The Appeal Court has ordered that the nine generic towns in the Oro Kingdom should retain ‘Oro’ as suffix to their original names.

The court ordered further that none of the nine towns in the kingdom has the right to lay claim to ‘Oro’ as its name.

The affected generic towns include: Afin-Oro, Agbeola-Oro, Irebode-Oro, Idado-Oro, Iludun-Oro, Oke Ola-Oro, Ijomu-Oro and Okerimi-Oro.

The Appeal Court which sat in Ilorin the Kwara State capital had upturned the decision of the state High Court, Omu-Aran Judicial Division which affirmed Otun-Oro, one of the nine towns that make up Oro Kingdom in Irepodun Local Government Area of the state, have the legal right to retain ‘Oro’ as its name.

The Appellate Court in a unanimous decision, dismissed the verdict of the lower court and allowed the appeal filed by Oba Abdulrafiu Olaniyan Oyelaran I, Oloro of Oro and the Attorney-General of the state to the effect that Otun-Oro should vacate its claim to ownership of the name ‘Oro’ as a generic name.

In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Obande Ogbuinya, the Appeal Court held that the judgment delivered by Justice M. Abdulgafar of the Kwara State High Court, Omu-Aran on March 24, 2010 in which the claims of the respondent were granted, were fraught with perversion.

Justice Ogbuinya held further that going by the exhibit before him, the government reversed ‘Oro’ to Otun-Oro been its former name in the interest of public peace, order, morality and for the purpose of safeguarding the right and freedom of the other eight generic towns in Oro Kingdom.

“From this crucial and undebunked evidence, I draw the inescapable inference that the parties are tied to the same custom and tradition inclusive of the custom as to the usage of the name ‘Oro’ as suffix, not solely.

“It is, therefore, my view that what the government did was to return the respondent to its original name of Otun-Oro in accordance with the historical facts and antecedents and in overall interest of sustainable peace, progress and harmony in the nine generic towns in Oro Kingdom”, Justice Ogbuinya stated.

He also held that in aggregate, he cannot see a way clearly to vilify or crucify the Kwara State Government for returning the respondents to their traditional name (Otun-Oro).

According to the upper court, the lower court in reaching its finding ignored evidence. It also caused miscarriage of justice to the appellants in the sense that a holistic consideration of the case, inclusive of the evidence, clearly indicate that a result more favourable to the appellant would have been reached but for the errors they complained of.

“The lower court reached a finding which is at variance with mine and I brand it as faulty, waiting to be dispensed with”, he added.

Consequently, the upper court set aside the decision of the lower court in its entirety.

“On the whole, having regard to reasons adduced above, with the aid of the law, I hold that the appeal is meritorious. It is allowed”.

The respondents, Chief Simeon Olayioye, Chief Emilius Alasiri, Mr. Bode Oyeyiola and Dr. Michael Ibiwoye had approached the lower court to revert the government Legal Note No. 2 of September 11, 2008 in Gazette No. 7 Vol. 42, wherein it decided that each of the nine communities comprising Oro Kingdom should have ‘Oro’ as a suffix to its name and that Otun-Oro, like each and every generic town shall not solely lay claim to ownership of the name ‘Oro’.

They agued that the government did not give them fair hearing before making the Gazette and that the Gazatte was an imposition of name on them which infringes on their rights as guaranteed in Sections 40 and 41(1) of the Constitution as amended, which the court granted.

Meanwhile, there had been long drawn disputes regarding the use of the name ‘Oro’ either solely or as suffix to another community in Oro Kingdom, ‘Ekun mesan Oro’.

The disputes had threatened the peaceful co-existence of the nine communities that constitute Oro Kingdom.