It is not impossible to still have more cases arising from and connected to the stool of Awujale of Ijebu Ode and paramount ruler of Ijebu land before the emergence of the new Awujale. The more the delay, the more the litigation arising from and connected to the stool
By Moruff O. Balogun, Esq.
Former Vice Chairman, Nigerian Bar Association, Ijebu-Ode Branch, Ogun State
The prolonged controversy surrounding the vacant stool of the Awujale and Paramount Ruler of Ijebu land has understandably generated intense public interest. It has also produced disagreements among members of ruling houses, traditional stakeholders, aspirants, government authorities and other interested parties.
Yet, beyond the emotions, cultural significance and political dimensions of the dispute lies an important and perhaps underappreciated development: the Awujale succession controversy has provided Nigeria’s legal system with an opportunity to interrogate, clarify and potentially develop important principles concerning customary law, statutory interpretation, administrative power, natural justice, judicial review and the limits of governmental intervention in traditional institutions.
The death of the revered Oba Sikiru Kayode Adetona on July 13, 2025, after an extraordinary 65-year reign, created a vacancy in one of Nigeria’s most historically significant traditional institutions. The ensuing succession process has exposed several questions which go beyond Ijebuland. They concern the relationship between customary law and modern legislation and, ultimately, the question of how traditional institutions should operate within a constitutional democracy.
The Awujale stool: where custom meets written law
The first jurisprudential significance of the dispute is that it demonstrates that customary law does not operate in isolation from written law.
The selection of the Awujale is governed by a historical Chieftaincy Declaration dating from the late 1950s. The framework recognises four ruling houses and provides for a rotational system of succession. The declaration was made under the statutory chieftaincy framework then applicable and subsequently became part of the legal architecture governing the stool.
The jurisprudential history surrounding the Awujale stool and its current succession dispute includes a chain of constitutional, chieftaincy, customary-law, ruling-house and administrative-law cases, stretching from the historic litigation over Oba Adetona’s deposition to the current 2026 proceedings
At the same time, the Ogun State Obas and Chiefs’ Law, 2021 provides a contemporary statutory framework for the selection, appointment and recognition of traditional rulers in the State. The legislation contains provisions dealing with the nomination and selection process, including the respective responsibilities of ruling houses, kingmakers and governmental authorities.
The current dispute therefore forces the courts to consider a fundamental question:
Where an established customary rule has been codified in a Chieftaincy Declaration and subsequently operates alongside a modern statute, how should the two instruments be interpreted harmoniously?
That question is of considerable importance to Nigerian jurisprudence because similar issues arise in the selection of traditional rulers throughout the country.
The importance of statutory interpretation
One of the most valuable contributions of the Awujale controversy is the opportunity it presents for judicial clarification of the meaning and effect of the relevant provisions of the Ogun State law.
For example, Section 16 of the 2021 Law has become central to the arguments surrounding the 14-day period for the ruling house concerned to nominate candidates and the subsequent stages involving the kingmakers. The Fusengbuwa Ruling House has now asked the Ogun State High Court to determine, among other things, whether its nomination process was validly completed and whether the kingmakers became legally obliged to proceed after receiving its nomination list.
These questions may appear to concern only Ijebuland. They do not.
They raise the broader jurisprudential question of how courts should interpret statutory timelines in chieftaincy matters.
Is a statutory period mandatory or directory?
What happens when a deadline is allegedly missed?
Can a party waive or extend such a period?
What legal consequence follows from non-compliance?
At what point does an administrative or customary process become legally irreversible?
These are classical questions of statutory interpretation.
I have checked the reported litigation and found that the cases should be presented in two categories: (1) cases directly arising from the current/future Awujale succession, and (2) earlier cases concerning the Awujale institution or the Fusengbuwa Ruling House that have become legally relevant to the present succession dispute.
Cases instituted so far
1. Oba Sikiru Kayode Adetona v. Governor of Ogun State & Others — the historic litigation arising from the 1981 suspension and subsequent deposition of Oba Adetona. The High Court eventually nullified the government’s action and ordered his reinstatement in 1984. This is arguably the most important historical Awujale case because it established a major precedent concerning governmental power over a traditional ruler.
2. Otunba Abdul-Lateef Owoyemi v. Prince Yinusa Oladele Adekoya & Others, SC.104/1998 (Supreme Court, judgment of 12 December 2003) — although the case concerned the Agbonmagbe Ruling House of the Dagburewe of Idowa, rather than the Awujale stool directly, it is relevant to the genealogy/ruling-house questions that subsequently became part of the Fusengbuwa controversy. The Supreme Court reported that both Owoyemi and Adekoya were princes from the Agbonmagbe Ruling House.
