of the documents, Exhibit N, titled Akure District Intelligence Report, Appendix C (Method of Deji and Village Heads), was dated December 1934.
According to the court, the report listed 14 settlements in Akure District and identified Isinkan and Isolo as separate villages adjoining Akure town.
The document named the Iralepo as the head chief of Isinkan and the Osolo as the head chief of Isolo. Their respective populations were recorded as 295 and 529.
The court considered the document significant because it provided historical evidence of Isinkan’s separate identity and the existence of its own traditional leadership.
1982 government letter recognises Iralepo’s traditional position
Another crucial document, Exhibit R, was a letter dated July 7, 1982, from the Akure Local Government to the Secretary to the State Government.
Titled Request for the Recognition of the Osolo and the Iralepo of Isinkan Chieftaincies under Part II of the Chiefs Law, the letter stated that the Deji of Akure had confirmed both the Osolo of Isolo and the Iralepo of Isinkan as traditional rulers, described in the correspondence as minor Obas, with authority over their respective communities.
The letter stated:
“Both the Osolo of Isolo and the Iralepo of Isinkan are traditional Rulers (Minor Obas) of their own people. The Osolo is the head of Isolo Community while the Iralepo is the head of Isinkan Community. Both Isolo and Isinkan are distinct quarters in Akure.”
The correspondence further compared the traditional arrangement in Akure with that of Egba land, where the Alake was described as the paramount ruler over sectional Obas in Abeokuta.
It also stated that the Iralepo and the Osolo wore beaded crowns during ceremonial occasions within their respective domains.
For the court, the letter formed part of the historical documentary evidence relating to Isinkan’s traditional leadership and distinct community status.
1977 proceedings introduce evidence on land boundaries
The court also examined Exhibit W, a certified true copy of the record of daily proceedings of the Ondo State Chieftaincy Review Commission dated June 8, 1977.
According to the judgment, Oba Ojopagogo of Ilara stated during the proceedings that he shared boundaries with the Iralepo and that the people of Akure were tenants to the Iralepo of Isinkan.
The court considered the record alongside other historical materials presented in support of the counterclaim.
1971 document traces Isinkan’s history to before Asodeboyede
Exhibit X, a certified true copy of a document dated August 13, 1971, was another key piece of evidence considered by the court.
Titled To All Concerned: Akure Chiefs Give Verdict on Disputes Among Eruoba, Isinkan and Osabi, the document contained statements concerning Isinkan’s history, land and traditional authority.
The relevant section stated that the people of Isinkan had been ruling the land before the arrival of Asodeboyede, identified in the judgment as the progenitor of the Akure people.
It further stated that Isinkan shared a common boundary with Oke Aro and referred to historical dealings between Isinkan and Akure dating back to the time of Ajapada.
The document also described the territorial boundaries attributed to Chief Iralepo, including areas bordering Chief Aro and extending towards the Aponmu River in the direction of Ondo.
The court considered the document alongside Exhibits N, R and W in evaluating the historical evidence supporting Isinkan’s claim to a distinct community and territorial identity.
Court faults absence of challenge to historical documents
In its assessment of the evidence, the court observed that counsel to the claimant (Deji of Akure) had not effectively controverted or challenged the historical documents tendered in support of the counterclaim.
The judgment stated that the claimant’s counsel had put forward no evidence contradicting the documentary materials relating to Isinkan’s existence as an autonomous community before the arrival of Asodeboyede.
The court consequently held that the records supported the conclusion that Isinkan was a distinct community with its own land, extending towards the Aponmu River and sharing boundaries with Ilara Mokin and other communities.
In explaining its approach to unchallenged evidence, the court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Kayili v. Yilbuk & Ors (2015) LPELR-24323 (SC), which it cited for the principle that courts may act on credible evidence that has not been challenged.
The judgment also noted that the principle could apply to documentary evidence where the contents or authenticity of the documents had not been challenged by the opposing party.
Counterclaim survives jurisdictional challenge
Beyond the historical evidence, the court considered the claimant’s objection to the competence of the fifth defendant’s counterclaim.
The claimant’s principal defence to the counterclaim concerned its validity, an objection the court said it had already examined under the first issue for determination.
The court maintained that the procedural provisions of Order 2, Rules 1 and 2, were sufficient to address the defect contemplated by the claimant’s counsel.
Having considered the totality of the evidence and its earlier findings on the procedural objection, the court resolved Issue Two in favour of the fifth defendant, the Iralepo of Isinkan, against the clclaims, the Deji of Akure.
The decision marks a significant point in the court’s consideration of the historical evidence presented in the chieftaincy dispute, particularly the records concerning Isinkan’s traditional leadership, community identity and territorial claims.
