An Appeal Court in Ado Ekiti has voided the installation of Idowu Ibiowotisi as the Olomodulawe of Ilawe Ekiti.It ordered him to stop parading himself as the recognised ruler of Oke Emo Quarters in Ilawe Ekiti.
The appellate court also restrained the monarch of the town, Adebanji Alabi who is the fifth respondents and Gbenga Agbona, who is the second respondent in the suit from recognising him.
The Olomodilawe chieftaincy title is rotational among the Gbadamosi, Fatimehin and Fajemisin branches. Ibiowotisi, who is the first respondent, was installed after the death of Zacheus Fatimehin.
The appellants had challenged the eligibility of the first respondent at the Ekiti High Court, but the trial court delivered judgment on October 19, 2016 by striking out the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
However, dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellants took the matter to the Appeal Court.In her lead judgment, Justice Fatima Omoro Akinbami, declared that it is the turn of the Fajemuyin branch of the Olomodulawe to produce a candidate for the Olomodulawe title, after the late Zachaeus of the Fatimehin branch.
The judge said: “I declare that the purported nomination and installation of the first defendant as Olomodulawe by the second defendant is against the nature law and custom, as well as the applicable Chiefs Law.
“I hereby set aside the purported nomination and installation of the first defendant as Olomodulawe, and order that the second and sixth defendants should immediately commence the nomination process to fill the vacant stool of Olomodilawe chieftaincy.”
The judge said she had evaluated the evidence placed before the trial court that the appellant made written, as well as oral representation to the then paramount ruler, the Alawe of Ilawe Ekiti.He said the Alawe, who is the prescribed authority on the chieftaincy title installed he first respondent, despite the letter of protest written by the appellants.
“I am satisfied that the appellants placed enough evidence, both in oral and documentary before the trial court in proving their case. “I therefore have no hesitation in granting all the reliefs sought by the appellants,” she said.
In this article:
The appellate court also restrained the monarch of the town, Adebanji Alabi who is the fifth respondents and Gbenga Agbona, who is the second respondent in the suit from recognising him.
The Olomodilawe chieftaincy title is rotational among the Gbadamosi, Fatimehin and Fajemisin branches. Ibiowotisi, who is the first respondent, was installed after the death of Zacheus Fatimehin.
The appellants had challenged the eligibility of the first respondent at the Ekiti High Court, but the trial court delivered judgment on October 19, 2016 by striking out the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
However, dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellants took the matter to the Appeal Court.In her lead judgment, Justice Fatima Omoro Akinbami, declared that it is the turn of the Fajemuyin branch of the Olomodulawe to produce a candidate for the Olomodulawe title, after the late Zachaeus of the Fatimehin branch.
The judge said: “I declare that the purported nomination and installation of the first defendant as Olomodulawe by the second defendant is against the nature law and custom, as well as the applicable Chiefs Law.
“I hereby set aside the purported nomination and installation of the first defendant as Olomodulawe, and order that the second and sixth defendants should immediately commence the nomination process to fill the vacant stool of Olomodilawe chieftaincy.”
The judge said she had evaluated the evidence placed before the trial court that the appellant made written, as well as oral representation to the then paramount ruler, the Alawe of Ilawe Ekiti.He said the Alawe, who is the prescribed authority on the chieftaincy title installed he first respondent, despite the letter of protest written by the appellants.
“I am satisfied that the appellants placed enough evidence, both in oral and documentary before the trial court in proving their case. “I therefore have no hesitation in granting all the reliefs sought by the appellants,” she said.
In this article: