CORAM
KARIBI-WHYTE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KAWU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NNAEMEKA-AGU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OGWUEGBU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MOHAMMED, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
DOKUN AJAYI LABIYI (Representing LABIYI family) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
There was a dispute as to the number of branches constituting the Anretiola Ruling House of Ilero. Under the Declaration made in 1957 under Section 9 of the Chiefs Law, the Abere, Labiyi, Akintayo and Ige houses were the only Ruling Houses named in respect of the Elero of Ilero Chieftaincy. The addition of Plaintiff’s family to the Anretiola Ruling house was approved by the Oyo State Government. The Plaintiffs then brought an action against the Defendants seeking a Declaration that llero customary Law recognised only the Anretiola and Falodun Ruling Houses.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that sections which make any provisions of an Edict of the Military Governor inconsistent with an unsuspended section of the Constitution 1979 are void.?
ISSUES
Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction to rule upon the effect of the provision of an Edict which is inconsistent with a provision of the constitution of the Federal Republic?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
THE PROVISION OF AN EDICT WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH A PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC
“The principle is a simple. The organic Decree, in this case No.1 of 1984 set out to define the organic law or grundnorm of Nigeria. Subject to its provisions it gave unlimited legislative powers to the Armed Forces Ruling Council and so it has power even to amend the organic Decree by subsequent Decrees. Subject to the limitations placed by the Decree itself, it gave unlimited legislative powers to a Military Governor of a State within his area of authority and competence. One of those limitations, as per section 2(4) of Decree No. 1 of 1984 is that the Military Governor of a State must not pass any Edict which is inconsistent with the organic Decree, any other Decree, any unsuspended section of the 1979 Constitution, or any Act of the National Assembly. To give effect to the intendment of this legislative scheme, the organic Decree left unsuspended section 6(6)(b) of the 1979 Constitution which gives judicial powers to the courts and section 236 of the same which gives unlimited jurisdiction to the High Courts of States to adjudicate on all matters relating to the civil rights and obligations of any person in the Nigeria State. The summary effect of this state of our constitutional provisions and legislations is that Oyo State High Court has the jurisdiction and power to inquire into whether or not section 2(c) of the Chieftaincy Matters (Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Courts) Edict No. 3 of 1985, is inconsistent with the letters and spirit of Decree No. 1 of 1984, Decree No. 13 of 1984 which reinforces it, and section 6(6)(b) and 236 of the 1979 Constitution. For, nothing can be more in conflict with the judicial powers vested on the courts by section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution and the unlimited jurisdiction of the High Courts of a State to hear and determine all issues relating to the civil rights and obligations of the plaintiff than to exclude the jurisdiction of Oyo State High Court from adjudicating on the chieftaincy question clearly a civil right of the plaintiff. As there can be no doubt that it is in conflict therewith, it is void and of no effect. The Court of Appeal was right to have so held.” Per NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C
CASES CITED
Military Governmentof Ondo State v. Adewunmi (1985)3 N.W L.R. (Pt. 13) 493Onyiuke v. Eastern States Interim Assets Liabilities Agency (1974)1 All N.L.R. (Pt. 2) 151?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Chieftaincy Matters (Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Courts) Edict, 1985The Constitution?