ALHAJI UMARU SANDA NDAYAKO VS ALHAJI HALIRU DANTORO & ORS - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

ALHAJI UMARU SANDA NDAYAKO VS ALHAJI HALIRU DANTORO & ORS

ALHAJI BELLO USMAN BUWAI & ANOR VS THE STATE
June 11, 2025
ALI PINDER KWAJAFA & ORS V BANK OF THE NORTH LTD
June 11, 2025
ALHAJI BELLO USMAN BUWAI & ANOR VS THE STATE
June 11, 2025
ALI PINDER KWAJAFA & ORS V BANK OF THE NORTH LTD
June 11, 2025
Show all

ALHAJI UMARU SANDA NDAYAKO VS ALHAJI HALIRU DANTORO & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (2004) Legalpedia (SC) 11731

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri May 14, 2004

Suit Number: S.C. 186/2002

CORAM


M. L. UWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ADEMOLA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

A. KATSINA-ALU D. O. EDOZIE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

A. O. EJIWUNMI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

S. O. UWAIFO D. O. EDOZIE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


ALHAJI UMARU SANDA NDAYAKO [Etsu Nupe,Chairman, Niger State Council of Chiefs] ANDISIYAKU MUSA JIKANTOROATTORNEY-GENERAL, NIGER STATETHE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR, NIGER STATECOMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND CHIEFTAINCY AFFAIRS (ALHAJI SHASI) WAZIRIN BORGU (ALIYU MOHAMMED) (DECEASED)GARKUWA BORGU (MALL IBRAHIM)MADAKIN BORGU (MOH’D TANKO) APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st Plaintiff was appointed unanimously by three kingmakers to the traditional stool in dispute. An ex parte order was granted in his favour to restrain the defendants from holding another meeting at which the 1st defendant was selected.  ?


HELD


The court held that the 1st plaintiff had been properly selected and there was no justification for a second exercise which was conducted in defiance of court order.


ISSUES


(1)  Whether in all the circumstances of this case, it can be said that the 1st respondent’s purported selection was done strictly in line with Exhibit NB/2 and if not, whether the court below was right in affirming the decision of the High Court that he was properly appointed (2)  Whether the plaintiffs proved their case that 1st plaintiff was appointed in accordance with the native law and custom of Borgu and whether the onus of proof placed on the plaintiffs was discharged on the basis of admission, if any of some of (sic) only some of the defendants or even all the defendants .


RATIONES DECIDENDI


CASES CITED


1. Egbunike V. A.C.B. Ltd (1995) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.376) 34 at 53, 2. Obimiami Brick and Stone (Nig) Ltd V. A.C.B. Ltd (1992) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.229) 260 at p.301, 3. Akpan Obong Udofia and Anor V. Okon Akpan Udo Afia (1940) 6 W.A.C.A. 21 at 218, 2194. Bello V. Eweka (1981) 1 S.C. 101; 5. Motunwase V. Sorungbe (1988) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt.92) 90,6. Ogunjuma V. Ademola (1995) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt.389) 254 at 269 ?


STATUTES REFERRED TO


None.?


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 


Comments are closed.