FOR THE RECORD: JUDGEMENT OF AKURE HIGH COURT IN DEJI OF AKURE’S SUIT AGAINST ONDO STATE GOVERNOR, DEPUTY GIOVERNOR, OTHERS, AND OBA IRALEPO OF ISINKAN
MAIN POINTS:
*It is Deji of Akure’s own willingly instituted case against the Ondo State Executive Council’s constitutional powers to recognise or elevate an Oba
*The Deji lost own case as the court says clearly that State Executive Council not Court makes an Oba
*Isinkan people not Deji of Akure installs Iralepo of Isinkan, who had settled in the land before arrival of Asodeboyede Ajapada, early called Alakure before being called the Deji
*Deji of Akure has nowhere to hide behind the law to challenge the powers of the governor or State Executive Council to recognise or elevate an Oba
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ONDO STATE OF NIGERIA
IN THE AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT AKURE
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE SUNDAY OLORUNDAHUNSI –
JUDGE
THIS MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER, 2026.
SUIT NO: AK/434/2022
BETWEEN
HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY OBA
ALADETOYINBO ALADELUSI
CLAIMANT
(DEJI AND PARAMOUNT RULER OF AKURE LAND)
AND
1. THE GOVERNOR OF ONDO STATE
2. THE DEPUTY GOVERNOR OF ONDO STATE
3. THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY-GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE OF ONDO STATE DEFENDANTS
4. COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT & CHIEFTANCY AFFAIRS, ONDO STATE.
5. CHIEF OLUGBENGA OJO (IRALEPO OF ISINKAN QUARTER, AKURE, ONDO STATE)
JUDGMENT
This suit was commenced by way of writ dated 11th day of November, 2022.
The claimant’s claims against the defendants are as follows
1. A declaration that the Ondo State Government white paper on the Hon. Justice C. E. T. Ajama Judicial Commission of Inquiry on Chieftaincy Matters in Ondo State dated 24th August 2022 admitting and recognizing the stool of Iralepo of Isinkan quarter, Akure, Ondo state as a recognize chieftaincy under part 1 of the Chief law is illegal, null and void and of no effect.
2. A declaration that the consent of the claimant as the prescribed authority over Iralepo of Isinkan quarter chieftaincy is required for the admission and recognition of Iralepo of Isinkan minor chieftaincy, Akure, Ondo State Government under part 1 of the Chiefs Law of Ondo State
3. A Declaration that the Ondo State Government White Paper on Hon. Justice C.E.T. Ajama Judicial commission of inquiry on chieftaincy matters in Ondo State dated 24th August 2022, which makes chieftaincy of Iralepo of Isinkan quarter, Akure as a recognize chieftaincy under Part 1 of the Chiefs law is contrary to the native law and custom of Akure land, it is therefore null and void and of no effect.
4. AN ORDER declaring null and void the Ondo State Government White Paper on Hon. Justice C.E.T. Ajama Judicial Commission of Inquiry on Chieftaincy Matters in Ondo State dated 24th August 2022 with respect to Iralepo of Isinkan quarter, Akure, as a recognized Chieftaincy under Part 1 of the Chiefs law of Ondo State.
5. AN Order of injunction restraining 1st 4th Defendants from taking further step whatsoever toward giving effect to the Ondo State Government White Paper on Hon. Justice C.E.T. Ajama Judicia Commission of Inquiry on Chieftaincy Matters in Ondo State dated 24th August 2022 with respect to the Iralepo of Isinkan quarter. Akure, as a recognized Chieftaincy under Part 1 of the Chiefs law of Ondo State.
6. AN ORDER setting aside the Ondo State Government White Paper on Hon. Justice C. E.T. Ajama Judicial Commission of Inquiry on Chieftaincy Matters in Ondo State dated 24th August 2022 with respect to Iralepo of Isinkan quarter Chieftaincy. Akure as a recognize chieftaincy under Part 1 of the Chiefs law.
7. A Declaration that the Hon. Justice C.E.T. Ajama Judicial Commission of Inquiry on Chieftaincy Matters in Ondo cannot sit on the chieftaincy of Iralepo of Isinkan quarter, Akure, Ondo State which dispute is still pending at the Supreme Court in Appeal No: SC/267/2012, between Joseph Olu Ojo & Anorv- Oba Oluwadare Adepoju Adesina & Ors as at the time Hon. Justice C.E.T. Ajama Judicial Commission of Inquiry on Chieftaincy Matters in Ondo was hearing application for the recognition of Iralepo of Isinkan, quarter, Akure.
8. AN ORDER setting aside any document, letter or instrument and/or act of the 1st 4th Defendants done pursuant to Ondo State Government White Paper on Hon. Justice C.E.T. Ajama Judicial Commission of Inquiry on Chieftaincy Matters in Ondo State with respect to the recognition of Iraleço of Isinkan quarter, Akure under part 1 of the Chiefs law of Ondo State.
Filed along with the writ is a statement of claim, witness statement on oath, list of witnesses and list of documents. The 1 ^ (st) – 4 ^ (th) defendants filed a joint Statement of defence dated and filed on the 14 ^ (th) day of March 2023, list of witness, list of documents, witness statement on oath and other processes. The 5 ^ (th) defendant filed his statement of defence dated 14 ^ (th) march 2023, written statement on oath.
Parties having filed all their respective processes and joined issues, this court set the case down for hearing. Counsel to the claimant, D.S Adedeko opened the case for the claimant and called his witness and testified as follows;
CW1; Prince Toyin Aladetoyinbo sworn on the Holy Bible and gave evidence in English language as follows. Witness testified that he lives at the Deji’s Palace Akure and that he is the Chief of staff to Oba Aladetoyinbo, the claimant and he is also a prince from Osupa ruling house. Witness prayed this court to adopt his written statement on oath. The statement on oath of the witness dated 11 ^ (th) November, 2022, 13th April 2022 and 5th March 2026 were adopted as the evidence of the witness before this Honourable court.
Exhibit A, B, C1-C33, D, E, F, G, H, HI, K were tendered through the witness. The said exhibits are;
The Hon. Justice C. E. T. Ajama Judicial Commission of Inquiry on chieftaincy matters in Ondo State dated 24th August, 2022,
Letter dated 28th May, 2018 from B. D Asami & Associates addressed to the Commissioner of Local Government & Chieftaincy Affairs, Ondo state,
Letters written to the Governor, commissioner of local Government Affairs and the Attorney General of Ondo state,
Document titled counter memorandum against the memorandum presented by Iralepo Isankan,
Document titled reply to counter memorandum against memorandum presented by Iralepo Isankan.
Judgment of court of appeal in Appeal No CA/AK/96/2022,
Motion on notice in suit no CA/69/2022,
Motion on notice in suit no AK/11/M/2021,
Motion on notice in Appeal No CA/AK/69/2022,
CTC of judgment in AK/111m/2021
Under cross examination, CWI affirmed that it is the responsibility of the Executive Council of Ondo State to approve and recognize any person as a recognized chief. He confirmed to this court that the predecessor of the 5th defendant was not earlier recognized and given staff of office after the conclusion of the consolidated suit but the Court of Appeal and the supreme court removed him. He confirmed to this court that the instrument given to the 5th defendant was not a cause of action and that there was a pending suit after the appeal court dismissed all the suits.
CW1 stated that he did not tender the judgment in CA/B/129/2005 and the ruling of the supreme court in SC/267/2012 because it has been reported but it was not the realization that the Judgment had nothing to do with the instrument that he instituted AK/111M/2021. Witness affirmed that the pending appeal at the supreme court is a different action against Ajama commission and that they only wrote to Ajama that the 5th Defendant should not be recognized because there is a case in court.
Witness stated that they instituted the action in court to know the incorrect disposition of government toward recognizing the 5th defendant. Witness affirmed that the consent of the Deji must be obtained before anybody can be recognized by anybody. He further stated that he is a witness to the Deji of Akure and that he is a descent of Asodeboyede. He said that all obas are recognized chiefs while others are minor chiefs. CWI confirmed that Chief Deji has been Deji from time immemorial and no government gave that recognition.
He agreed that the Deji was at a time the native authority because he has no rival and that the native authorities were appointed by colonial government and Deji was the sole authority. Witness also agreed that the former Akure district extends Akure south, Akure north and Ifedore local government where Deji has no rival. He confirmed that the Ekiri of Ero has an Oba now because it has been bifurcated from Akure and it is now Ifedore. He affirmed that Akapinsa of Ipinsa is now an oba and they came to obtain consent and Deji gave them. He also stated that Ilara is now an Oba because Ilara is now in Ifedore and also Elekun of Ilekun as well as Olojoda of Oda because he came to seek the Deji’s consent.
CW1 confirmed that in Akure South 6 were given approval and Olujigba of ljigba was recognized because he sought the consent of Deji and obtained it. He said that he only knows of Oba Ademuwagun Adesida the 2nd and he does not know Agunsoye. He further stated that he knows Oba Adelegan Adesida as Deji of Akure and that he installed Iralepo as a quarter chief in Akure. Witness confirmed that Asodeboyede is the first Deji of Akure from who he descended from.
The 14th defendant’s counsel opened his case on the 11th day of march, 2024.
The defendant’s counsel called their witnesses as follows;
DW1; Mrs Rolaji Obideji sworn on the Holy Bible and gave evidence in English language as follows. Witness testified that she is a civil servant, the deputy director at the Ministry of Chieftaincy affairs in the Ministry of local government and chieftaincy affairs. Witness prayed this court to adopt his written statement on oath. The statement on oath of the witness dated 14th March 2023 was adopted as her evidence in this case before this Honourable court.
Under cross examination, DW1 affirmed that her office is in charge of chieftaincy matters and that she has the record of chieftaincy declarations and all matters related. She confirmed that the declaration in request of the Deji is an official gazette of Ondo State. The official Gazette number 37 dated 12th December 1991 was admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit L. Witness confirmed to this Honourable court that Exhibit A was made in the exercise of the powers of the executive council of Ondo State and further confirmed that the Ondo State Government has the power to constitute that panel of enquiry without seeking the counsel of any other person and also that the government does not require the consent of any other authority to accept the recommendation of the panel. Witness also confirmed that the government accepted and recommended Iralepo of Isinkan and that a number of chieftaincies was recommended and accepted while some were rejected.
Witness testified that by exhibit A, a reference to Iralepo of Isikan was an elevation from a minor chief to a recognized chieftaincy. She testified that the judgment of Court of Appeal she referred to in her evidence was sent to the Ministry of Chieftaincy Affairs and they study all the judgments and they forward the judgments to the Ministry of Justice for advice. Witness affirmed that the Deji of Akure is the prescribed authority in Akure. Witness stated that before a minor chief is elevated to a recognized chief the consent of the prescribing authority is not required. Witness said that she heard that the judgment of the Court of Appeal she referred to was appealed against and that no letter was sent to them to the effect that the appeal was dismissed.
Under re- examination, witness stated that the executive council does not require the consent of any prescribed authority for the elevation of minor chief to a recognized chief.
The 5th defendant’s counsel opened their case and called their witness as follows;
DW2; Oba Oluwagbenga Ojo sworn on the Holy Bible and gave evidence in Yoruba language as follows. Witness testified that he is a traditional ruler and he lives at Iralepo’s palace, Isikan Akure South Local Government Witness prayed this court to adopt his written statement on oath and his additional statement on oath. The statement on oath of the witness dated 9th December 2025 and additional witness statement on oath dated 9th March 2026 was adopted as his evidence in this case before this Honourable court.
Exhibit M, N, PIP8, Q, R, S, T, U1-U3, V, W, X, Y were tendered through the witness. The said exhibits are;
Documents titled The Nigeria Gazette No 32 dated Thursday June 26, 1924,
Document titled Akure Intelligence Report dated (Appendix C) dated December 1934,
Photocopies of letter addressed to Iralepo of Isikan,
Letter from Oba Alayeluwa Adelegan Adesida III dated 9th October, 1978,
Letter with Ref. AK.LG.50/33/12 dated 7th July 1982,
Document titled Memorandum from the up-grounding of Oba Iralepo to part II chieftaincy dated September 9th 1978,
Book titled The First Century of St Thomas Anglicaan Church, Isinka, Akure (1916-2016),
Newspaper (daily motion) No. 193 of May 1989,
Document emanating from Akure South Local Government with reference no AKSLG/882/68,
Extract from the daily proceeding of morgan commission dated 8th June, 1977,
Akure native court judgment dated 13th August 1971, Judgment in AK/15/71.
