HEARING in a case instituted by a contender to the stool of Onitede of Tede in Oke-Ogun, Oyo State, Prof. Solomon Olaniyonu, was stalled on Monday due to the absence of the Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Adeyemi.
An Oyo State High Court sitting in Ibadan therefore adjourned the hearing till October 13 for mention.
Olaniyonu had sued the Onitede, Oba Rauf Oladoyin, the state governor and the Alaafin and the matter, marked I/785/2001, is before Justice A.L. Akintola of the Ring Road High Court 13.
He is challenging the right of the first respondent (Onitede) to the throne, following a 2003 judgement to the contrary.
Olaniyonu is asking the court to decide the validity of the consenting authority of the Alaafin of Oyo to the appointment of the present Onitede in 2011.
Counsel to the applicant, Segun Jayeola, told the court that “The whole matter now revolves around the Alaafin, who is the consenting authority. The issue before the court is to decide whether there was a consenting authority of Alaafin on the appointment of Onitede of Tede.
“There was a judgement of the High Court in 2003 which nullifies all the actions of the governor in installing the first respondent as Onitede.
“We want the court to clarify the issue on who among the two is authentic by law. The court is now to say whether the consenting authority given prior to the judgement of the 13th of June, 2003 subsists or not because as at June 2003, the High Court declared the stool vacant”.
Counsel to Onitede, Adele Aderogba, however, said: “The issue is that the Onitede of Tede, Oba Rauf Oladoyin, had been installed as far back as December, 2001. The applicant is labouring under a wrong impression that the Onitede’s chieftaincy is governed by a 1954 Declaration. That is not true.
“The court has made a pronouncement that the chieftaincy is governed by 1958 Declaration. A court of competent jurisdiction has given a verdict that the applicable declaration is that of 1958. Besides, the appointment of Onitede is also not based on the Adio Commission of Enquiry”.
To justify the fact that the consent of Alaafin was not required in the appointment of Onitede, he said: “Alaafin participated fully and actively in the installation of Onitede”.
He also argued that the applicant did not join Onitede as a party in the earlier case, hence, “he could not be affected by the order of the court. Onitede was not a party to the proceeding so, the so-called court order is not binding on him,” he submitted.
