CORAM

Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ibrahim Ali Andenyangtso Justice of the Court of Appeal

Olabode Abimbola Adegbehingbe Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

AMOS GIZO YADUGSU

APPELLANTS 

1. YABALISU IBRAHIM

2. MICHAEL DANKANO

3. BABAJI UMORU HAMMAN

4. YOHANNA HARUNA YUSUF

5. EZIKIEL ADAMU

6. ALHAJI MOHAMMADU MU’AZU BABANGIDA

(Emir of Kanam and Chairman Joint Traditional Council, Kanam)

7. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PLATEAU STATE

8. GOVERNMENT OF PLATEAU STATE

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

LAND LAW, CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS, CUSTOMARY LAW, JUDICIAL DISCRETION, EVIDENCE, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case involves the chieftaincy stool of Ra’an Gidgid in Kanam Local Government Area, Plateau State. The stool became vacant upon the death of the former village head. The 1st to 5th respondents, representing the five ruling houses of Gidgid, nominated candidates for the chieftaincy. The appellant, Amos Gizo Yadugsu, also presented himself as a candidate but was rejected by the respondents on the grounds that he was not from any of the ruling houses.

The respondents sought a declaration from the High Court of Plateau State that the appellant was not qualified to contest for the stool. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring that the appellant was not from any of the ruling houses. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in its findings and that the evidence presented by the respondents was contradictory.

HELD

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court. It held that the respondents had successfully proved that the appellant was not from any of the recognized ruling houses. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to strike out the appellant’s final written address for being filed out of time.

ISSUES

RATIONES DECIDENDI

RIGHT TO CONTEST FOR CHIEFTAINCY – WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS QUALIFIED TO CONTEST FOR THE STOOL OF RA’AN GIDGID:

“The Court held that the appellant failed to prove that he belonged to any of the recognized ruling houses in Gidgid. Evidence presented by the respondents, including the testimonies of the kingmakers, established that the Gizo family was not one of the ruling houses. The appellant’s claim to the stool was therefore invalid.” – Per OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, JCA

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS –WHETHER THE 1ST-5TH RESPONDENTS PROVED THEIR CASE:

“The Court reaffirmed that the burden of proof lies on the party seeking a declaration in chieftaincy disputes. The respondents successfully discharged this burden by providing evidence that there are five ruling houses in Gidgid, and that the appellant does not belong to any of them.” – Per OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, JCA

TIME FOR FILING FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS –WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS RIGHT TO STRIKE OUT THE APPELLANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS:

DECISION AGAINST WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE-WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION WAS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE:

CASES CITED

Not Available

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Not Available

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT