CORAM

---

OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA

ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI JCA

FREDRICK OZIAKPONO OHO JCA

---

PARTIES

---

1.   MR. BENJAMIN BABATUNDE AKOVOYON

2.   MR. OJUGBELE JIMOH  (For themselves and on behalf of Posu Ruling Ruling House – Gbozume Shoki)

3.   MR. GABRIEL OLUWAFEMI ZANU-OGO

4.   MR. AHISU BABATUNDE KUTON  (For themselves and on behalf of Jovoh Ruling – APPELLANTS

Ruling House – Gbozumeh Gameh)

5.    MR. ZACHEUS AGOSU WHETTO

6.    MR. JOSEPH SOGOTHO DOSU (For themselves and on behalf of Dosu Ruling

Ruling House – Mozummeh)

APPELLANTS 

---

1.   BADAGRY LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHIEFTAINCY COMMITTEE

2.   HON. COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND CHIEFTAINCY AFFAIRS, LAGOS STATE RESPODENTS

3.   HIS ROYAL MAJESTY DE WHENO AHOLU MENU-TOYI 1 (The Akran of Badagry Kingdom, Lagos State)

4.   CHIEF ONUOSEKAN GBEWA Jengen of Badagry, Lagos State. RESPONDENTS

For himself and on behalf of other members of the Adhoc Committee on Toga Baaleship Dispute)

5.   THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE

6.   MR. SURU HOTEYIN AMOSU

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CUSTOMARY LAW, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

A Chieftaincy Declaration, which regulated the selection of the Baale of Itoga/Toga of Toga Community in Badagry Local Government of Lagos State, was made, approved and registered in 1985.  In 2006, the appellants wrote a letter to the third respondent requesting for the amendment of the Chieftaincy Declaration on the ground that the ruling houses named therein were compounds, which habited indigenes and non-indigenes, within Toga Community.  A meeting of the stakeholders of the Community was held and certain resolutions were reached.  Eventually, the first and third respondents set up a 7-member Ad-hoc Committee (the Committee) with certain terms of reference. The appellants alleged that the Committee ignored the directives of the second respondent, declined to entertain discussions on a new Chieftaincy Declaration and hurriedly submitted a report to the first respondent, in 2011, for implementation.  Sequel to that, the appellants besieged the lower court to find redress.

During the pendency of the suit, the sixth respondent was installed as the Baale of Toga on 13th April, 2016.  At the behest of the appellants, the lower court, on 20th June, 2016, set aside the installation of the sixth respondent.  On 29th November, 2016, the first, third and fourth respondents filed a notice of preliminary objection which was dismissed on 9th May, 2017.  On 29th June, 2016, the sixth respondent filed application to strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction and the same was dismissed on 18th September, 2017.  On 20th February, 2017, the sixth respondent filed an application to be joined as a defendant to the suit and it was granted on 13th June, 2017.  Following the grant, the sixth respondent was served with processes of the suit and he filed a statement of defence.  Subsequently, the sixth respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection which prayed the lower court to dismiss or strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The appellants reacted to the preliminary objection and it was duly heard by the lower court.  In a considered ruling, the lower court struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction.

This appeal probes  into the correctness of the decision of the lower court (High Court of Lagos State, Badagry Judicial Division).

 

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed

 

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the Learned trial judge was right to have assumed jurisdiction on the 6th Respondent’s Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 7th November, 2017 which is identical in form, contents and substance to applications dated 29th June, 2016 and 9th November, 2016 heard and pronounced upon by Hon. Justice Dada?

Whether the 6th Respondent’s Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 7th November, 2017 was initiated by due process of law and therefore valid and competent?

Whether in Learned trial judge was right in her conclusion that the appellants lacked locus standi to initiate this Suit and properly declined jurisdiction?

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

JURISDICTION – CONDUCT OF COURTS WHEN JURISDICTION IS QUESTIONED

---

Issue of jurisdiction is numero uno in adjudication. The law compels the courts to handle issue of jurisdiction first when raised in any proceedings, see Okwu v. Umeh (2016) NWLR (Pt. 1501) 120; Brittania-U (Nig.) Ltd. v. Seplat Pet. Co. Dev. Ltd. (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1503) 541; Oni v. Cadbury Nig. Plc. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Diamond Bank Ltd. v. Ugochukwu (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 193; PDP v. Umeh (2017) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1579); APC v. Ndual (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 1; Adama v. Maigari (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1658) 26; APC v. Lere (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1705) 254. I will obey this legal commandment so as not to annoy the law. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

 

 

---

JURISDICTION – MEANING OF JURISDICTION – WHEN A COURT IS VESTED WITH JURISDICTION

---

Jurisdiction, a mantra in adjudication, connotes the authority/power of a court to determine a dispute submitted to it by contending parties in any proceeding, see Ajamole v. Yaduat (No. 1) (1991) 5 SCNJ 172; Mobil Pro. Co. Untltd. v. LASEPA (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 1; Ndaeyo v. Ogunnaya (1977) 1 IM SLR 300; Ebhodagbe v. Okoye (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 472; Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 144; A.-G., Kwara State v. Adeyemo (2017)1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 210; Isah v. INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1544) 175; Angadi v. PDP (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 1; Nduul v. Wayo (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1646) 548.

A court of law is invested with jurisdiction to hear a matter when: “1. it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and 2. the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction; and 3. the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction”, see Modukolu v. Nkemdilim (2006) 2 LC 2081961) NSCC (vol. 2) 374 at 379, per Bairamian F. J., Tukur v. Taraba State (1997) 6 SCNJ 81; Daro v. UBN (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1029) 164; Okereke v. Yar’Adua (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1100); Saraki v. FRN (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1500) 531; Oni v. Cadbury Nig. Plc. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Diamond Bank Ltd. v. Ugochukwu (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 193; Okpe v. Fan Milk Plc. (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1549) 282; Bello v. Damisa (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1550) 455; Osi v. Accord Party (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1553) 387; Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1672) 422; Adeleke v. Oyetola (2020) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1721) 440. The three ingredients must co-exist in order to infuse jurisdiction into a court. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

 

 

---

JURISDICTION – WHEN A COURT IS ROBBED OF JURISDICTION

---

The settled position of the law, beyond any peradventure of doubt, is that a court is robbed of the jurisdiction to sit on appeal over its own decision. The law does not grant a court the licence to constitute itself into an appellate court over its decision, see Famu v. Kassim (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1352) 124; Cole v. Jibunoh (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1503) 499; Ngere v. Okuruket ‘xiv’ (2017) 5 NWLR (1599) 440; Eneh v. NDIC (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1645) 355. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

 

---

INCOMPETENT ACTIONS/APPLICATIONS – WHEN AN ACTION/APPLICATION IS DECLARED TO BE INCOMPETENT

---

It is an elementary law, known for its antiquity, that an action/application which is declared incompetent, and not considered on its merit, is not liable to an order of dismissal. It is rather submissive to an order of striking out. A matter/application dismissed becomes a qualified candidate for an appeal because the court becomes functus officio vis-à-vis to its adjudication. An action struck out is, in the eyes of the law, a sleeping cause that is on vacation and waiting for the affected party to exercise his right of liberty of its restoration on the cause list, see  kassim v. Ebert (1966) NMLR 23; P.W.T. (Nig.) Ltd. v. J.B.O. Int’l (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 1; Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 172; TSA Ind. Ltd. v. FBN Plc (No. 1) (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1320) 326; Owoh v. Asuk (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1112) 113; Y.S. G. Motors Ltd. v. Okonkwo (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1217) 524; In Re: Apeh (2017) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1576) 252; Nwaoha v. C.O.P. (2018)/ 10 NWLR (Pt. 1628) 568; Chukwu v. State (2019) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1687) 508; Access Bank Plc. v. Onwuliri (2021) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1773) 391; Optimum C. & P Dev. Ltd. v. Ake Shareholding Ltd. (2021) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1807) 148. Indeed, dismissal of an action has been described as the most punitive relief grantable to a defendant against a plaintiff; hence the courts are reluctant in granting it, see Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 427; Adeleke v. Oyetola (2020) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1721) 440. It stems from this inelastic principles of law, espoused in the catalogued authorities, that the orders of dismissal which His Lordship, M. A. Dada, J., visited on those two applications were offensive to the tenet of the law. The proper order, as ordained by law, would have been striking out. Exultantly, the law, in its infinite wisdom, treats such a misplaced order of dismissal as one of striking with its beneficient effects on a party against whom it is made, see Nwaoha v. C.O.P (supra); Optimum C. & P. Dev. Ltd. v. Ake Shareholding Ltd. (supra); Indubitably, I will kow-tow willy-nilly to the above hallowed principle of law. In an abiding loyalty to the law, I hereby convert the orders of dismissal meted out to the two applications to orders of striking out. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

