LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CHIEFTAINCY LAW — Chieftaincy Succession — Party Denying Ruling House Cannot Subsequently Claim Rights Thereunder
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A party who disowns a ruling house and asserts it does not exist, and that he does not come from it, cannot be a candidate. If he rejects the ruling house in pleadings and evidence and repudiates its existence, the court need not discuss other issues formulated.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Pats-Acholonu, JSC, in Fatunbi & Anor v. Olanloye & Ors (2004) NLC-242000(SC) at pp. 12–13; Paras E–A.
"A proper reading and synthesizing of the other issues seem wholly and entirely dependant or incidental to and definitely subordinate to the main issue. Indeed other issues appear academic from my holding above. Let me state why I said that the other issues are mere academic. The 1st appellant disowned Oshin Ruling House and asserted vigorously that it does not exist, that he has never heard of it, and that he does not come from that Ruling House. That is his stand. If he does not come from the only Oshin Ruling House, in essence he cannot be a candidate of Baale stool. [...] Now since the Court of Appeal has held that there is only one Ruling House which is Oshin and the appellants had rejected both in their pleadings and evidence in court and utterly repudiated and refuted the existence of Oshin Ruling House and since therefore by his ipse dixit the first appellant does not come from there, this court ought not ordinarily discuss the other issues formulated in the appellants' brief."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A party who denies the existence of a ruling house cannot later claim rights under it. Such denial in pleadings and evidence bars chieftaincy candidacy. The principle applies to chieftaincy succession disputes. The court need not discuss other issues once this repudiation is established. The party’s own words (ipse dixit) bind him. Consistency in claiming ruling house membership is required.
