The Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal has upheld the judgment of a Lagos State High Court vesting the sovereignty over Igbanko community of Badagry in the Onigbanko of Igbanko land, Oba Babatunde Lawal, whose throne is at Irede.

There individuals – Benjamin Akinyele, Peter Adeyemi and Salami Ilo – had challenged the sovereignty of Oba Lawal over the Igbanko community.

In their suit marked ID/144/95 before Justice Afolabi Adeyinka, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that “in accordance with tradition, native law and custom, the people of Igbanko community are entitled to appoint or install their own oba and should not be kept under the savage control of Oba of Irede or be merged to be ruled by any oba sitting outside of Igbanko.”

The plaintiffs prayed the court to set aside the approval of change of title designated Notice No. 2 of 1995 recognising Oba Onigbanko of Igbanko land as the sovereign ruler over Irede and its environs.

Joined as first to third respondents in the suit filed through their counsel, Taiwo Kupolah, were Badagry Local Government, the Attorney-General of Lagos State and Oba Babatunde Lawal.

But in response to the suit, the Onigbanko had, though his own counsel, Ibrahim Bawa, filed a counter-claim, wherein he sought a declaration that “only the blood relation of the third respondent and descendant of Ogabi Awoporiojoye can be appointed Ogbonisa as it was from the onset and not just anybody from Igbanko community.”

In a ruling delivered on June 27, 2002, Justice Adeyinka had resolved the issue in favour of the Onigbanko.

The trial judge had held that the historical account given by Onigbanko, stating that his forebear, Ogabi Awoporojoye, left Ile-Ife over 300 years ago with a beaded crown from his father, Olofin and traveled from place to place until he came to a place known as Mushin and founded Igbanko, thus becoming the first Onigbanko of Igbanko land and was later succeeded by his only son, Ajose Adawongorikebaja, was more credible and defeated the plaintiff’s historical account.

The trial judge had held, “There are two versions of the history of Igbanko and its environs before this court but it is not difficult upon the preponderance of the evidence before this court to prefer the third defendant’s history to that of the plaintiffs.

“The third defendant’s history of Igbanko and its environ is cogent, credible, authentic, represents the truth of the history of Igbanko and its environs.”

But not satisfied, the plaintiffs had headed for the Appeal Court with a 10-ground notice of appeal, seeking an order overulling the lower court’s judgment.

It was part of their contentions that the trial court erred in law by relying solely on Curwen report tendered before it as exhibit 9, to conclude that the plaintiffs’ historical account of Igbanko was deficient and inferior to that of the third defendant.

The appellants also asked the higher court to determine whether the trial court was not liable to being prejudiced when it accepted gift of stationeries from the third defendant.

But in a judgment delivered on December 11, 2014 by Justices Rita Pemu, Chinwe Iyizoba and Jamilu Tukur, the appellate court upheld the decision of the lower court and upheld the sovereignty of the third defendant on Igbanko community.

The appellate court held that contrary to the appellants’ claim, the trial judgment did not make his decision only on the strength of the said Curwen report.

The appellate court also held that since the said stationeries were donated in open court after an open request by the court, the gesture could not have given rise to any case of bias.

In the final analysis, Justice Pemu held, “Now from the evidence before the lower court, I find nothing that will warrant the setting aside of the said legal notice No. 2 of 1995.

“The evidence before the lower court supports my view on the decision of the learned trial judge that the promulgation of the legal notice followed due process and is in line with the customs of the communities concerned.

“This issue is resolved in favour of the respondents against the appellants. With this resolution of all issues against the appellants, it naturally follows that the appeal fails and is not allowed. It is hereby dismissed. The judgment of Lagos State CONRAM A.F. Adeyinka J. in suit No. ID/144/95, delivered on June 27, 2002, is hereby affirmed.”

Click here to read from source.