The unanimous judgment delivered by Justices M.B. Doing an-Mensem, Mudashiru Nasiru Oniyangi and Nonyerem Okoronkwo of the Court of Appeal, on December 11, 2015 also set aside the judgment of the Oyo State High Court dismissing the claim of the appellants delivered on April 4,2000. The trio of Princes Adeyeye Oyerinde, Adegbola Oyerinde and Oyeyemi Oyerinde, for themselves and on behalf of Sunloye branch of Osunbiyi ruling house, as appellants had approached the Appeal Court to set aside the decision of the Oyo state High Court, sitting in Ogbomoso and delivered on April 14, 2000. The respondents in the case, according to the ruling obtained from the office of the Registrar, Court of Appeal, Ibadan, are the Soun of Ogbomosoland, Oba Jimoh Oyewumi, Ajagungbade III; Secretary, Surulere Local Government Area, Jimoh Oyeyemi Oloyede; governor of Oyo State, Senator Abiola Ajimobi; Attorney-General of Oyo State, Prince Bello Oloyede (for himself and on behalf of Osunbiyi ruling house, excluding Sunloye branch), Chief Salami Amoo (for himself and on behalf of other Aresaadu kingmakers) and Surulere Local Government Area. The appellants, who are principal members of Sunloye branch of Osunbiyi ruling house of Aresaadu, the others branch being Idowu branch, Latilewa branch and Okunola branch are said to be entitled to the exclusion of other mentioned branch to present a candidate for the vacant tool of of Aresaadu Chieftaincy as by the native law and custom of the Aresaadu. The branches rotate the Chieftaincy among themselves. According to the appellants, “it was the turn of Osunbiyi ruling house to fill the vacancy which the other branches had got their turn in this order of rotation: Idowu, Latilewa, Sunloye and Okunola. “That when pursuant to a letter written by the second respondent (Secretary, Surulere Local Government Area dated October 11,1996 to the Osunbiyi ruling house requesting it to present candidate to the kingmakers of Aresaadu within 14 days, the Osunbiyi ruling house fixed a meeting for October 22,1996 and the second respondent (Secretary, Surulere Local Government Area) was present as an observer. However, when the head of Osunbiyi ruling house called on the head of Sunloye branch to present their chosen candidate of Sunloye branch for the vacant stool, the second respondent insisted that as many candidates as possible must be nominated by reason of which majority of the members of the ruling house protested and walked out but the meeting went on after which the minute of the meeting was prepared by the secretary of the ruling house wherein he stated that nine candidates emerged and the names of the candidates were forwarded to the local government. The first respondent (Oba Jimoh Oyewumi) as well as the second respondent, but nonetheless and without investigating the merits of their petitions forwarded the names to the kingmakers, the kingmakers however in view of this breach of the custom refused to sit for almost two months and when the second respondent threatened to appoint, it warranted the kingmakers to eventually appoint the third respondent, hence the suit at the lower court.” The appellants then sought an order from the Court of Appeal setting aside the said judgment of the lower court and entering final judgment in favour of the plaintiff. In his ruling, Justice Mudashiru Oniyangi considered three clauses as being germane to the case. The clauses are: “there are two ruling houses and the identity of each ruling house is Emiolu and Osunbiyi, two; the order of rotation in which the respective ruling houses are entitled to provide candidate to fill successive vacancies in the Chieftaincy are Emiolu (present ruling house) and Osunbiyi, and clause three, the person who may be proposed as candidate by the ruling house entitled to fill a vacancy in the Chieftaincy shall be, (a) members of the ruling house and (b) of the male line only.” Justice Oniyangi said the clause squally prescribes the mode of nomination, noting that, “it clearly prescribes that the ruling house whose turn it is to present a candidate shall meet and nominate who would be presented by the head of the family to the kingmakers. “The ruling house whose turn it is would meet and nominate a candidate to the kingmaker. Therefore, the meeting scheduled for October 22, 1996 consequent upon the letter by the second respondent (Secretary, Surulere Local Government Area), exhibit one is for the fulfillment of clause five and clause III. That is to say the male members of the ruling house whose turn it is to fill the vacant stool would meet and nominate one out of them and, thereafter, the head of that ruling family would in turn present the name of the SINGLE candidate to the kingmakers. That provision does not allow for a plural nomination but a single nomination. “The act of deliberating and selecting out of the nine candidates purportedly forwarded by the Osunbiyi ruling house and the selection of the third respondent (Jimoh Oyeyemi Oloyede) by the kingmakers is void and of no effect. I accordingly declare that the nomination of the third respondent, Jimoh Oloyede, violated the provision of clauses five and of the Aresaadu Chieftaincy Declaration 1989. I also declare it void, illegal and a gross violation of the custom of Iresaadu. “On this note and since the process of nomination by the ruling house whose turn it was to nominate and produce a candidate to fill the vacant stool is rocked by a void and non complaint procedure, the emergence of the third respondent as the Aresaadu was irregular, in breach of Aresaadu Chieftaincy declaration, the chief law, the custom and tradition of Iresaadu and is illegal, invalid, null and void.” He then ordered that the ruling house whose turn it is to nominate a candidate for the vacant throne should set in motion forthwith the process of nominating a candidate to fill the vacant stool of Aresaadu of Iresaadu.]]>