The Onikoyi Royal family has reacted to claims by one of its branches, the Dosunmu branch, that there are two ruling houses entitled to the throne of Onikoyi of Ikoyi and Imoba land, describing it as a fallacy, and insisting there is only one ruling house.
The Royal family, in a statement issued on Sunday and signed on their behalf by Akeem Animashaun Esq., accused the Dosunmu branch of “selective honesty” and said it needed to set the record straight for the benefit of unsuspecting members of public.
The Dosunmu branch had last Tuesday alleged that there are two ruling houses, judgement of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of AGBETOBA&ORDS Vs. LAGOS STATE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL&ORDS reported in 1991 4 NWLR part 188.
Reacting to this, however, the Onikoyi royal family, in the statement, accused the Dosunmu branch of not yet coming to terms with reality.
The Onikoyi Royal family said the issues for determination in the Supreme Court judgement cited by the Dosunmu branch were on the validity of a chieftaincy declaration made in 1981, adding that the Dosunmu branch “in their usual characteristics of selective honesty” deliberately refused to inform tha public of the amendment of the Onikoyi Chieftaincy Declaration of 2006.
The royal family stated: “the Dosunmu branch in their usual characteristics of selective honesty refused, failed and/or deliberately jettisoned the need to inform the public that upon the amendment of the Onikoyi Chieftaincy Declaration ,2006, they lost in an action against the Lagos State Government at the High Court of Lagos State challenging the amendment of the Onikoyi Chieftaincy Declaration 2006, in the case of ALHAJI (ARC) RAFIU ONIKOYI & ORS V. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE & ORS with Suit No. M/451/2006 and judgment delivered on 11th December,2009, upon appeal the court affirmed the decision of the lower court in ALHAJI (ARC) RAFIU ONIKOYI & ORS V. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE & ORS with appeal No. CA/L/276/2010.
“The court of Appeal in an appeal filed by ALHAJI (ARC) RAFIU ONIKOYI & ORS V. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE & ORS with appeal No. CA/L/276/2010 against the decision of the lower court challenging the amendment of the Onikoyi Chieftaincy Declaration 2006, the court of appeal in affirming the decision of the lower court resolved the issue of whether the Governor of Lagos State or the Chieftaincy committee is vested with the power to amend a declaration. The court resolved in favour of the respondent and promptly dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit.
“Also in the case of ALHAJI (ARC) ABDU RAFIU OLWUNMI ONIKOYI & ORS V. HRH PATRICK IBIKUNLE FAFUNWA ONIKOYI with Suit No. LD/1391/2010 in his judgment HON. JUSTICE O.H OSHODI in his judgment said and I quote;
“ There is no dispute that exhibit DWA is an amended declaration. The Claimant in their evidence before the court are aware of this amended this declaration. All they allege is that it came into existence on the back of abuse of office and a mockery, thus according CW1, it is invalid! Again to repeat, no shred of evidence is led to tell the court how exhibit DWA constitute any abuse of office, or it being a mockery. The issue here is not to set aside exhibit DWA.
Now by the provisions of Section 13 (1) & (2) of The Obas and Chiefs Law of Lagos State Law, Cap O2, any registered declaration amended, made by the Chieftaincy Committee and approved by the Governor, shall be registered, and if not registered, such amended Declaration shall not come into effect until registered.
A look at exhibit DWA, it is apparent that it was made on 16th May 2006 by the Chieftaincy Committee, signed by the Governor on 23rd May 2006 and registered on 25th May 2006. In sum, exhibit DWA has fully complied with the law. This being the case, exhibit DWA has the force of a law – See AYOADE V MILITARY GOVERNOR, OGUN STATE (supra).
Learned counsel for the Claimants, in the written address submitted at para 4.1.4 that the Court of Appeal in its judgment in suit No: CA/L/697/2012 between ALHAJI (ARC) ABDUR-RAFIU ONIKOYI & 2 ORS V STERLING ASSETS MAN. & TRUSTEES LTD & 2 ORS, delivered on 9th June 2017, had considered this exhibit DWA and found in favour of the Appellants.
While this submission is partly correct, in that the judgment of the Appeal Court was in favour of the Appellants therein, learned counsel should note that the issue that came into focus in that judgment was that whether the lower Court was right to have relied on evidence not before it or pleaded. The effect of exhibit DWA to exhibit B, the judgment of the Apex Court was not pronounced upon by the Appeal Court in that judgment relied upon.
To the Court the effect of the coming into effect of exhibit DWA is that the notion that there are 2 (two) Ruling Houses, Muti and Dosunmu, as held by the Apex Court in exhibit B, does not hold anymore after the coming into effect of exhibit DWA on 25th May 2006.
“In light of the foregoing it is crystal clear that the question of ruling house has been settled and it will amount to mischief on the part of the Dosunmu branch to continue to mislead the public and peddle falsehood by claiming that there are two ruling house in the Onikoyi Royal family.”