Under cross examination, DW2 stated that the claimant is his younger brother and that he helped Deji to acquire the crown he wears and he gave him the title Deji. He said the claimant was name Alakure before his title changed to Deji. He said that his primogeniture is Asodeboyede Ajapada. Witness affirmed that his predecessor in office was recognized by Ondo State Government who gave him staff of office as Oba. He said that he appeared before Ajama Commission where he presented a memorandum and he is aware that the claimant filed a counter memorandum. He affirmed that the commission recommended him and it was confirmed by the executive council of Ondo State Government. He confirmed to this court that the claimant filed the suit before the Ajama Commission. Witness agreed that the executive council of Ondo State has the prerogative to appoint anybody as a recognized chief without the consent of anybody. Witness agreed that the subject matter of his memorandum, counter memorandum, are subject of appeal before the Supreme court. Judgment in appeal no CA/B/129/2005 was admitted as Exhibit Z. Witness agreed that his father and one Olukayode appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
He affirmed that in 2015, the Supreme Court dismissed his father’s appeal for lack of diligent prosecution and also that the motion to relist was equally dismissed. He confirmed to this court that his father was a party to the appeal. The Judgment in SC/267/2012 was admitted and marked as Exhibits AAI and AA2. Witness testified that he is the 7th defendant in AK/111m/2021 and that it is not the same as CA/AK/96/2022 and it is not the same cause of action as the case in this court. DW2 confirmed that the application before Ajama was that the stool of Iralepo to be recognized under part 1 of Chiefs Law and as of the time he applied some were minor chiefs while some are not,
He further confirmed that the stool of Iralepo applied as a chief and that the Hon. Justice C. E. T. Ajama Judicial Commission of Inquiry on chieftaincy matters in Ondo State dated 24th August, 2022, treated issues regarding minor chiefs and the issue of Iralepo was treated on part 2. He testified that his father was installed by the people of Isikan not by the Deji who has no say.
Witness said that the consent of the Deji is not needed before Iralepo can be recognized. He further confirmed that he is not eligible to contest for the stool of Deji of Akure. DW2 said that when his father died on February 2nd 2021, the rites were not performed by the Deji.
Under re-examination, DW2 confirmed that the Judgment of Odusola is still pending before the Supreme Court till today. Album showing pictures installation of DW2 father as Iralepo Isikan is admitted and marked as Exhibit BB. He further confirmed that he did not take the beads and crowns to Deji’s office. this note the counsel to the 5 ^ (th) defendant closed his case and counsels were ordered to file their respective final written addresses.
The 5 ^ (th) defendant final written address is dated 2 ^ (nd) April 2026 and filed on the 8th April 2026. The 1 ^ (st) – 4 ^ (th) defendant filed a joint final written address and is dated 23rd March 2026 and filed on the same date. The claimant’s counsel final written address is dated 17th April 2026 and filed on the 20th April 2026. On the 28th April 2026, the 5th defendant counsel filed a reply to the claimant’s final written address. The 1st -4th defendants also filed a reply on point of law on the 27th April 2026.
The 5th defendant counsel formulated two issues for determination thus;
1. Whether in the light of the relevant provisions of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Chiefs Law and Commission of Inquiry Law of Ondo State and the evidence before this Honourable Court the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
2. Whether in the light of the relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Chiefs, Commission of Inquiry Law of Ondo State and the evidence before this Honourable Court the Defendant is not entitled to the reliefs sought in his Counter-Claim
The 1 ^ (st) – 4 ^ (th) defendants’ counsel in their final written address formulated a sole issue thus;
1. Whether the Claimant had proved his case on the preponderance of evidence as envisaged by law
The Claimant’s counsel formulated eight issues for determination thus;
1. Whether Exhibit L, M, P1 – P8, T, X and Y before this court are irrelevant and therefore can be admissible in evidence.
2. Whether Exhibit Q, R, S, V and W are admissible in law and attract probative value.
3. Whether paragraph 32 of 5th Defendant’s Amended Statement of Defence and Counter Claim complied with the rules of pleading by stating sufficient material fact to enable this court not to discountenance 22 documents mentioned therein.
4. Whether the 5th Defendant’s Counter – Claim is competent to enable this court has jurisdiction to entertain it.
5. Whether Exhibit Z constitutes conclusive proof of fact and estoppel in relation to recognition of Iralepo of Isinkan and thereby binding on the Defendants.
6. Whether Exhibit Z constitutes both issue estoppel and estoppel per rem judicata against the 5th Defendant’s counter – claim and thereby rob this court of jurisdiction to entertain same.
7. Whether the Claimant has proved his case on preponderance evidence and thereby entitled to the reliefs sought.
8. From the facts and circumstances of this case, whether the counter- claim of the 5th Defendant is grantable in law.
From all the issues formulated by the counsel to the claimant, counsel to the 14th defendants and the counsel to the 5th defendant in this case, this Honourable court can clearly distill the following as the core issues for determination.
1. Whether the Ondo State Executive Council has the Right under the requisite Laws and extant Regulations to elevate a minor Chieftaincy to a recognized chieftaincy albeit whether the Executive Council has the sole right to elevate a minor chieftaincy to a recognized chieftaincy with or without the consent of the prescribed Authority.
2. Whether the 5th defendant’s Counter-Claim is competent to clothe this court with jurisdiction to entertain the Counter-Claim and a fortiori of the 5th defendant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Counter-Claim.
3. Whether Exhibit Z, constitutes conclusive proof of fact and estoppel in relation to recognition of Iralepo of Isinkan and binding on the 5th defendant and whether Exhibit Z constitutes both issue estoppel and estoppel per rem judicata against the 5th defendant’s counter claim and thereby rob this court of jurisdiction to entertain same. Issues 1-6 as formulated by the counsel to the claimant are not really issues for determination before this court: but are mere objections to admissibility of document and the propriety of the 5th defendant’s amendment of pleadings and his subsequent attachment of 22 documents to the amendment by way of counter claim. This Honourable Court shall first determine the objections before proceeding to evaluate the evidence before this court vis-a-vis the four distilled issues for determination.
It is the contention of the counsel to the claimant that Exhibits, L, M, P1-P8, T, X and Y before this court are not admissible in evidence.
It is the contention of the learned counsel to the claimant that since this suit is basically on the need to seek the consent of Deji of Akure before the stool of Iralepo Isinkan can be recognized and not about how to fill the vacant stool of Iralepo; Exhibits, L, M, P1-P8, T, X, and Y are not relevant to the case in issue. He also contended that Exhibits T, X & Y are not relevant. He submits that the court should discountenance Exhibits L, M, P1-P8, T, X and Y because the said Exhibits are not relevant to this case. This Honourable Court is of the view that the Exhibits L, M, P1-P8, T, X and Y are very relevant to the issues in contention in this case. The documents are all relevant to this case considering the fact that they are pleaded in the amended statement of defence and counter claim of the 5th defendant while the claimant’s counsel has every opportunity to react to same in his Consequential Claimant’s Reply to the 5th defendant’s amended statement of defence and defence to the counter claim dated 21 day of February, 2026 as filed on the 25th day of March, 2026. Since the said Exhibits L, M, P1-P8, T and Exhibit Y were pleaded, front loaded and admitted, this Court hereby holds that the said Exhibits i.e. Exhibits L, M, P1-P8, T, X, and Y are considered very relevant to this case and are hereby declared validly admitted as exhibits in this case.
Counsel to the claimants also contended that Exhibits N, Q, R, S, UI-U3, V and W are photocopies of public documents. Counsel contends that the above listed exhibits are not duly Certified documents and hence not admissible. A clear perusal of these exhibits by this Honourable Court, would reveal that all the documents are essentially photocopies of Certified true copies of the above listed Exhibits. Counsel to the claimant referred to the case of Ntung V Longkwang and submits that photocopy from earlier certified true copy is not admissible in law.
The admissibility of a photocopy of a certified true copy of a document has been subject of judicial pronouncements, with the current position of the law being clear. The current and prevailing position of the law, as established by the Supreme Court and consistently applied by the Court of Appeal, is that a photocopy of a certified true copy of a document is admissible in evidence and does not require further Certification.
The Supreme Court, in MAGAJI V NIGERIAN ARMY (2008) LPELR 1814 (SC) as cited and interpreted by the Court of Appeal in DAVIES V INEC & ORS (2024) LPELR 62839 and the case of ESIONE V ISI OFIA (2016) LPELR 41060 (CA) settled this argument. The Apex Court established that a photocopy of a certified true copy of a document is admissible with or without any need for re-certification. See also the case of IYAGBA V. CLEMENT & ORS (2025) LPELR 81824 (CA) where the Court of Appeal held that it is trite that a photocopy of a certified true copy does not require further certification.
This Honourable Court has gleaned through Exhibits N, Q, R, S, U1-U3, V and W. This Court finds that the said Exhibits are essentially photocopies of duly Certified true copies of documents, earlier certified from the National archive. Hence this Court hereby holds that M, N, Q, R, S, U1-U3, V and W are duly admitted in this case.
The 3rd objection raised by the counsel to the claimant is in relation to paragraph 32 of the 5th defendant’s amended statement of defence and counter claim. Counsel to the claimant contended that the list of documents in paragraph 32 of the amended statement of defence of the 5th defendant ought not to have been part of the pleadings.
It is the view of this court that despite the general principle against pleadings of evidence, some modern rules of courts explicitly require parties to file list of documents to be relied upon, alongside their pleadings.
What is the effect of referring to documents in pleadings? It is the view of this Court that where a separate list of documents is not explicitly mandated, the law is clear that if a document is referred to in a pleading, it becomes an integral part of that pleading. The Supreme Court, as reiterated by the Court of Appeal in NIGERIAN ARMY & ORS V ENO (2025) LPELR 82026 (CA) held that “a reference to a document in a pleading makes the document part of the pleading”. This position was also affirmed in the case of BRAWAL SHIPPING (NIG) LTD V. F. I ONWADIKE CO. LTD & ANOR. (2000) LPELR 802 (SC) at 35-36 where it was held that “when a document is pleaded, it forms part of the pleading” The existence and contents of such a document are thereby pleaded as facts, and the document will be treated tendered as evidence in proof of those facts at the appropriate time during trial. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel to the claimant that the mere reference and mention of the documents in paragraph 32 of the 5th defendant’s amended statement of defence and counter claim offends rules of pleading is not tenable anywhere.
The 4th objection, the claimant’s counsel raised is to the effect that the counter-claim of the 5th defendant was filed without seeking an express order to file same. Counsel referred to the case of EMERALD ENERGY RESOURCES LTD V. SPINET ADVISORS LTD (2021) 8 NWLR PT 1779 579 @ 615. Counsel further contends that the 5th defendant can amend his process but that he ought to have specifically sought an order to amend and incorporate his counter claim. Counsel referred to ORDER 14 of the Ondo State High Court Rules. He further contends that a counter-claim is an originating process which can only be filed by way of amendment if only a specific prayer is made for such amendment and granted by Court.
The Supreme Court, has unequivocally held that where a counter claim is filed without a specific prayer for amendment, it is fundamentally defective and according to the Supreme Court in DANTAMI V BALA (2025) LPELR 83081 (SC) “Cannot be regarded as a counter-claim per se “However, if the claimant, being aware of the defect, chooses not to object to the counter-claim and instead files a reply to it, the claimant may be deemed to have waived the procedural irregularity.
This waiver as illustrated in the case of Garba V Pape & Anor LPELR 62043 (CA) would likely preclude the claimant from successfully challenging the procedural validity of the counter-claim at a later stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the court may proceed to hear the counter claim on its merit, treating it as if it were properly constituted, due to the claimant’s acquiescence and failure to object. When a claimant files a reply and defence to a counter-claim, even if the counter-claim is alleged to be defective, this action can be interpreted as an acceptance of the counter- claim or at least a waiver of the right to object to its procedural irregularity. The Court of Appeal in CHINDO V. RABIU (2023) LPELR-60836 (CA) considered a situation the appellant filed a reply and defence to counter-claim despite an “alleged defect” in the counter claim. The Court’s analysis implies that such an action undermines a later contention that the counter-claim was not in conformity with the Rules. The provision of ORDER 2 of the Ondo State High Court Civil Procedure Rules seems to have cured such defects.’
The section provides as follows:
1(a) Where in beginning or purporting to begin any proceeding or at any stage in the course of or in connection with any proceedings, there has, by reason of anything done or left undone, been a failure to comply with the requirements of these Rules, whether in respect of time, place, manner, form or content or in any other respect, the failure shall be treated as an irregularity and if so treated will not nullify the proceedings, any step taken in the proceedings or any document, judgment or order therein.
(b) The Court may on the ground that there has been such a failure as mentioned in sub-rule(a) and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks just, set aside, either wholly or in part, the proceedings in which the failure occurred, any step taken in those proceedings or any document, judgment or order therein or it may exercise its powers under these Rules to allow such amendments (if any) to be made and to make such order (if any) dealing with the proceedings generally as it thinks fit.
