he Court of Appeal sitting in Akure, Ondo State, has affirmed the appointment of Prof. Sunday Amuseghan as the Kalasuwe of Apoiland, bringing an end to a prolonged legal battle over the stool.

The appellate court, in a unanimous decision, dismissed the appeal filed by Prince Joseph Orire David, who had challenged the selection of the retired professor of English from Adekunle Ajasin University.

The judgment, delivered on Monday, validated the decision of the Ondo State government, which had appointed Amuseghan, a member of the Ebeli Idumu Ruling House, to the throne in 2018.

The Kalasuwe of Apoi is a first-class traditional ruler in the Ese-Odo Local Community Council Area of the state.

The legal dispute originated when David, through his counsel Omolegbon Odusola, instituted Suit No. HOK/10/2018 before the Ondo State High Court.

David had contended that he was earlier selected by a majority of the nine kingmakers and was merely awaiting the approval of the State Executive Council when Prof. Amuseghan was appointed. He subsequently challenged the validity of the appointment.

However, the High Court dismissed the suit following a preliminary objection raised by Chief Sola Ebiseni, counsel to Amuseghan.

Ebiseni had challenged the competence of the suit and the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that Prince David lacked the locus standi to bring the action.

He stressed that David belonged to the same Ogele Idumu Ruling House as the immediate past monarch, Oba Samuel Adetimehin Oladiran.

This, according to the defense, was contrary to the Registered Declaration of the chieftaincy, which recognizes only two ruling houses, Ogele Idumu and Ebeli Idumu, and mandates that the stool rotate between them.

Dissatisfied with the High Court’s ruling, David filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal, Akure.

In delivering the lead judgment on Justice N.U. Okaisabor, with Justices S. Nwaka Gbagi and P.O. Affen concurring, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the lower court’s decision.

The appellate court held that both parties agreed the chieftaincy was governed by a registered declaration made pursuant to the Chiefs Law, which is subsidiary legislation that determines the eligibility of contestants.

The court noted that since David conceded that he hailed from the same Ogele Idumu Ruling House as the immediate past traditional ruler, he was ineligible to contest the stool under the agreed rotational arrangement.

Consequently, the court ruled that he lacked the legal standing to institute the action.

In a further pronouncement, the Court of Appeal held that as an aggrieved party, Prince David was bound by the provisions of Section 13 of the Chiefs Law, which he failed to comply with before approaching the court.