.
hbriefs heading animation Search for cases summary on Hbriefs like hbriefs on facebook follow hbriefs on twitter

BOOK: First 2-Years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons - visit website

JUMP TO CONTENT

His Highness V. A. Otitoju v. Governor Of Ondo State & Ors (1994) - SC


place advert here


icon CASE SUMMARY OF:

His Highness V. A. Otitoju v. Governor Of Ondo State & Ors (1994) - SC

by PaulPipAr
icon PARTIES

APPELLANT
His Highness V. A. Otitoju
(Olomuo-Oke of Omuo-Oke on behalf of himself and Omuo-Oke Community)

v.

RESPONDENTS
1. Governor Of Ondo State
2. Attorney-general Of Ondo State
3. Oba Abraham Fasiku (The Olomuo of Omuo for himself and the entire Omuo Community)
icon CITATION

(1994) 4 NWLR (Pt.340) 518;
(1994) All NLR 462;
(1994) 4 SCNJ 224;
(1994) LPELR-SC.269/1990;
icon COURT

Supreme Court
icon LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:

Kutigi, J.S.C.
icon LAWYERS WHO ADVOCATED

FOR THE APPELLANT
- Rotimi Jacobs, Esq.

FOR THE RESPONDENT
- Chief B. O. Benson. SAN
Get that your business, idea, or work available to the public. HCB gets sufficient amount of visits daily. Utilise this golden opportunity to make your product(s) available to the public domain by advertising on this website. If you are interested in advertising on this platform, click "place my advert".

place my advert

place advert here
Go to Crowdfire


icon FACT

From the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led, briefly stated the plaintiff's cases was that Omuo-Oke was a distinct town in Ondo State with its own paramount chief in the person of the plaintiff himself.
According to the plaintiff the Western State Government in 1975 by Order published in the Gazette as Western State Legal Notice 31 of 1975. (W.S.L.N. 31 of 1975 for short) made the provisions of part II of the Chiefs Law applicable to the Olomuo-Oke of Omuo-Oke chieftaincy. By this Order the plaintiff said he became a paramount ruler of his community instead of a minor chief that he was. The Order took effect from 20th March, 1975. The Gazette Notice was tendered in evidence as Exhibit A.
Later in 1976 the same Western State Government also approved the appointment of the plaintiff as the Olomuo-Oke of Omuo-Oke with effect from 10th March, 1976. The approval notice was also published in the Gazette as the Western State Notice No. 183. It was Exhibit B in the proceedings. The plaintiff also tendered various documentary exhibits on the traditional history of Omuo-Oke to show that it is a distinct and separate town in Ondo State.
The defendants' version on the other hand was that Omuo-Oke has no separate existence from Omuo and that there were no natural features demarcating it as such. That Omuo-Oke was just one of the quarters under Omuo. It was also the defendants' cases that although the Olomuo-Oke as a minor chief was recognised in 1975 as per Exhibit A, and that plaintiff's appointment was also recognised as such in 1976 as per Exhibit B, the plaintiff had along with some other recognised chiefs in Ondo State been de-recognised as per Western State Legal Notice No.6 of 1976 (W.S.L.N. 6 0f 1976) and the Ondo State Legal Notice 23 of 1979 (O.D.S.L.N. 23 of 1979).
Both the two legal notices were given the same commencement date of 5th February, 1976.
They therefore took effect before the recognition of the appellant as a chief as per Exhibit B which took effect from 10th March, 1976.
The High Court dismissed the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff then appealed, their appeal was quashed by the Court of Appeal. Hence, the plaintiff, herein as appellant, has appealed to Supreme Court.
icon ISSUE

1. Whether Omuo-oke is a distinct town separate from and not forming part of Omuo town.
icon HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

APPEAL DISMISSED

1. The Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the Court of Appeal that it is not a distinct town.
icon REFERENCED
icon SOME PROVISIONS
The member(s) and administrator(s) of HCB put in energy in order to provide the cases summary they do on this online platform. We desist from charging you a fee, and we have decided to keep this online platform free and accessible for as long as we deem fit. However, in order to keep alive the impetus that makes us provide these free services, kindly make a donation, if you can.
Bank: Zenith Bank.
Name: Branham Paul Chima.
Account No.: 2178756839.


icon NOTABLE DICTA

The question therefore of anyone being literate or illiterate cannot be presumed by the Court but is a matter to be established by evidence. - Kutigi, JSC. His Highness V. A. Otitoju v. Governor Of Ondo State & Ors (1994)

It is settled that when two courts have examined issues of fact and made concurrent findings, the Supreme Court in the absence of error on the face of the record occasioning a miscarriage of justice will not dismiss those findings. - Kutigi, JSC. His Highness V. A. Otitoju v. Governor Of Ondo State & Ors (1994)
The end of this brief.


If this brief was aidful to you, LIKE Hbriefs on Facebook and FOLLOW Hbriefs on Twitter to get frequent Legal updates from Hbriefs.
kind_emoji


place advert here




USE THE SEARCH BOX BELOW
If the search box is not available below, it is due to network issues; in that case, reload page or check back again.
The search feature works perfect! Although the search feature might not capture very recent uploaded cases; If you did not get a particular case, we recommend entering the Case Summary categories and use your browser search/find feature, or use the request feature below.


JUMP TO TOP


REQUEST A CASE SUMMARY





ABOUT



TERMS AND CONDITONS



ADVERTISE ON HBRIEFS



FOUNDER




Humongouz Empire
© 2018 - 2021

website developed by hzztudio