ABRAHAM OLAYINKA OKUPE V. SOYEBO, THE ALAPERU OF IPERU

KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA.

This is an appeal against a decision of Bartley, Assistant Judge of the High Court of the Protectorate sitting in the Ibadan Division, dismissing an application by a private relator named Abraham Olayinka Okupe that an information in the nature of Quo Warranto be exhibited against Soyebo to show what authority he claimed to exercise the office of Alaperu of Iperu.

Now the first essential for an information of this nature to lie is that “the office must be held under the Crown, or have been created by the Crown." Halsbury, second edition, vol. 9, page 805, paragraph 1374.

It is abundantly clear that the Alaperu of I peru does not hold an office created by the Crown. The position is one of a minor chief in the Protectorate--not even in a colony--it owes its existence to native custom and the holder is not even a native authority appointed under the Native Authority Ordinance, 1933 (No. 43 of 1933).

It is equally clear that the Alaperu does not hold an office under the Crown. The first sentence of the first paragraph of the applicant's own affidavit is sufficient to demonstrate this :-

“The office of Alaperu of lperu is elective and the electors are the Chiefs and Elders of Iperu Town.”

There is no need to look further than this, and I will only add that I entirely agree with the finding of the learned Judge in the Court below that the position of the Alaperu of Iperu is a mere dignity, a position of honour-based, as that finding is, upon the Judgments of

^{*Page 152}

the Full Court in Adanji v. Hunvoo (1 N.L.R. 75). In that case, it is worth noting, it was common ground that Quo Warranto did not lie, even the claimant's counsel admitting “the essential feature is absent.”

I am of opinion that the decision of the Court below was right and that the appeal should be dismissed. BUTLER LLOYD, J. I concur.

CAREY, J. I concur.