SAEBY JERNSTOBERI MASKINFABRIC A/S V OLAOGUN ENTERPRISES LTD.
June 26, 2025CHIEF EDET BROWN & 5 ORS VS CHIEF PAUL EDET BASSEY & 4 ORS
June 26, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1999-12) Legalpedia 75381 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Lagos
Fri Dec 3, 1999
Suit Number: SC.265/1999
CORAM
A.G. KARIBI-WHYTE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
M.E. OGUNDARE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
S.U. ONU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
A.I. IGUH, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
E.O. AYOOLA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
MR. OLADITI ADESOLA (ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF ADERIN BRANCH OF OLUOKUN FAMILY)
APPELLANTS
1. RAIMI ABIDOYE
2. YESUFU O. ASANIKE (FOR HIMSELF AND/ OR AS THE OLUBADAN OF IBADAN LAND AND ON BEHALF OF THE OLUBADAN-IN-COUNCIL)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CHIEFTAINCY LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant prayed the Court to interprete section 22 (5) of the chieftaincy Law Cap 21 Vol 1 of the Laws of Oyo state, 1978
HELD
The court held that analysing the qualities and functions of the holder of the title of Mogaji he qualifies as a chief and that the appellant has resorted to the remedies statutorily available to him on the infringement of the alleged right by the prescribed authority and that the court of Appeal was right to have held that the learned trial judge lacked the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims before him.
ISSUES
Whether, if the answer to the above, is in the NEGATIVE, the Honourable Court of Appeal will, shall or should RIGHTLY and or PROPERLY have assumed jurisdiction to rightly and properly determine the Appeal, totally on the MERITS.
Whether the ‘UNLIMITED JURISDICTION’ granted to state High Courts by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979, did or should not ENURE FOR THE Plaintiffs/ Appellants to have their RIGHTS in Law and on the merits determined, irrespective of the “so called” prematuredness and inexhaustiveness of his remedies as provided for by the Chiefs Law Volume 1, Cap 21, Laws of Oyo State of Nigeria, 1978.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHEN A COURT LACKS JURISDICTION
‘It is an elementary but cardinal principle of the exercise of jurisdiction that where the court lacks jurisdiction the parties cannot confer and vest jurisdiction on it. Accordingly the fact that the parties fought a case erroneously on the basis that the court had jurisdiction when there was none cannot estop a party from subsequently taking the contrary position’- Karibi-Whyte JSC
WHETHER JURISDICTION CAN BE VESTED ON A COURT BY CONSENT OF PARTIES
‘It follows from this principle that jurisdiction cannot be acquired by consent of the parties, nor can it be enlarged by estoppel.’- Karibi-Whyte JSC
WHEN THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED
‘This principle is fortified by the well settled principle that the issue of jurisdiction which determines the competence to exercise jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of a trial and indeed even for the first time on appeal’- Karibi-Whyte JSC
WHO A CHIEF IS
‘…a Chief is an acknowledged leader in his society and among members of his community, which status carries with it both social prestige and political functions’- Karibi-Whyte JSC
MEANING OF THE WORD “MAY”
‘Although the etymological meaning of “may” is permissive and facultative, and seldom can mean “must” and imperative, it assumes this last mentioned character, when there is anything in the provision that makes it the duty on the person on whom the power is conferred to exercise that power. When the exercise of the power is coupled with a duty on the person to whom it is given to exercise it, then it is imperative.’- Karibi-Whyte JSC
CASES CITED
Laoye and Ors. v. Oyetunde (1942) 10 WACA, 48
Bakare Adesola Oluokun and anor. v. Salami Adedoja Adigun and ors. Suit No. 1/9/1946
Alhaji Salami Olaniyi v. Aroyewun (1991) 7 SCNJ. 40
Shitta-Bey v. Attorney-Gen. For the Federation (1988) 10 NWLR (Pt. 579) 392 SC
Okotie -Eboh v. Okotie-Eboh (1986) NWLR (Pt. 16) 264
Bronik Motors Ltd. and Anor. v. Wema Bank Ltd. (1983) 1 SCNLR. 296, (1983) 6 SC. 158;
Onyema v. Oputa (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 69) 250.
Timitimi v. Amabebe and ors. 14 WACA. 374; Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR, 587
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Chieftaincy law Cap. 21 Vol. 1 of the Laws of Oyo State, 1978
Law of Western Region 1959
Ordinance No. 14 of the Laws of Nigeria 1930
Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law, of Kwara State
Chieftaincy Disputes (Preclusion of Courts) Ordinance No. 30 of 1948
Interpretation Ordinance 1946, No. 7 of 1947
Interpretation Act. 1964, No. 1 of 1964
