Legalpedia Citation: (2014-02) Legalpedia (SC) 18967
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Feb 7, 2014
Suit Number: SC 76/2008
CORAM
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN
PARTIES
1. MAJOR NICKSON STANLEY DONG
2. MR. CLARKSON TAKWI
3. MR. ALVAN DUKADI
4. MR. JACKSON BONANDA
5. MR. ALXANDER MAGANI
6. EDWARD HUNKUSO
7. PHANUEL IBRAHIM
8. MR. OMIMYATO
9.MR. YAKUBU ZUNKUNE (Suing for themselves and on behalf of the Dong Community)
APPELLANTS
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ADAMAWA STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiffs/Appellants issued a writ of summons against the Defendants/ Respondents claiming a declaration that the traditional method and /or procedure for the selection, appointment and/or election of a District Head for Dong District was not followed in the appointment of the 3rd Defendant as the District Head of Dong District, a declaration that the appointment of the 3rd Defendant as the District Head of Dong District is unconstitutional, irregular, invalid, null and void, an injunction restraining the 3rd Defendant from parading himself as the District Head of Dong District and an order directing the 2nd Defendant to supervise the conduct of a fresh election. Pleadings were filed and exchanged. The trial court entered judgment in favour Respondents and the Appellants appealed to the lower court which upheld and affirmed the judgment of the trial court .The Appellant has further lodged an appeal in this court.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether having regard to the fact that Dong District was a new creation and the requirement to prove a custom as a question of fact, the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the Chief of Batta the representative of the 2nd respondent by the mere fact of his being chief, was in a position to determine the traditional or customary method in existence in Dong District for the selection of the District Head and did so in this respect when the members of the ruling families and the kingmakers?
2. Whether the lower court was right when it based its decision on the fact that the appellants having pleaded the existence of a tradition or custom for the appointment of the chief of Dong ought not to be heard to contend that an Electoral College of the village Head be convened even though, this was the Appellants’ Alternative Relief Having regard to the larger size of Dong and its more advanced chieftaincy institution, whether there was any basis for the appellants claim of the custom or tradition for the appointment of the chief of Dong as being the applicable tradition or custom for the appointment of the district head of Dong district ?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONCURRENT FINDING OF LOWER COURTS – ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT THERETO-WHEN CAN BE INTERFERED WITH
“It is well settled that this court is always reluctant to interfere with concurrent finding of the lower courts unless it is shown that the finding are perverse or not supported by the evidence on record, or that there is a manifest error that leads to a miscarriage of justice , or a violation of some principle of law or procedure”. PER KEKERE- EKUN
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT THERETO- CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT CAN BE REVERSED
“The Supreme Court is always slow to disturb or interfere with concurrent findings of fact established by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal, but would be compelled to reverse them and state the correct position of the facts if found that the findings cannot be supported by evidence or are perverse, or that there was miscarriage of justice, or the court overlooked some principle of law or practice”. PER FABIYI JSC
CUSTOMARY LAW- NATURE OF UNDER THE EVIDENCE ACT
“A customary law is a matter of fact to be pleaded and proved by evidence unless it has been judicially noticed.” PER FABIYI JSC
RELIEF-GRANT OF-WHERE PLAINTIFF SETS INCONSISTENT MATERIAL FACTS AND CLAIMS RELIEF IN THE ALTERNATIVE-DUTY OF COURT.
“Where a plaintiff sets up two or more inconsistent sets of material facts and claims relief in each of them in the alternative, he will be granted such relief as the set of facts he established would entitle him to where the first and principal relief is exhaustive of his remedy there would be no need to consider the alternative relief.” PER KEKERE -EKUN
APPOINTMENT OF CHIEFS- WHETHER IT IS THE DUTY OF A COURT TO MAKE DECLARATION RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF CHIEFS
“It is not the business of the court to make declaration of customary law relating to the selection or appointment of Chiefs but it the business of the court to make a finding of what the customary law is and apply the law for declaration.” PER FABIYI JSC
CASES CITED
Agidigbi vs Agidigbi (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 454) 300 @313Amadi vs Nwosu (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 241) 273 @ 283- 284 H-ACameroom Airline v. Otutuizu 2011 1-2 SC (pt.iii) p. 200Haruna v. A.G.Federation 2012 3 SC(pt iv) p. 40Lipede vs Sonekan (1995) 1 NWLR (PT. 374) 668.M.V.Caroline Maersk Vs Nokoy Investment Ltd (2002)12 NWLR (Pt. 782) 472 @508-509 H-EPDP V. INEC & 3Ors 2012 2 SC (Pt iii) P.IYusuf vs Adegoke & Ors .(2007) 4 sc (Pt. 1) 126 @146- 147 ?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Adamawa State (District Creation) Law 1992 (as amended)
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT