By Editor
Dissatisfied with the July 22, 2024 Court of Appeal judgment sitting in Ado Ekiti over the protracted Elemo (Oraye) chieftaincy tussle, the current Elemo Oraye of Ise kingdom, Chief Omotunde Paul has asked for a stay of execution over the appealate Court ruling before the Supreme Court holden at Abuja.
This appears as an anti climax to the chieftaincy row which began in 2018 where two judgements of two lower courts were delivered in favour of Chief Omotunde Paul.
Joined in the case with the title: Appeal NO: CA/EK/100/2021SUIT NO: HIS/02/2018 are: 1.HRM OBA AYODELE ADETUNJI AJAYI
(Arinjale of Ise-Ekiti)….. APPELLANTS. 2. CHIEF OMOTUNDE PAUL and :1. MR. KAYODE OGUNTUASE, 2. MR. AKINYEMI OGUNTUASE, 3. MR. OJO ADU OGUNTUASE, 4. MR. ALABA ADU OGUNTUASE (For themselves and on behalf of …. RESPONDENTS
Elemo Chieftaincy Family of Oraye Quarters, Ise-Ise-Ekiti 5. MR. ADESINA IGE SAMUEL
(For himself and on behalf of
Ebi Elemo Oraye Quarters, Ise-Ekiti)
The Elemo in filing the motion of notice, rejected the judgment of the Court of Appeal, sitting in Ado Ekiti on July 22 and delivered by their Lordships, Hon. Justice I.O Akeju, Hon. Justice A.M Lamido and Hon. Justice J.F Inyang.
His Counsel, Barr. Busuyi Bankole who filed the motion on his behalf refered to four grounds of errors in the appealate Court ruling on which the Supreme Court should look into.
These are: GROUND 1
The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law by granting the reliefs sought by the 1st – 4th Respondents at the trial court.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(a)The Evidence adduced by the 1st – 4th Respondents in proof of their claims before the trial court was inconclusive to warrant the grant of the declaratory reliefs sought before the court.
(b)The Evidence adduced by the 1st – 4th Respondents gave inconclusive evidence about their root of title to the stool to warrant the grant of their claim.
(c)The 1st – 4th Respondents fathers are not known as no fact is placed before the trial court to substantiate how the stool devolved on the 2nd Respondent.
GROUND 2
The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in Law when its held that the trial court was perverse in its judgment refusing the claim of the respondents before it.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(a)There is nothing to anchor the perverse finding of the court of Appeal in the judgment of the trial court to warrant the setting aside of Stool.
(b)The court below failed to appreciate the probative value attached to Exhibit 5 which is the judgment of court tendered as exhibit before the trial court.
(c)There was no due consideration given by the court below given to the application letter tendered as exhibit 6-6a tendered as exhibit by the 2nd appellant with the list of members of the Elemo family in the proof of his application for the stool in line with custom and tradition relating to the stool.
GROUND 3
The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in Law when it held that the 2nd Respondent was validly presented for the stool of Elemo Oraye, Ise Ekiti.
PARTICULARS OF ERRORS
(a)There is no pleading nor evidence before the court below to confirm that the 2nd respondent was validly presented for installation in line with custom and tradition as Elemo Oraye Ise Ekiti to warrant his being installed as an Elemo.
(b)The 3rd Respondent going by the pleadings and evidence on oath of the 1st – 4th Respondents was the person that was presented for installation as Elemo as against the 2nd Respondent, whom the 1st -4th Respondent wanted declared as an Elemo.
GROUND 4
The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in Law when it failed to consider the pleadings and evidence of the appellants on how the 2nd Appellant filed his application through the Omo Ile Elemo to the Ebi Elemo before he was taken to the lare and finally before the 1st Appellants for installation.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(a)there is evidence before the court that the 2nd appellant signified this intention for the stool of Elemo by writing exhibit 6-6a.
(b)The Exhibit 6 – 6a contains the list of members of the family who witnesses and sponsored the candidate of the 2nd Appellant to Ebi Elemo.
(c)The 2nd Appellants evidence that the stool is the beneficial inheritance of the 4 branches of the Elemo family was not considered by the court in granting the 1st – 4th Respondents claim before the trial court and this has occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice.
- The judgment of the Court below is against the weight.
Having established the grounds for the appeal, the legal team then sought four reliefs from the supreme court.
These include:
a.AN ORDER allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of court below complained of.
b.ALTERNATIVELY, AN ORDER for re-hearing of the appeal by another panel of the Court below.
5.PERSONS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE APPEAL
Meanwhile, until the final Supreme Court ruling, Chief Omotunde Paul remains the Elemo Oraye of Ise kingdom as status quo ante remains.
Details later……