2 (a) An application to set aside for irregularity, any step or steps, taken in any proceedings or any document, judgment or order therein shall not be allowed unless it is made within a reasonable time and before the party applying has taken any fresh step after becoming aware of the irregularity.
(b) An application under this Order may be made by motion on notice or notice of preliminary objection and the grounds of objection shall be stated in the motion on notice or notice of preliminary objection.
In the instant, case, the claimant chose not to challenge the counter-claim of the 5th defendant upon the filing of the said counter-claim. The 5th defendant obtained an order of court to amend his 5th defendant’s statement of defence, he incorporated his counter-claim in the amendment. The claimant’s counsel filed his Consequential Amended Claimant’s Reply to the 5th defendant’s amended Statement of defence and defence to the counter-claim on the 5th day of March 2026.
In essence, the claimant’s counsel has ample time and opportunity to object to the counter-claim of the 5th defendant. The claimant’s counsel waited till the conclusion of trial and only raised his objection to the counter-claim in his final written address.
This is the scenario in the case of GAMBARI V AMOPE (2017) LPELR-42007 where the Court of Appeal holds that where a respondent only objected to the competency of a statement of defence at the address stage, after having filed a reply and defence to counter-claim. The principle highlighted is that in matters of procedural irregularity, such an irregular proceeding can be waived. The law is settled that the address of counsel cannot take the place of evidence or raise issue of fact, which should properly be raised in the pleadings. See Ojemeni V Sterling Bank PLC (2014) LPELR 24442. While the defect in the counter-claim might be a point of law, the failure to raise it timeously, especially after engaging with the counter-claim by filing a reply, transforms it into a matter of procedural waiver. Sequel to the foregoing, the objection of the claimant’s counsel to the counter-claim of the 5 ^ (th) is hereby overruled.
The 5 ^ (th) and the 6 ^ (th) objection raised by the counsel to the claimant forms an integral part of the issues to be determined by this Honourable Court. In essence, submission 5 & 6 of the claimant’s counsel shall be duly considered with issue I formulated for determination by this Honourable Court.
ISSUE 1:
Whether the Ondo State Executive Council has the Right under the requisite Laws and extant Regulations to elevate a minor Chieftaincy to a recognized chieftaincy albeit whether the Executive Council has the sole right to elevate a minor chieftaincy to a recognized chieftaincy with or without the consent of the prescribed Authority.
This suit has its roots in the elevation of the 5th defendant from the stool of a minor chieftaincy to that of a recognized chieftaincy. By the writ of summons filed on the 11th November, 2022, the claimant prays this court amongst others for;
(1) A declaration that the Ondo State Government white paper on the Hon. Justice CET Ajama Commission of enquiry on chieftaincy matters in Ondo State dated 24th August, 2022 admitting and recognizing the stool of Iralepo of Isinkan Quarters, Akure, Ondo State as recognized chieftaincy under Part 1 of the Chiefs Law is Illegal, null and void and of no effect.
(2) A declaration that the consent of the claimant as the prescribed authority over the Iralepo of Isinkan quarter chieftaincy is required for the admission and recognition of Iralepo of Isinkan minor chieftaincy, Akure by Ondo State Government under Part 1 of the Chief’s Law of Ondo State.
(3)A Declaration that the Ondo State Government White Paper on Hon. Justice C.E.T. Ajama Judicial commission of inquiry on chieftaincy matters in Ondo State dated 24th August 2022, which makes chieftaincy of Iralepo of Isinkan quarter, Akure as a recognize chieftaincy under Part 1 of the Chiefs law is contrary to the native law and custom of Akure land, it is therefore null and void and of no effect.
(4) AN ORDER declaring null and void the Ondo State Government White Paper on Hon. Justice C.E.T. Ajama Judicial Commission of Inquiry on Chieftaincy Matters in Ondo State dated 24 ^ (th) August 2022 with respect to Iralepo of Isinkan quarter, Akure, as a recognized Chieftaincy under Part 1 of the Chiefs law of Ondo State.
(5) AN Order of injunction restraining 1 ^ (st) – 4 ^ (th) defendants from taking further step whatsoever toward giving effect to the Ondo State Government White Paper on Hon. Justice C.E.T. Ajama Judicial Commission of Inquiry on Chieftaincy Matters in Ondo State dated 24 ^ (th) August 2022 with respect to the Iralepo of Isinkan quarter. Akure, as a recognized Chieftaincy under Part 1 of the Chiefs law of Ondo State.
(6) AN ORDER setting aside the Ondo State Government White Paper on Hon. Justice C. E.T. Ajama Judicial Commission of Inquiry on Chieftaincy Matters in Ondo State dated 24 ^ (tb) August 2022 with respect to Iralepo of Isinkan quarter Chieftaincy. Akure as a recognize chieftaincy under Part 1 of the Chief’s law.
(7) A Declaration that the Hon. Justice C.E.T. Ajama Judicial Commission of Inquiry on Chieftaincy Matters in Ondo cannot sit on the chieftaincy of Iralepo of Isinkan quarter, Akure, Ondo State which dispute is still pending at the Supreme Court in
v- Oba Appeal No: SC/267/2012, between Joseph Olu Ojo & Anor Oluwadare Adepoju Adesina & Ors as at the time Hon. Justice C.E.T. Ajama Judicial Commission of Inquiry on Chieftaincy Matters in Ondo was hearing application for the recognition of Iralepo of Isinkan, quarter, Akure.
(8) AN ORDER setting aside any document, letter or instrument and/or act of the 1″ – 4th Defendants done pursuant to Ondo State Government White Paper on Hon. Justice C.E.T. Ajama Judicial Commission of Inquiry on Chieftaincy Matters in Ondo State with respect to the recognition of Iralepo of Isinkan quarter, Akure under part 1 of the Chiefs law of Ondo State.
It is the contention of the claimant that for the 5th defendant to become a recognized chieftaincy, consent of the claimant must be sought and obtained by the Executive Council under part one of the Chief’s Law Cap 27 laws of Ondo State 2006. The sole witness for the claimant i.e. the CW1 while testifying during trial stated and affirmed that it is the responsibility of the Executive Council of Ondo State to approve and recognize any person as a recognized chief. Witness said further that this action was instituted to challenge the recognition of the 5th defendant as a recognized chief. Witness agreed that the Deji of Akure land was at a time the native authority because he has no rival. Witness agreed during cross examination that Akure district extends to Akure South, Akure North and Ifedore Local Government where Deji used to be the prescribed authority. Witness stated that Ekiri of Ero has been recognized as Oba because Ero has been bifurcated from Akure as it is now in Ifedore Local Government. CWI also confirmed that Akapinsa of Ipinsa is also an Oba now because the consent of Deji was sought and obtained. Furthermore, CWI testified that Ilara now has an Oba because Ilara is now in Ifedore while Elekun of llekun and Olojoda of Oda have been recognized because they both came to seek and obtained the consent of Deji. He stated further that Olujigba of ljigba also in Akure South became a recognized chieftaincy because the consent of Deji was also sought and obtained.
