A declaratory judgment, as Oputa, JSC, said in Odofin v. Ayoola (1984) NSCC (Vol. 15) 711; (1984) 1 SCNLR 372, is a form of judgment that is granted only in circumstances in which the court is of the opinion that the party seeking it, “is, when all facts are taken into consideration, fully entitled to the exercise of the court’s discretion in his favour”. See also Obi v. INEC (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1046)565 SC; (2007) LPELR-2166(SC).
In this case, the trial court took all the facts into consideration, however, it was not swayed by anything the plaintiffs had to say, and it held as follows:
“The argument is that since no branches has been referred to in the declaration then there could not be a successful argument that the court has to declare any branch from a Ruling House as the one entitled to produce the person to fill the vacant Stool. I must say that I agree with this argument. Any consideration of which branch of the Ruling House is to provide the Ranodu, is an internal matter for the Family. If the family decides, as it would appear, they have done in the instant case, as shown in exhibit D10, Minutes of the Family Meeting of 8.6.93, that the candidate for appointment can come from any of the branches of the Family, so be it. The court can only take cognizance of the Registered Declaration, which is the Constitution for Imota Town on appointment of Ranodu. The meetings of the Family decided to forward the 6 applicants to the Kingmakers. The Kingmakers sat and considered the 6 names submitted. In their wisdom, all of them considered the 8th defendant to be the best for their town and they chose him on 21.6.93. According to the evidence of Kingmakers, who do not belong to the Family, and whom could reasonably be believed to be neutral and who could also be believed to be interested only in the well-being and progress in their town, they chose the 8th defendant. It is even believed that for all the Kingmakers to have casted their votes only for 8th defendant then the large majority of the people of Imota must have given their support for the Oba elect — The 8th defendant as required by section17(1)(d)(iii) must have had popular support. See the evidence of DW3. After all, from the evidence before the court, the 6th plaintiff did contest for the Stool some years ago against the Ranodu Oba Lawrence Oredoyin. It was testified that on that occasion, the 6th plaintiff scored 3 votes while Oredoyin scored 4. The DW1 and DW2, who were then Kingmakers, testified that they voted for the 6th plaintiff then. I think that the 8th defendant, Mudashiru Bakare Agoro has been rightly selected and appointed the Ranodu of Imotaon 21.6.93 in accordance with Section 17(1)(d) Obas and Chiefs Law by the Kingmakers after casting their votes for him.”
CHIEF ISMAILA EHINLE & 2 Ors v IKORODU LOCAL GOVERNMENT & 3 Ors – SC. 382/2007 decided on 8th May 2020