From the CourtPilot Law

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT

CHIEF MARK OLUGBEMI OBADA & ORS.
V.
MILITARY GOVERNOR OF KWARA STATE & ORS.
CITATION: (1994) LPELR-SC.131/1990 OTHER CITATIONS(2):
Obaba v. Mil. Gov., Kwara State (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt.336) 26 2 (1994) 4 SCNJ 121
In The Supreme Court of Nigeria
On Friday, the 22nd day of April, 1994 Suit No: SC.131/1990
Between
1. CHIEF MARK OLUGBEMI OBABA (Obaba of Ponyan)
2. CHIEF AJIBOLA OGUNGBIYI OBASHE (Obashe of Ponyan)
3. CHIEF SASOM OLORUSAIYE AGBANA (Obaba of Ponyan) – Appelants
And
1. MILITARY GOVERNOR OF KWARA STATE)
2. ATTORNEY -GENERAL OF KWARA STATE)
3. CHIEF EZEKIEL OMOBOYE OMOPARIOLA) – Respondents
Summary Of Judgment
By Kwara State of Nigeria Gazette Extraordinary No.2. Vol.22 of 30th March, 1988 -supplement part A titled: The Oba of Ponyan (Chief E.O Omopariola) (Appointment Etc.) Edict, 1988, the military Governor of Kwara State on 3rd January, 1988 appointed 3rd respondent herein, with effect from 27th December, 1987, as Oba of Ponyan in Oyi Local government then of Kwara (but now in Kogi) state. The plaintiffs, herein appellants, opposed the appointments and so sued the Ist, 2nd and 3rd respondents who were the defendants in the trial court for a declaration that they (respondents) having, on 9th February, 1984 selected D.E. Obasa under Native Law and Custom as their Oba. Hence, “The Oba Ponyan (Chief E. O. Omopariola) Appointment Edict is null and void.” After the exchange of pleadings, a preliminary objection was raised at the instance of the 3rd respondent that the jurisdiction of the High Court was ousted by virtue of section I and 2 (b)(i) of the Military Government (Supremacy and Enforcement Powers) Decree, No.13 of 1984. The learned trial Judge (Owolabi, J.) upheld the preliminary objection by ruling that he indeed lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action (the fulfilment of a condition precedent for the payment of a non-refundable deposit of N10,000.00) by the appellants before instituting the suit by virtue of an Edict, Edict No.3 made pursuant to the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition (Amendment) Edict, 1988 notwithstanding) and so he accordingly proceeded to strike out the suit. The Court of Appeal sitting in Kaduna affirmed the decision of the High Court and so dismissed the appellant’s appeal. 1. Whether the Court of Appeal Kaduna was right in holding that the trial court was right by not making any finding on the payment of a non-refundable N10,000.00 made by the appellants; 2. (a) Without even canvassing issue of inconsistencies whether the appellants cannot succeed on a lone ground that having paid nonrefundable sum of N10,000.00 under Kwara State Edict No.3 of 1988 they are entitled to challenge the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Oba of Ponyan. And also whether a Governor can challenge in a court of law the validity of an Edict promulgated by him.
In The Alternative
(b) Whether the simpliciter rule that an Edict cannot be challenged applies to this case, having regard to the pleadings and inconsistencies of Edict No.2 of 1988 with Decree No.1 of 1984 and unsuspended provisions of the 1979 Nigerian Constitution raised by the appellants.
Appeal dismissed.

Show More

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button