The 1st – 3rd respondents, as plaintiffs, commenced an action atthe High Court of Ondo State against the 4th – 6th respondents as 1st- 3rd defendants and the appellants as 4th and 5th defendants, seekingdeclaratory and injunctive reliefs relating to a parcel of land.
The suit of the 1st – 3rd respondents bordered on recognitionand enforcement of the judgment delivered on 30th June, 1943by Jibowu J. and that delivered on 21/6/1950 which declared thatthe portion of land situate in Akure District of Nigeria measuringapproximately 2302 km2 and partly occupied by Idanre communityis indeed Akure land. The 1st – 3rd respondents therefore soughtrevenue from occupants of their land.
Following the death of the original 1st plaintiff, Oba AtaiyeseAdebobajo Adesida IV (The Deji of Akure Land) who maintainedthe action in a representative capacity, on 24th October 1999, the1st – 3rd respondents filed an application to amend the name of the1st plaintiff by deleting the name “Oba Atayese Adebobajo AdesidaIV and substitute it with “The Deji of Akure Land” so that the nameof the 1st plaintiff would read “The Deji of Akure Land (For himselfand on behalf of the entire people of Akureland).”
The court granted the application on 3rd July 2003 and pleadingswere consequently amended to reflect the name of the 1st plaintiffas “Deji of Akureland”. Before trial commenced, the appellants andthe 4th -6th respondents as co-defendants, raised separate objectionsto the competence of the suit.
The appellants in their motion on notice prayed, inter alia, foran order dismissing or striking out the plaintiffs’ action as samewas improperly constituted or as the 1st plaintiff is not a juristicperson. In opposing the applications, the 1st – 3rd respondents filedtheir counter affidavit wherein issues were joined.
The trial court in its ruling held that the “Deji of Akureland is nota creation of statute” and therefore not a juristic person. The courtover-ruled all other objections but concluded by granting the 1st – 3rdrespondents leave to add the name of the current Deji of Akure asthe 1st respondent.
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial court, the appellantsappealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal. TheCourt of Appeal however went further to award costs in favour ofthe appellants.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, theappellants appealed to the Supreme Court.