An Edo State High Court sitting in Agenebode has ruled in favour of a traditional ruler, the Okuokpellagbe of Okpella, Alhaji A.Y.E. Drisu, over a chieftaincy case instituted against him by some of his chiefs.
The plaintiffs in the matter, Chief Joseph Imanobe and 19 others, had sued the traditional ruler, accusing him of attempting or having the intention of altering Okpella’s two ruling houses of Ogute and Oteku. Ogute comprises Ogute–Oke, Awuyemi, Imiekuri and Imiegeli branches, while Oteku is made up of Komunio and Iddo branches.
The plaintiffs had contended that the Okuokpellagbe had altered the Chieftaincy Declaration, which recognised only the two Ruling Houses by distributing amenities in such a way that suggested that there were more than two Ruling Houses.
But in his notice of preliminary objection and counter affidavit, the traditional ruler argued that the plaintiffs did not have any reasonable cause of action and that the Okuokpellagbe had not taken any step to alter the two Ruling Houses.
His counsel, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, submitted that Chief Charles Adogah, SAN, who was himself counsel to the plaintiffs in this matter, was also the chairman of two panels earlier set up and which recommended the creation of villages within the two ruling houses of Oteku and Ogute for administrative purposes to enable the Okuokpellagbe administer the communities seamlessly and to facilitate the equitable distribution of amenities to the grassroots.
Ozekhome wondered why the Plaintiffs would “approbate and reprobate,” when they themselves had been enjoying the creation of several villages for them out of the two Ruling Houses based on the recommendation of Adogah’s panel.
He argued that the plaintiffs themselves, who were chiefs, were a creation of the seven villages carved out for the plaintiffs from the two Ruling Houses, adding that their action amounted to “approbating and reprobating.”
Delivering judgment, Hon. Justice P.A. Akhihiero, held that the royal father’s preliminary objection succeeded on the ground that the issues raised by the plaintiffs and the reply to the issues were matters that were highly contentious and adversarial and which, therefore, ought not to have been instituted by originating summons.
Justice Akhihiero also held that in case he was wrong in his view on the merit of the case itself, the plaintiffs did not disclose any reasonable cause of action to enable them activate the jurisdiction of the court