 

---

JURISDICTION – WHEN A COURT DECIDES THAT IT LACKS JURISDICTION

---

In Ngere v. Okumket ‘XIV’ (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1559) 440 at 477, Ariwoola, JSC (now CJN), incisively, proclaimed:

The ruling of the trial court delivered on 9 th June, 1987 conclusively determined the vexed issue of the competence of the trial court to entertain the respondents’ claim and thereby rendered the trial court functus officio on the said issue of jurisdiction. In the same vein, having taken a stand in its first ruling and thereafter somersaulted to say it later had no jurisdiction, he had robbed its court the required vires to adjudicate again over the respondents’ claim. There was nothing left upon which the entire proceedings could have been predicated. Therefore, … I hold the firm view that with the wrong and improper stand taken by the trial Judge which led to his somersault, the substantive judgment of the trial court delivered on 30 th May, 1990 is a nullity and was therefore rightly nullified and set aside. There was nothing to be salvaged in the entire proceedings. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

 

---

COURTS – CONDUCT OF COURTS ON FINDINGS

---

It will smell of judicial sacrilege to tinker with a finding that has not disclosed any atom of hostility to the spirit and letter of the law. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

 

---

AND PHRASES JURISDICTION – MEANING OF JURISDICTION – HOW THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED

---

Now, the long established position of the law is that a party can raise an issue of jurisdiction in a preliminary objection without first filing or raising it in a statement of defence. In other words, it is not incumbent on a party to file and or raise a jurisdictional question in a statement of defence before challenging the jurisdiction of a court by dint of a preliminary objection or an application, see Elebanjo v. Dawodu (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1001) 76; Olagunju v. P.H.C.N. Plc (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1254) 113; A. – G., Fed. v. A. – G., Anambra State (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1615) 314. The raisons d’etre for this inelastic principle of law is not far-fetched. Firstly jurisdiction is the lifeline, linchpin, fulcrum, touchstone and spinal cord of any adjudication. It oxygenates any proceeding. In the premises of this enviable olympian status in adjudication, issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings even for the first time before any court, trial or appellate, see Alioke v. Oye (2018) (Pt. 1651) 247; Zubair v. Kolawole (2019) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1682) 66; Sulaiman v. FRN (2020) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1755) 180. It can be raised in any manner, even viva voce (orally) and without leave of court, see APC v. Lere (2020 1 NWLR (Pt. 1705) 254. It can be raised suo motu by any court without any irritation to the law, see Alikor v. Ogwo (2019) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1695) 331.

Secondly, it is a party’s statement of claim, inter alia, that a court examines in determining its jurisdiction. The law does not recognise a statement of defence for the court to use as the index to measure the presence or absence of its jurisdiction in a matter, see lzenkwe V. Nnadozie (1953) 14 WACA 301; UBA Plc. v. BTL Ltd. (2006) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 361; Ngere V. Okuruket ‘XIV’ (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1559) 440; P. & C.H.S. Co. Ltd. v. Migfo (Nig.) Ltd. (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1333) 553; Ahmed v. Ahmed (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1377) 274; A. – G., Fed. v. A. – G., Lagos State (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1566) 20; Olugbemi v. Lawrence (2017) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1591) 209; Oduah v. Okadigbo (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1660) 533; CBN v. Rahamaniyya G.R. Ltd. (2020) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1726) 314. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

 