The DW1 Mrs. Rolaji Obideyi the Deputy Director in the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs who testified under oath stated that Exhibit A was made in the exercise of the powers conferred on the Executive Council of Ondo State and further confirmed that the Ondo State Government through the executive Council has the power to constitute a panel of enquiry without seeking any consent of any other authority to accept the recommendation of such a panel. She further testified that although the Deji of Akure land remains the consenting authority on apartment of minor chiefs but that when it comes to elevation of a minor chieftaincy to a recognized chieftaincy, the consent of Deji is not required for such elevation under Part II of the Chiefs law of Ondo State, Cap 27, Laws of Ondo State, Nigeria. The 5th defendant testifying as DW2 said his predecessor in office was recognized by the Ondo State Government who gave him staff of office as Oba. Witness testified that he appeared before the Ajama Commission of Inquiry where he presented a memorandum and that he is also aware that the claimant filed a counter memorandum at the Ajama Commission of Inquiry. Witness agreed that the Executive Council of Ondo State reserve the right and the prerogative to appoint anybody as a recognized chief without the consent of anybody. Witness stated further that the stool of Iralepo applied to be considered a recognized chief before the Ajama Commission of Inquiry on chieftaincy matter in Ondo State. He said the commission treated the issue regarding minor chiefs and the issue of Iralepo Isinkan was treated along with others and that the Ajama Commission granted the request as a result of which he was elevated as a recognized chief. Witness testified that the consent of Deji is not needed before Iralepo can be recognized.
I have critically considered this issue vis-à-vis the evidence of all the claimant and defendants’ witnesses. There is every need to juxtapose each of the position taken by the claimant and the defendants and place same side by side with provision of the Chiefs law Cap. 27, Laws of Ondo State, 2006, section one provides:
“The Executive Council may by order apply this part to any chieftaincy”.
Section 4 (1) of the law provides:
The Executive Council may, where it has caused an inquiry to be held in accordance with $19, amend, approve or refuse to approve any declaration or declarations made by the commission of inquiry.
4(2) The executive council may approve or refuse to approve any declaration or declaration made by the committee.
4(3) The Executive Council may before exercising its powers under this section:
a. Cause an inquiry to be held in accordance with $19 or
b. Whether or not an inquiry has been held, require the committee to amend a declaration in any respect that it may specify.
4(3) Before exercising any of the power conferred by this section, the Executive Council may cause such inquires to be held in accordance with $19 as appear to it to be necessary or desirable.
4(4) On a declaration in respect of a chieftaincy being made by the Executive Council, every declaration previously made relating to that chieftaincy shall be void and of no effect.
S7(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this law, the Executive Council, in the interest of peace, order and good governance may by order revoke or amend an existing declaration or make a new declaration in respect of any chieftaincy to which this part applies.
I have decided to quote in extenso the provision of Part 1 of the Chiefs Law, cap 27 Laws of Ondo State 2006. In actual fact, a very cautions perusal of Part 1, of the Law from S1 S15, there is no single section where the law gives any consenting authority over appointment, removal and/or elevation of a recognized to the any other person other than the Executive Council. No provision or section of part one gives any consenting authority to any person other than the Executive council. $7 specifically provides that the Executive council, in the interest of peace order and good government may make a new declaration in respect of any chieftaincy to which this part i.e. PART 1 applies. No First-Class Oba, or a paramount Ruler, an emperor or anybody howsoever described can hoist on himself any power under PART 1 of the Chief Laws of Ondo State. That is the provision of law until the Chief Law, Cap 27, 2006 is amended. The learned counsel to the claimant in the writ of summons, statement of claim and through the sole claimant’s witness stated that the consent of Deji is required under Part 1 of the Chief law cap 27 Laws of Ondo State 2006, but there is nowhere, the learned counsel referred this court to any particular section that confers such powers of consent on the claimant.
It is a fundamental principle of Nigerian Law, that parties cannot confer on themselves powers not conferred on them by known law. This principle applies to individuals, bodies, and even courts as powers must derive from legitimate legal source. Legal powers are defined as ability conferred upon a person by law to alter legal relations, whether of themselves or others. These powers can be public or private encompassing legislative; executive and judicial authority. See the case of E-B thereof). The crucial aspect is that such ability must be conferred by Law. There is no doubt, the consent of any consenting authority is provided for and guaranteed under PART II of the Chiefs law, Cap 27, Laws of Ondo State 2006.
(Fawehinmi V. Akilu & Annor (1987) LPELR 1257 (SC) Page 46-48 paragraph
S16 provides:
(1) The executive council may appoint in respect of any area of a local government, an authority consisting of one or more persons as the prescribed authority to exercise the powers conferred by this section in respect of the office of any minor chief whose chieftaincy title is associated with the local community of that area.
(2) In any area in respect of which a prescribed authority is appointed, no person entitled under customary law so to do shall appoint or install any person to the office of a minor chief without the prior written approval of the prescribed authority.
(3) No person shall hold himself out as having been appointed to the office of a minor chief without ensuring that the person who appointed him had prior written approval of the prescribed authority or of the person entitled under customary law to make the appointment.
(4) Where there is a dispute as to whether a person has been appointed in accordance with the customary law to a minor chieftaincy, the prescribed authority may determine the dispute and the persons concerned shall be notified of the decision.
From the above quoted provision of S 16(1) of the Chiefs Law, Cap 27, Laws of Ondo State, it is very clear that:
1. Appointment of a prescribed authority is the responsibility of the State Executive Council.
2. A prescribed authority is strictly by appointment.
3. It is also crystal clear that appointment of a prescribed authority is strictly made per local government and the Executive Council may appoint one, or two or more prescribed authority for any particular local government.
4. S 16 referenced above also clearly shows that there is nothing like cross border appointment. The law did not say a prescribed authority may be appointed to take charge in two local governments. No, that is not the intendment of S 16(1) of the Chiefs Law Cap 27, Laws of Ondo State Nigeria 2006.
5. Power to act as a prescribed authority is conferred by S 16(1) and not by self-imposition or inheritance through traditional history.
Flowing from the foregoing provisions of $16 of the Chiefs Law Cap 27, Laws of Ondo State, 2006, the prescribed authority appointed by the Executive Council has roles to play in the appointment of any person to the office of a minor Chieftaincy. Anything contrary to that is against the provisions of that law.
The conclusion here is that while S16 of the Chiefs law confers that power of consent on the prescribed authority appointed by the Executive Council, no such powers are conferred on any prescribed authority by PART 1 of the Chiefs law, Cap 27, Laws of Ondo State, 2006. Hence, when it comes to promotion and/or elevation of minor chieftaincy to recognized chieftaincy, no prescribed authority has any role to play or has any consent to give. Such elevation and promotion fall within the exclusive authority of the Executive council of Ondo State.
The Supreme Court in TSKJ CONSTRUCOES INERNACIONAL SOCIADADE UNIPERSSOAL LDA V. FIRS (2025) LPELR 81423 (SC) pages
35-36 paragraph F-A held that the Maxim expression unius est exclusion alterus rule represents the position of the law that “the express and unambiguous mention of one thing in a statutory provision automatically excludes any other which otherwise would have applied by implication with regard to the same issue”. It further clarified that “where a statute mentions specific things, those things not mentioned are not intended to be included”. See also OKOH V. FEDPOLY BAUCHI & ANOR (2024) LPELR 62580 (SC).
Thus, it can be clearly seen that S16 of the Chiefs Law Cap 27 Laws of Ondo State, 2006 ascribes responsibility to the prescribed authority i.e. the claimant in this case. But there is no express or direct reference to the role of any prescribed authority when it comes to appointment or elevation of a recognized chieftaincy and that role is effectively ascribed to the Executive council and nothing more.
From the foregoing, the claimant in this case can better be described as a busy body and a meddlesome interloper who is meddling and dabbling into issues that ordinary do not come within the preview of his powers.
It is my humble view that if all the courts that had at a time or the other painstakingly perused the provisions of PART 1 of the Chiefs Law of Ondo State and clinically adverted their minds to Sections 115 of PART 1 of that law, they would have decided otherwise.
The Court of Appeal in the case of Adeniran V. Ojo (2012) 10 NWLR PT 1309 1552 actually buttressed the above position and stated the law so clearly, that the power to declare a chieftaincy as recognized chieftaincy belongs exclusively to the Executive Council as provide by the chiefs Law and held as follows:
“Where a functionary is conferred with the duty or authority to make an order or a declaration or to give recognition to a person in a chieftaincy title, the duty cannot be performed or the authority exercised by the court by way of a
declaration or otherwise where that functionary, failed to do so properly, what he did can only be set aside by the court in an appropriate case in its supervisory jurisdiction. The decision to be made under that duty or authority must first be his; the court cannot take it over.
Furthermore, it is the view of the court of appeal that whether or not to actually recognize the Respondents in part 1 of the Chiefs law is clearly the function of the 3 ^ (rd) Respondent. The 3 ^ (rd) Respondent acted by issuing Exhibits V & Q to the Deji directing the Deji as the prescribed authority to re-organize the chieftaincy hierarchy under him and to upgrade the 1 ^ 51 and 2 ^ (nd) Respondents into existing system. If the respondents are dissatisfied with the decision of the 3 ^ (rd) Respondent, the proper step they should have taken is to revert back to the Executive council of the 3 ^ (nd) Respondent for a review of that decision. This is what the 5 ^ (th) defendant did by submitting a memorandum for consideration the C.E.T. Ajama Commission of Inquiry on the basis of which the Executive Council issued the White Paper dated 24 ^ (th) August, 2022 in which the 5 ^ (th) Defendant was recommended and elevated to the office of a recognized chieftaincy.
From the foregoing decision of the Court of Appeal, it is crystal clear that the Court of Appeal is of the first view that when it comes to elevation and appointment of recognized chieftaincy, it is the executive council that has the sole responsibility to
act in that respect and if there is any complaint against such appointment, such complaint should go back to the Executive Council. No prescribed authority has any role to play when it comes to elevation of any minor chief to the office of a recognized chieftaincy under the Chiefs law Cap 27, Laws of Ondo State 2006.
Sequel to the foregoing issue 1 is hereby resolved against the claimant in favour of the defendants.
ISSUE 2
Whether the 5th defendant’s Counter-Claim is competent to clothe this court with jurisdiction to entertain the Counter-Claim and a fortiori of the 5th defendant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Counter-Claim.
The 5th defendant Counter-Claimant in paragraph 32 of the Statement of defence and Counter Claim pleaded facts based by evidence. To this effect Exhibits, L, M, N, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and BB were tendered.
Exhibits N, R, W, and X are of particular interest to this Court in relation to the case at hand.
Exhibit ‘N’ is titled Akure District intelligence Report, Appendix C (method of Deji and Village heads) dated December, 1934. In this document, the names of all Akure Settlements were listed. The Settlements were 14 in number as can be seen on the document.
Two Villages were listed as separate villages adjourning Akure town. The two villages listed are Isinkan with Iralepo as the head Chief and the Isolo with Osolo as the head Chief. The population of the two Villages were listed as 295 and 529 respectively.
Exhibit ‘R’ is of another particular and peculiar interest to this Honourable Court: It is a letter dated 7th July, 1982 emanating from the Akure Local Government to the Secretary to the State Government. The said letter is titled “Request for the Recognition of the Osolo and the Iralepo of Isinkan Chieftaincies under part II of the Chiefs Law”.
The letter reads in paragraph 3:
“Kabiyesi, the Deji of Akure has confirmed that 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.
In Paragraph 4, Reads.
The position in Akure is compatible with that of Egba land where the Alake is the paramount Ruler to the Sectional Obas in Abeokuta. The Iralepo of Isinkan and the Osolo of Isolo as Obas wear beaded Crowns on Ceremonial occasions in their different domains.
Exhibit “W” is the CTC of record of daily proceedings of the Ondo State Chieftaincy Review Commission dated 8th day of June 1977. Where Oba Ojopagogo of Ilara explained the fact that he shared boundaries with the Iralepo and that the Akure people are tenants to the Iralepo of Isinkan. Exhibit X also speaks volume. Exhibit X is a CTC of document dated 13th August, 1971.
It is Titled: To All Concerned: Akure Chiefs gives Verdict on disputes among Eruoba, Isikan and Osabi.
“Item ‘B’ on the document states as follows:
That the Isinkan people have been ruling the land before the arrival of Asodeboyede.
That, only Isinkan and Oke Aro shares a common boundary. That since the Common dealings between Isinkan and Akure during the right of Ajapada long before the advent of Asodeboyede, the Iralepo has been ruling the land.
It was stated further that Chief Iralepo shares a boundary with Chief Aro on the North and West and by River Aponmu on the West going to Ondo. That Chief Iralepo has the full right and authority over the land.
All N, R, W and X are very old historical records from the national archives buttressing the fact that Isinkan is an autonomous community very distinct from Akure. This court finds that Isinkan community has their own distinct community and they have their own land which extends up to Aponmu River and share boundary with Ilara mokin and other communities. It is very curious that the Claimant’s Counsel in his defence to Counter-Claim did not make any effort to controvert and challenge these documents. The Claimant’s Counsel put nothing forward to contradict the fact and the documents relating to Isinkan having existed as an autonomous community even long before the advent of Asodeboyede the primogenitor of the Akure people. The position of Courts when facts and document are not challenged by the other party is well-settled in Nigerian Law.
Generally, unchallenged evidence on a material fact is treated as true, cogent and credible and Courts are obliged to act on it subject to certain exceptions. In KAYILI V. YILBUK & Ors (2015) LPELR-24323 (SC) at page 36, it was held that the law is trite and enjoins a Court to act on unchallenged evidence.
The principle of unchallenged evidence extends to documents tendered in Court. If documents are presented as evidence, and their contents or authenticity are not challenged by the opposition party, the court may rely on them. The court may draw from the facts and documents stated, any inference, whether of fact or law, which might have been drawn from them if proved at the trial.
The only defence the Claimant put up against the Counter Claim is in relation to the validity of the counter claim. This court has treated and considered this as appropriate while considering issue one earlier in this Judgment. This court had earlier fond that the Claimants counsel ought to have specifically challenged that before filing a defence to counter claim. The provision of ORDER 2 Rules 1 & 2 is sufficient to cure any defect the Claimants counsel has contemplated.
From the totality of the evidence placed before this court, in this case, and in the determination of Issue 2, this court hereby resolves issue of 2 in favour of the 5th defendant against the Claimant.
ISSUE 3
Whether Exhibit Z, constitutes conclusive proof of fact and estoppel in relation to recognition of Iralepo of Isinkan and binding on the 5th defendant and whether Exhibit Z constitutes both issue estoppel and estoppel per rem judicata against the 5th defendant’s counter claim and thereby rob this court of jurisdiction to entertain same.
On the issue of res judicata raised by the learned counsel to the Claimant. This court holds that the issue is misplaced. The issue in all cases that were discussed in the previous case was the issue of prescribed consenting authority. In the instant case, the major issue is the challenge of the White Paper issued by the Ondo State Government pursuant to the conclusion and recommendation of the Hon. Justice C. E. T. Ajama Judicial Commission of Inquiry on Chieftaincy matters in Ondo State dated 24th August, 2022 i.e. Exhibit “A” where the Claimant submitted a
memorandum for consideration by the commission. The Commission recommended the Iralepo of Isinkan as a recognized Chieftaincy and the Ondo State Government through the White Paper dated 24th August, 2022 has so recognized the Iralepo as a recognized Chieftaincy. This is Moreso, when it can clearly be seen that the claim of the Claimant is essentially against the recommendation of the C. E. T. Ajana Commission of Inquiry and the subsequent appointment of the Iralepo of Isinkan.
As a recognized Chieftaincy by the Ondo State Government without the consent of Deji of Akure land.
From the totality of all the issued 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 case of the Claimant is hereby dismissed in its entirety. The case of the Claimant having woefully failed, the Counter-Claim of the 5th defendant hereby succeeds having successfully proved by evidence his claims in the counter claim. This humble court hereby makes the following orders:
1. A DECLARATION is hereby made that Pursuant to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Chief Law and the Commission of Inquiry Law of Ondo State, the Government and the Executive Council of Ondo State are vested with the unfettered powers to issue or constitute a Commission of Inquiry on any subject any matter including Chieftaincy matters.
2. A DECLARATION that the exercise of Powers conferred on it by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Ondo State 2006 and the Commission of Inquiry Law and other laws enabling him in that regard, the governor of Ondo State validly set up the Hon. Justice Ajama Commission of Inquiry on Chieftaincy matters in this case is hereby made.
3. A DECLARATION is hereby made that the 5th defendant and the people of Isinkan have the right to submit memorandum to the Ajama Commission for elevation and promotion to the Iralepo of Isinkan Chieftaincy which memorandum was duly and favorable considered and recommended to the Executive Council which in the exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Constitution, the Commission of Inquiry law and Chief Law accepted the recommendation and declare the Iralepo of Isinkan as a recognized Chieftaincy and published in the White Papers thereon on the 24th August 24th, 2022.
4. A DECLARATION is also made that the Iralepo Isinkan Chieftaincy was legally and validly elevated to a recognized Chieftaincy by the Executive Council of Ondo State Pursuant to the provisions of the Chieftaincy Law Cap
5. A DECLARATION is also hereby made the Iralepo of Isinkan land in the undoubted head of his own people and the entire stretch and parcel of land extending from Imogun to the Aponmu/Owena River. That any or purported alienation and/or sale of any part of Isinkan land by the Claimant is hereby vitiated.
6. AN ORDER OF PERPECTUAL INJUNCTION is hereby made restraining the Claimant and the 1st 4th defendants severally and jointly and/or their privies, assigns, agents and whosoever is connected to them from acting, permitting any act inconsistent with the right and privileges of the Iralepo of Isinkan as a recognized Chieftaincy and any person that shall be subsequently appointed there to including the 5th defendant.
7. AN ORDER OF PERPECTUAL INJUNCTION is also hereby made precluding and restraining the Claimants, his agents, assigns or privies from further alienating any part of the stretch of land to Aponmu/owena River along Ondo Road and across all the boundaries of that land belonging to the Iralepo and his Isinkan people.
8. Parties are to bear their respective cost of litigation.
HON. JUSTICE SUNDAY OLORUNDAHUNSI –
JUDGE
12/10/2026
COUNSEL:
O.S ADEDEKO FOR THE CLAIMANT
F.S AKINNIBOSUN FOR THE 1ST-4TH DEFENDANTS
CHIEF EBISENI N. OLUSOLA FOR THE 5TH DEFENDANT