3. HCJ/18/2014, High Court of Ogun State, Ijebu-Ode — a significant Fusengbuwa Ruling House leadership case instituted by Abdul-Lateef Owoyemi and others against Otunba Subomi Balogun and others, with Oba Sikiru Adetona also joined. The dispute concerned competing claims to the headship/Olori-Ebi position of the Fusengbuwa Ruling House. Reports of the present dispute continue to rely on this judgment as a subsisting decision concerning interference between units of the ruling house.
Owoyemi & Others v. Subomi Balogun & Others — 2018 High Court judgment — the reported judgment in the Fusengbuwa headship litigation. Justice Aderonke Asenuga resolved issues arising from the competing claims concerning the headship of the Fusengbuwa Ruling House. The court relied substantially on evidence given by the late Awujale, Oba Adetona, and resolved the case in favour of Balogun on the principal headship dispute as reported at the time.
Owoyemi’s appeal — Court of Appeal, Ibadan, judgment of 28 November 2024 — Owoyemi appealed the 2018 decision. According to the reported Certified True Copy discussed publicly in 2025, the Court of Appeal resolved the seven issues raised in his favour and rejected the fraud allegation relied upon against him at the High Court level. This decision is particularly important to the present Awujale succession because the identity of the legitimate leadership of the Fusengbuwa Ruling House is directly relevant to its participation in the succession process.
4. Wasiu Ayinde Marshal (KWAM 1) v. Governor of Ogun State & Others, Suit No. HC3/238/2025 — filed at the Ogun State High Court, Ijebu-Ode, in December 2025. Ayinde sought to restrain the Governor, the Fusengbuwa Ruling House and other officials from proceeding with the selection/installation process. He also challenged his exclusion from the succession process and disputed the exclusive role of Fusengbuwa.
The court declined his application for an interim injunction and ordered an expedited hearing of the substantive matter. Ayinde subsequently filed a Notice of Discontinuance dated 22 December 2025, thereby bringing that suit to an end.
5. Fusengbuwa Ruling House v. Governor of Ogun State & Others, Suit No. HCJ/149/2026 — filed on 21 August 2026. This is the latest major litigation. The ruling house, represented by Abdulateef Owoyemi, Adedokun Ajidagba and Prof. Fassy Yusuf, is asking the High Court to compel the kingmakers to reconvene and complete the Awujale selection process. It also challenges the alleged government/security intervention that prevented the kingmakers from continuing the process and questions the legal authority for the closure/locking of the Awujale Palace.
6. Prof. Fassy Yusuf v. 11 members of the Fusengbuwa Ruling House, Suit No. HC3/153/9 (2026) — a separate ₦10 billion defamation action instituted on 21 August 2026. This arose from allegations of bribery and financial inducement contained in a purported fact-finding report concerning the Awujale selection process. It is not a direct challenge to who should become Awujale, but it is clearly part of the present legal battle surrounding the succession process.
“The jurisprudential history surrounding the Awujale stool and its current succession dispute includes a chain of constitutional, chieftaincy, customary-law, ruling-house and administrative-law cases, stretching from the historic litigation over Oba Adetona’s deposition to the current 2026 proceedings.”
The 1980s Adetona case, HCJ/18/2014, the 2018 High Court decision, and the 2024 Court of Appeal decision provide the historical and jurisprudential foundation. HC3/238/2025 is the first prominent direct litigation arising from the present succession following Oba Adetona’s death, while HCJ/149/2026 is presently the central live case concerning completion of the selection process. The defamation case is ancillary but relevant to the wider legal controversy.
I would also be careful about stating that the 2024 Court of Appeal judgment “settled” the entire Fusengbuwa succession issue. The reported judgment concerned the headship dispute; it does not, by itself, determine who should become the next Awujale.
It is not impossible to still have more cases arising from and connected to the stool of Awujale of Ijebu Ode and paramount ruler of Ijebu land before the emergence of the new Awujale.
The more the delay, the more the litigation arising from and connected to the stool.
The steps to be followed to have a new Awujale have be boldly codified in plan language both in the declaration and the law.
I urge the family, the kingmakers and the government to be meticulous and methodical about the selection process. Since we have the law guilding the process, we should therefore allow the law to speak.
Delay is dangerous.
•Moruff O. Balogun, Esq.
Former Vice Chairman, Nigerian Bar Association, Ijebu-Ode Branch, Ogun State (09121207712)
•Opinions, positions or thoughts expressed here are personal and strictly of the writer/author and do not represent the views of The Daily Crucible.