---

JURISDICTION – WHETHER JURISDICTION CAN BE CURTAILED BY BREACHES TO RULE OF COURT

---

My noble Lords, in the spirit of completeness, the jurisdiction of a court traces its paternity to the constitution and statutes. In this perspective, the jurisdiction of a court, allocated and bequeathed to it by either the constitution or by an enactment, cannot be curtailed by breaches of rules of court. The Nigerian Constitution, as amended, the fons et origo of our laws, holds dominion over rules of court that provide support for administration of justice. Also, the provisions of statutes lord it over rules of court. Rules of court, which are designed to render support, fast-track and nourish the smooth administration of justice, take a bow to their overriding superiority whenever there is a conflict between them, see Auto Import Export v. Adebayo (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 799) 554; Kato v. CBN (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt. 214) 216; Nasir v.C.S.C., Kano State (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1190) 253; SLB Consortium v. NNPC (supra); Braithwaite v. Skye Bank Plc. (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1346) 1; Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (supra). In keeping with this law, the provision of order 22 of the HC Rules must take to flight on confrontation with the constitutional and statutory provisions that allotted jurisdiction to the lower court. – Per O. F.Ogbuinya, JCA

 

---

LOCUS STANDI – MEANING AND EFECT OF LOCUS STANDI

---

It is trite law that the absence or presence of locus standi in a party will divest or infuse jurisdiction into a court to discountenance or entertain a matter before it, see Emezi v. Osuagwu (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt. 939) 349/(2005) 30 WRN 1; A.-G., Anambra State v. A.-G. Fed (2007)11 NWLR (Pt. 1047) 4; Admin/Exec., Estate Abacha v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614; Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1310 1370; Uwazuruonye v. Gov., Imo State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28; Adebayo v. PDP (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1382) 1; Okwu v. Umeh (2016) 4 NWLR (pt. 1501) 120; Nyesom v. Peterside (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1512) 452; Rebold Ind. Ltd. v. Magreola (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1461) 210; Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666)518; Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1672) 422; A.-G., C.R.S. v. FRN (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1681) 401. It is an ambitious and a jealous concept in that the law insists it must be decided before a court handles the merit of a case, see Daniel v. INEC (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1463) 113; Araruma v. Ubah (2021) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1779) 511. From an etymological perspective, the cliché, locus standi, traces its ancestry to the Latin Language which means: “place of standing”. In its expounded legal form, locus standi denotes the legal right or capacity of a person to institute an action in a court of law when his right is trampled upon by somebody or authority, see INEC v. Ogbadibo L. G.(2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1498) 167; Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (supra) Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (supra); A.-G., C.R.S. v. FRN (supra); Ararume v. Ubah (2021) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1779) 511. Locus standi was evolved to protect the court from being converted into a jamboree by professional litigants who have no interest in matters before it, see Taiwo v. Adegboro (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1259) 562; Al – Hassan v. Ishaku (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1520) 230. For a party to establish locus standi, he must show that the matter is justiciable – capable of being disposed of judiciously in a court of law – and the existence of dispute between parties, see Taiwo v. Adegboro (supra); Ajayi v. Adebiyi (supra). Again, he has to show that he has sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the action and that his civil rights and obligations are in the danger of being infringed on, see Jitte v. Okpulor (2016) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1497) 542; Nyesom v. Peterside (supra); Al – Hassan v. Ishaku (supra); Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (supra) Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (supra); A.- G., C.R.S. v. FRN (supra). – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

 

---

LOCUS STANDI – TWO PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATIONS A PARTY MUST ESTABLISH TO BE BESTOWED WITH LOCUS STANDI IN CHIEFTANCY MATTERS

---

There are two paramount considerations, invented by the apex court, which a party, usually a plaintiff, must establish for him to be bestowed with locus standi in chieftaincy matters. In Eleso v. The Governor of Ogun State (1990) 4 SCNJ 45/(1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 133) 420 at 444, Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC, crafted them in these immaculate words:

Now, right to sue in a chieftaincy contest may arise in two different ways. A man may by his statement of claim and evidence show that the right that is being asserted is that of his family by reason of, say, their hereditary interest. In that case, it is the family, usually through their representative, who can bring the action on the premises that it is the civil right of the family that has been breached. On the other hand, a man may be asserting his own right to the chieftaincy stool. What is required in that case is that his statement of claim-and evidence if evidence has been called – should show the nature of his interest and his entitlement to the stool; see Amusa Momoh & Anor. v. Jimoh Olobu (1970) 1 All N.L.R. 117, at 123…. Senator Abraham Adesanya v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & Anor. (1981) 1 All N.L.R. 1; (1981) 2 NCLR 358; Thomas v. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 669.Section 6(6) (b) of the 1979 Constitution has expressly given him a locus standi in such a case. See, also, Odeneye v. Efunuga (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 164) 618; Arowolo v. O lowookere (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 280; Bakare v. Ajose-Adeogun (2014) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1403) 320; Olanrewuju v. Oyesomi (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1418) 25; Okuleye v. Adesanya (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1422) 52; Emezie v. Osuagwu (supra). Nota bene, the case-law has sanctioned a statement of claim as the major yardstick to be used by the court to measure the presence or absence of its jurisdiction, see Akine v. Edjerode (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 745) 446; A.D.H. Ltd. v. A.T. Ltd. (2006) NWLR (Pt. 989) 635; Oni v. Cadbury (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Ladoja v. Ajimobi (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1519) 87;B B.Apugo & Sons Ltd. v. O.H.M.B.B. (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1529) 206; Yar’adua v. Yandoma (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1466) 213; Akpamgbo-Okadigbo v. Chidi (No. 2) (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1466) 124; Isah v. INEC (supra); Lau v. PDP (supra); Azubuogu v. Oranezi (supra); Agi v. PDP (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1595) 386; A.-G, Fed. v. A.-G., Anambra State (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1615) 314; Roe Ltd. v. UNN (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1616) 420; F.U.T., Minna v. Olutayo (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1617) 176; A.-G., Lagos State v. Eko Hotels (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1619) 518. In an action commenced by dint of originating summons/motion, the affidavit in support serves as the statement of claim, see Uwazuruonye v. Gov., Imo State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28; PDP v. Ezeonwuka (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1606) 187; Lau v. PDP (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) 60; Owuru v. Adigwu (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1599) 1; CBN v. Aribo (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) 130. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

 

---

LOCUS STANDI – WHO HAS LOCUS STANDI TO INSTITUTE A CHIEFTANCY SUIT

---

Admittedly, locus standi ordinarily enures in a ruling house to institute a chieftaincy suit to claim or reclaim its right, see Adefulu v. Oyesile (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 122) 377. The law gives a member of a family/ruling house the nod to sue to protect its collective rights even without first obtaining the consent of its members, see Odeneye v. Efunuga (supra); Ladejobi v. Oguntayo (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 904) 149; Sapo v. Sunmonu (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1205) 374/(2010) 5 SCNJ 1; Animasahun v. Osuma (1972) 4 SC 200; Gegele v. Layinka (1993) 3 SCNJ 39; Mozie v. Mbamalu (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1003) 466; Babayeju v. Ashamu (1998) 9 (Pt. 567) 546; Dardi v. Garba (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt. 411) 12. However, an action commenced by member of a ruling house, which is not recognised in a chieftaincy declaration, as in the case in hand, will be drained of the substratum and pedestal to perch and claim ownership of locus standi. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

 

---

REGISTERED CHIEFTANCY DECLARATION – MEANING OF REGISTERED CHIEFTANCY DECLARATIONS

---

The putative reasons for the invention of a registered chieftaincy declaration is to obviate the need for incessant fielding of witnesses in proof of the customs and traditions regarding chieftaincy titles. It is, therefore, a complete/comprehensive statement/embodiment of the customs, traditions and/or customary law which fashions and designs the modes that regulate the nomination and selection of candidates to fill a vacant chieftaincy stool. In essence, it qualifies as a codified customary law vis-à-vis filling a chieftaincy stool. It is usually promulgated by the executive arm of government and classified as a subsidiary legislation. Its provisions are binding on the parties and the court, see Olowu v. Olowu` (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 13) 372; Odeneye v. Efunuga (supra); Agbai v. Okogbue (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 204) 391, Mafimisebi v. Ehuwa (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1018) 385; Adeosun v. Gov., Ekiti State (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1291) 581; Akande v. Adisa (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1324) 538; Olanrewaju v. Oyesomi (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1418) 258; Arowolo v. Olowookere (supra); Bakare v. Ajose-Adeogun (supra); Uwazuronye v. Gov., Imo State (supra). – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

NIL

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2. High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2012 (HC Rules)

3. Obas and Chiefs Law of Lagos State, 1981 (the Law)

4. Registered Chieftaincy Declaration

 

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT