The process leading to the appointment of the new Alaafin of Oyo has been challenged at the Oyo State High Court.
A claimant to the stool who is also a Prince, Prince Ismail Owoade in the suit claimed the recognised Chieftaincy Laws of Oyo Kingdom recognised him as the rightful successor to the late Alaafin.
The suit is filed on his behalf by his lawyer, Bamidele Ogundele.
In the suit, the claimant is also seeking an order of injunction restraining Prince Abimbola Akeem Owoade from being presented with the staff of Office by the Oyo state Governor, Seyi Makinde.
According to the suit, the appointment did not follow due process in line with Chiefs Laws of Oyo State 2000 and Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961.
He is therefore seeking a court declaration directing the Defendants, particularly the Oyo State Government and the Kingmakers (Oyo Mesi) to complete the process started by Baba Iyaji under paragraph 5(a)&(b) of the Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961 appointing the Claimant, Prince Ismail Olalekan Owoade as the Alaafin of Oyo.
Earlier in the suit, the claimant challenged the appointment of Chief Professor Wande Abimbola as a consultant to consult Ifa Divination to appoint Alaafin of Oyo by the state Government.
According to the suit the appointment is strange to Oyo Native Law and custom and not in accordance with the Chiefs Law of Oyo State 2000 and Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961 and consequently should be declared illegal, null and void.
He stated further that the court should set aside the purported approval of appointment and presentation of Staff of Office to the 4th Defendant, Prince Abimbola Akeem Owoade as Alaafin of Oyo as same was conducted in violation of the provisions of the Registered Alaafin Declaration as quoted earlier.
Furthermore, the claimant wants the court to set aside the purported appointment of the 5th Defendant, Prince Lukman Ayinla Gbadesin as Alaafin of Oyo by the five Kingmakers under the leadership of Basorun of Oyo without compliance with paragraph 5(a)&(b) of the Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961 through the process that excluded the 12th Defendant, Baba Iyaji and non-compliance with the Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Laws.
Paragraph G of the motion wants an order stopping Prince Lukman Ayinla Gbadegesin from parading himself as Alaafin of Oyo based on the fact that the process of the 5th Defendant’s appointment by the Kingmakers which excluded Baba Iyaji under the law who must present the Candidate to the Kingmakers who in his opinion is best qualified to be appointed, together with the names of other candidates to the Kingmakers under the leadership of Basorun of Oyo did not comply with the law
Read below the grounds for the suit
BETWEEN: PRINCE ISMAIL OLAMILEKAN OWOADE – CLAIMANT
AND
1. THE GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE THE
2. ATTORNEY-GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, OYO STATE
3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND CHIEFTAINCY AFFAIRS, OYO STATE
4. PRINCE ABIMBOLA OWOADE
5. PRINCE LUKMAN AYINLA GBADEGESIN
6. PRINCE YUSUF LAYINKA (THE BASORUN OF OYO)
7. CHIEF LAMIDI OYEWALE (THE IBA SAMU OF OYO) )
8. CHIEF ASIMIYU ATANDA (THE AGBAAKIN OF OYO)
9. CHIEF WAKEEL OYEDEPO (THE LAGUNA OF OYO)
10. CHIEF AMUSA YUSUF(THE AKINIKU OF OYO)
11. CHIEF MOSHUD ABORODE (ONA ILEMOLE)
12. CHIEF MUKAILA AFONJA (THE BABA IYAJI OF OYO)
13. CHIEF ISIAKA TELLA. TITILOYE (ONA ISOKUN OF OYO
14. CHIEF OYEDEMI OLUTUNDE OYELOWO (TE MOGBA OF OYO)
15. CHIEF SAMUEL OLUSEGUN ODUNRINDE (ALAJAGBA OF AJAGBA OYO)
16. CHIEF GANIYU AJIBOYE BUSARI (THE ALAGOOJA OF OYO)
17. CHIEF GBADEBO MUFUTAU (ALAPO OF OKEAPO, OYO)
18. CHIEF WAHAB OYETUNJI (AREAGO BASORUN OF OYO)
19.CHIEF IKUSAANU IFALEYE (OLUWO ALAAFIN OF OYO)
20TH DEFENDANT, ATIBA LOCAL GOVERNMENT, OYO TOWN
DEFENDANTS
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1The Claimant avers that he is an Aspirant to the Chieftaincy Stool of Alaafin Oyo and participated enormously through the due process of passing through the 12th Defendant, Baba Iyaji of Oyo.
2The Claimant was fraudulently excluded as a leading candidate in respect of the Chieftaincy Stool of Alaafin of Oyo after due process was truncated by the 1st Defendant through the appointment of the 4th Defendant.
3The Claimant avers that the cause of action arose when the 1st Defendant, as Oyo State Governor and all constituted authority failed to comply with due process which excluded the 12th Defendant, Baba lyajj under paragraph 5(a)&(b) of the Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961 who must present the candidate who in his opinion is best qualified to be appointed, together with the names of the other candidates to the Kingmakers under the Leadership of Basorun of Oyo and the Chiefs Laws of Oyo State 2000 and Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961 hence, the grievances of the Claimant now ventilated before the Honourable Court.
4The Claimant avers that the failure of non compliance with paragraph 5(a)&(b) of the Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1964 and the Chiefs Laws of Oyo State 2000 by unilaterally and capriciously appointing a candidate, the 4th Defendant culminated to the cause of action before the honourable court.
5The Claimant avers that the 1st Defendant unilaterally appointed a Consultant, CHIEF PROF. WANDE ABIMBOLA to consult Ifa Divination to appoint the Alaafin of Oyo is strange, unknown to Oyo Native Law and Custom and not in accordance with the Chiefs Law of Oyo State 2000 and Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961.
6The Claimant avers that there is a Judgment of the Oyo State High Court that the process embarked upon by the 1st Defendant in appointing CHIEF PROF. WANDE ABIMBOLA is illegal, null and void.
7The Claimant avers that where it is necessary that there is going to be consultation with the Ifa Divination, it is the responsibility of the 12th Defendant, Baba Iyaji to assemble the Oyo Mesi with the 19th Defendant (Oluwo Alaafin Oyo) and 11th Defendant, Ona Ilemole, the two established institution for Alaafin of Oyo Stool to conduct Ifa Divination and not a stranger and consultant like CHIEF PROF. WANDE ABIMBOLA as it was done by the 1st Defendant.
8The Claimant avers that where the 12th Defendant, Baba lyaji and the Oyo Mesi and other stakeholders agree to conduct Ifa Divination, the Ifa Divination is to be conducted by the authorities designated by the Alaafin Institution and these are the Oluwo of Oyo and the Ona Ilemole Alaafin under the supervision of the Baba Iyaji.
9The Claimant avers that the role of the Oyo Mesi is to administer the post nomination process anchored by 12th Defendant, Baba lyaji therefore, the role of the Oyo Mesi is traditionally that of proclamation.
10The Claimant avers that he is a Descendant of Aremo Aderounmu Owoade, and he is a direct Son of Alaafin Lawani Agogolja who is the Son of Alaafin Adelu Agunloye, the Son of Aremo Alaafin Abiodun Atiba Atobatele and by virtue of the extant Chieftaincy Declaration on rotation of the stool, the Claimant branch of the family is currently entitled to the Stool of Alaafin of Oyo.
11The Claimant brought this action under the Oyo Native Law and Custom, incorporated into Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961.
12The Claimant avers that Aremo Alaafin Abiodun Atiba Atobatele is the architect of the present day Oyo Kingdom.
13The Claimant avers that selection of candidates for the vacant stool of Alaafin Oyo is traditionally carried out in strict compliance with the extant Chieftaincy Declaration for the Alaafin Stool.
14The Claimant avers that the 12th Defendant, Baba lyaji is the proper office for interested candidates (Princes) to apply in person for the throne of Oyo Alaafin.
15The Claimant avers that the process initiated by the 12th Defendant, Baba Iyaji led to the selection of five candidates out of 82 candidates through Ifa Divination and which process was carried out by the lawful Ifa Divination families of Oluwo and Ona Ilemole Alaafin.
16The Claimant avers that he and 81 other Princes applied as candidates for the throne of Alaafin of Oyo.
17The Claimant avers that the 12th Defendant, Baba lyaji submitted the Claimant’s name as the candidate who in 12th Defendant, Baba Iyaji’s opinion, is best qualified and submitted the Claimant’s name along with four other contestants names to the Oyo Mesi in line with procedure.
18The Claimant avers that the names of the candidates submitted by the 12th Defendant, Baba lyaji to the Oyo Mesi are as follows: (a) Olamilekan Ismail Owoade (b) Majeed Gbadegesin (c) Muideen Adekunle Oladigolu (d) Afolabi Rafiu Wasiu (e) Barrister Ademole Adegoke Alayoayo
19The Claimant avers that it is also the responsibility of the 12th Defendant, Baba Iyaji to conduct a transparent screening of candidate amongst the Applicants Princes based on the criteria agreed by the Oyo Mesi and representatives of the Ruling House after due consultant with other stakeholders.
20The Claimant avers that in line with the 1961 Declaration, the 12th Defendant, Baba lyaji is to submit the name of a candidate who in his opinion is best qualified out of all the candidates, and the Baba Iyaji’s best qualified candidates will be submitted along with four other names of other Princes from among the applicants and submit the five names to the Oyo Mesi for the Oyo Mesi post-nomination process.
21The Claimant avers that in performance of administering the post-nomination process, the Oyo Mesi may reject the candidate who the 12th Defendant, Baba Iyaji presented in his opinion as best qualified candidate where the best qualified candidate is disqualified by any or all of the disqualifying conditions under the Chiefs Law.
22The Claimant avers that where the preferred candidate presented by the Baba Iyaji as best qualified is disqualified, and so rejected, the Oyo Mesi is required to consider the four other names presented by Baba Iyaji along with the name of his best qualified candidate.
23The Claimant avers that in considering the other four names, the Oyo Mesi is to arrive at the choice of an alternative candidate by consensus and where consensus cannot be achieved, the candidate with a simple majority will be selected.
24The Claimant avers that the name of the candidate finally selected by the Oyo Mesi will be forwarded to the Secretary to the Local Government whose jurisdiction covers where the Alaafin Palace is situated.
25The Claimant avers that the Secretary of the 20th Defendant, Atiba Local Government within which the Alaafin Palace is situated will forward the name of the selected Prince to the 1st Defendant, Governor, Oyo State for final appointment.
26The Claimant avers that the 12th Defendant, Baba Iyaji and other Chiefs informed the Claimant that the Ifa Divination picked his name as the candidate whose name was submitted to the Oyo Mesi for declaration in line with tradition. The Claimant shall issue subpoena on the 12th Defendant, Baba Iyaji at the trial.
27The Claimant avers that the 12th Defendant, Baba Iyaji informed the Princes that a date has been set for the five Princes whose names were submitted to be further screened by the Oyo Mesi after which declaration of the Claimant as the best qualified candidate in the opinion of the 12th Defendant Baba Iyaji will be announced.
28.The Claimant avers that as he awaited feedback from the 12th Defendant, Baba Iyaji and the Oyo Mesi Council of Chiefs, he read in the news that the 1st Defendant has appointed the 4th Defendant as the Alaafin Oyo and consequently failed to follow due process by excluding the 12th Defendant, Baba lyaji as required under paragraph 5(a)&(b) of the Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961 who must present the candidate to the Kingmakers who in his opinion is best qualified to be appointed, together with the names of the other candidates to the Kingmakers under the Leadership of Basorun of Oyo hence, the 1st Defendant did not comply and violated the Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961 and Chiefs Laws of Oyo State 2000.
29The Claimant avers that the succession process for the Alaafin of Oyo throne is governed by the Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961 and the choice of the candidates to the throne is noted in the customary practices upheld by relevant stakeholders within the Alaafin institution.
30The Claimant avers that the Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961 is supplemented by the Chiefs Law of Oyo State 2000.
31The Claimant shall contend at the trial that the 1st Defendant has no discretionary power to vary the choice of the Claimant presented by the 12th Defendant, Baba lyaji to the Kingmakers (Oyo Mesi) and subsequently to the Secretary of the 20th Defendant, Atiba Local Government.
32.The Claimant avers that the cause of action against the 5th Defendant in respect of his nomination and appointment arose as a result of his nomination and appointment by the Kingmakers (Oyo Mesi) under the Leadership of the 6th Defendant, Basorun of Oyo without compliance with paragraph S(a)&(b) of the Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961 by excluding the 12th Defendant, Baba lyaji who must present the candidate to the Kingmakers who in his opinion is best qualified to be appointed, together with the names of the other candidates to the Kingmakers under the Leadership of Basorun of Oyo did not comply with the Chiefs Laws of Oyo State 2000 and Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961.
33. The Claimant avers that the cause of action against the 20th Defendant, Atiba Local Government emanated in the act of connivance with the 1st Defendant in presenting the 4th Defendant who was not nominated and appointed in compliance with paragraph 5(a)&(b) of the Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961.
34.The Claimant avers that the appointment of the 5th Defendant by the Kingmakers (Oyo Mesi) under the Leadership of the 6th Defendant, Basorun of Oyo did not follow paragraph 5(a)&(b) of the Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961 by excluding the 12th Defendant, Baba lyaji who must present the candidate to the Kingmakers who in his opinion is best qualified to be appointed, together with the names of the other candidates to the Kingmakers under the Leadership of Basorun of Oyo did not comply with the Chiefs Laws of Oyo State 2000 and Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961.
35.The Claimant shall contend at the trial that failure to follow the provision of paragraph 5(a)&(b) of the Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961 by excluding the 12th Defendant, Baba lyaji make the whole exercise of the appointment of the 5th Defendant as Alaafin of Oyo an exercise in futility and consequently, invalid, illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside.
36 The Claimant shall urge the Honourable Court to set aside the appointment of the 5th Defendant as Alaafin of Oyo by the 6th,7th,8th,9th, 10th Defendants (King Makers/Oyo Mesi).
37.The Claimant avers that to his surprise, he read in the news that the 1st defendant has appointed the 4th Defendant as the Alaafin Oyo and has presented the 4th Defendant with Certificate and Staff of Office on the 13th day of January, 2025.
36. The Claimant avers that his Counsel, B.P. Ogundele Esq of B.P. Ogundele & Co wrote a Letter dated the 16th day of January, 2025 demanding that the 1st, and 3rd Defendants comply with the Chiefs Law of Oyo State, 2000 and the Registered Alaafin Chieftaincy Declaration of 1961 all to no avail.
39. The Claimant avers that in the said letter the attention of the 1st Defendant was called to the unlawful process employed by the 1st Defendant to the appointment of the 4th Defendant as Alaafin Oyo and demanded that the 1st,2nd,3rd Defendants and the Kingmakers (Oyo Mesi) complete the process started by the 12th Defendant, Baba lyaji all to no avail.
40.That instead of the 1st Defendant complying with the Claimant’s demand through his Counsel, the 1st Defendant has fixed the 4th day of April, 2025 as the date set for the coronation of the 4th Defendant.
41.The Claimant shall rely on several documents and Judgment at the trial.
