1944 Archive Document Takes Centre Stage in Dispute Over Fusengbuwa Ruling House
A 1944 archival document has become a major piece of evidence in the ongoing legal dispute over the composition and membership of the Fusengbuwa Ruling House in Ijebu-Ode and the process for selecting a candidate for the vacant Awujale stool.
The document, identified as File No. IjeProf C17/5/2 and dated March 16, 1944, was certified at the National Archives, Ibadan, on June 23, 2026.
It was attached to a defence filed on September 17, 2026, before the High Court of Ogun State, Ijebu-Ode Division, in Suit No. HCJ/149/2026, involving Otunba Abdullateef Adebayo Owoyemi and another against the Ogun State Government and other parties.
The filing was made by A.G. Giwa-Amu & Co. on behalf of the claimants and co-defendants, including Prince Adeleke Adeyemi-Olufadi and five others, who are described in the court processes as representing the 12 branches of the Fusengbuwa Ruling House.
At the centre of the submission is a genealogical document contained in the 1944 archival file.
According to the court document, the genealogy was submitted on March 15, 1944, by the children of Omoba Aderibigbe, then Olori-Ebi of the Tunwashe Ruling House of Agunsenbi.
The genealogy traces Jadiara as the father of Fusengbuwa and identifies 12 children of Fusengbuwa as Osinuga, Aderudu, Osinupebi, Adekerun, Ogunade, Isenfadeke, Osifusan, Adesimbo, Okuyadewo, Adebowale, Olufadi and Osiyemi.
The defence contends that the archival record is significant to determining who qualifies as a member of the Fusengbuwa Ruling House and, by extension, who is entitled to participate in the process of producing a candidate for the Awujale stool.
The filing further relies on another archival record, File C17/7, relating to a petition dated October 22, 1934, attributed to Prince Oduwole Olufadi, also known as Oba-Nile-Ifa.
The defence states that the 1934 petition described the family as “Ebi Fusengbuwa” and linked Olufadi and Tunwashe to the descendants of Fusengbuwa.
The legal dispute also revisits events surrounding an earlier case, Suit No. HCJ/18/2014, in which some of the current parties were involved.
According to the new court filing, the 2014 proceedings included arguments concerning the composition of the Fusengbuwa Ruling House and the genealogical claims of some participants.
The defence challenges the use of certain names and family groupings as constituent units of the ruling house, arguing that they are not contained in the 1944 genealogical record relied upon by the defendants.
It also disputes the classification of Odo Ejogun as a lineage within the ruling house, arguing that the name refers to a settlement rather than an individual ancestor.
The defence further argues that the registered chieftaincy declaration governing the Awujale stool recognises four ruling houses Anikinaiya, Fusengbuwa, Fidipote and Gbelegbuwa and maintains that the membership of each house should be determined in accordance with the applicable declaration and established customary law.
The court is also being asked to examine the process through which nominees were selected following the death of the late Awujale, Oba Sikiru Kayode Adetona, on July 13, 2025.
The defence refers to a five-page document titled “Fusengbuwa Ruling House Ijebu-Ode 60th Oba Awujale Nominated Candidates and Their Contact Details 2026,” which it says contained 95 names, with nine subsequently identified as duplicates, leaving 86 names.
The filing challenges the classification of a substantial number of the names under various family groupings which, according to the defence, are not recognised as the original branches of Fusengbuwa in the 1944 archival material.
It alleges that seven branches identified in the archival genealogy Aderudu, Osinupebi, Osiyemi, Isenfadeke, Osifusan, Adebowale and Ogunade had no candidates on the disputed list.
The defendants’ position, as presented in the filing, is that the nomination exercise should be reviewed if the court determines that the disputed groupings do not constitute lawful branches of the Fusengbuwa Ruling House.
The legal arguments also cite several Supreme Court decisions, including Ojokolobo v. Alamu, Adefulu v. Oyesile, Elegbede v. Abioye and Onabanjo v. Ewetuga, in support of arguments concerning membership of ruling houses, direct descent and the effect of registered chieftaincy declarations.
The defence maintains that membership of a ruling house should be based on descent from the recognised founder of the house rather than titles, residence, membership cards or association with the family.
It is also asking the court to determine the validity of actions taken during the nomination process, including meetings and nominations conducted in January and June 2026.
Among the reliefs sought are declarations concerning the lawful composition of the Fusengbuwa Ruling House, orders relating to the disputed nominations, determination of the eligibility of certain persons to participate in the ruling house and an order for a fresh nomination process if the court finds the existing process defective.
The claimants are also seeking damages and other consequential reliefs.
The issues remain before the High Court, and the allegations and interpretations contained in the court processes are subject to determination by the court.
The 1944 archival document is therefore expected to be an important part of the evidence as the parties present competing accounts of the genealogy and membership of the Fusengbuwa Ruling House.
For now, the central question before the court is whether the historical records, the registered chieftaincy declaration and applicable customary and case law support the competing claims over who constitutes the lawful branches and members of the Fusengbuwa Ruling House.
Until the court determines the matter, the competing genealogical claims remain allegations and arguments advanced by the respective parties.
