CORAM

---

SIR BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL…… JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

ISAH BATURE GAFAI…………………………… JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

NEHIZENA IDEMUDIA AFOLABI …………….. JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

1. STANLEY ADIGA ADUKPE

2. PA EKESI AGBO

3. HON. ANYEBE O. JOHN

4. CHIEF ADEYI OKPE

5. CHIEF STEVEN IDU(for themselves and behalf of Ifu-Ekwe sub-clan of Ifu-Akpa Clan of Akpa District,Otukpo Local Govt. Area)

APPELLANTS 

---

1. CHIEF ODEE BENEDICT ACHIBI

2. MR. ONAJI IKPLETU

3. MR. JOSEPH OLUGBA (for and on behalf of the Ifu-Ede Sub-Clan of the  Ifu-Akpa Clan of Akpa District, Otukpo Local Govt. of Benue State)

4. IDOMA AREA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL

5. OTUKPO AREA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL

6. BUREAU FOR LOCAL GOVT. AND  CHIEFTAINCY AFFAIRS

7. HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BENUE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CHIEFTAINCY LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, JURISDICTION, CONDITION PRECEDENT, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CUSTOMARY LAW, TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONS, INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE LAW, BURDEN OF PROOF, DELEGATION OF POWERS

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This interlocutory appeal arose from a chieftaincy dispute over the beaded Chieftaincy Stool of Ifu-Akpa in Otobi, Otukpo Local Government Area of Benue State. The stool, established in 1630, comprises six sub-clans but only four ruling houses (Ifu-Ede, Ifu-Ogwa, Ifu-Idu, and Ifu-Angbo) can produce the beaded Clan Head. The 1st-3rd Respondents, representing the Ifu-Ede sub-clan, claimed it was their turn to produce the next beaded head following the demise of Chief Hyacinth Ogbu from Ifu-Angbo ruling house. They presented the 1st Respondent who was selected by kingmakers after performing customary rites.

The dispute arose when government agencies allegedly violated customs by selecting one late Egaji Abel Agbo from Ifu-Ekwe sub-clan, which the Respondents claimed was not a ruling house and had never produced a clan head. During the suit’s pendency, Egaji Abel Agbo resigned, prompting the Appellants (members of Ifu-Ekwe sub-clan) to seek joinder, claiming entitlement to the chieftaincy stool.

When the Respondents were about to open their case after pre-trial conference, the Appellants filed Motion No. OHC/159M/2017 seeking dismissal of the suit for non-compliance with Section 23(3), (4), and (5) of the Benue State Council of Chiefs and Traditional Council’s Law, 2016. The trial court declined to dismiss the suit, holding that the statutory provisions did not apply to customary chieftaincy stools and that the requirements would violate constitutional access to courts. The Appellants appealed this decision.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was allowed.

2. The Court of Appeal set aside the ruling of the lower court and struck out the substantive suit.

3. The court held that Section 23(3), (4), and (5) of the Benue State Council of Chiefs and Traditional Council’s Law, 2016 created mandatory condition precedents that must be fulfilled before approaching the court.

4. The court found that the Respondents failed to comply with the statutory requirements by not exhausting traditional avenues and not properly approaching the Governor as the sole judge.

5. The court held that writing to the Permanent Secretary did not satisfy the requirement to approach the Governor unless specific delegation was proven.

6. The court ruled that the statutory provisions did not oust the court’s jurisdiction but created a procedural ladder that must be climbed before court access.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether or not the 1st-3rd Respondents’ letter addressed to the Permanent Secretary, Bureau of Local Government and Chieftaincy affairs referred to as Exhibit E02 has met the requirement of Section 23(4) of the Benue State Council of Chiefs and Traditional Councils Law 2016?

2. Whether or not the Honourable Court below was right in holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the substantive suit having regard to the provisions of Section 23(3), (4) and (5) of the Benue State Council of Chiefs and Traditional Council Law 2016?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION – ORDINARY MEANING OF WORDS

---

The law is trite on the interpretation of statute in that, the literal rule of interpretation is that courts should not attempt to read into a statute any meaning beyond what is explicitly written that is, in simpler terms, ‘give the words their ordinary meaning’. – Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

CONDITION PRECEDENT – ACTIVATION OF COURT JURISDICTION

---

These are the requisite condition precedent clearly set out in the statute which aggrieved parties must perform before they can come with their grievances before a competent court of law. It is the action which an aggrieved person should take before the jurisdiction of the court is effectively activated. – Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

FAILURE TO FULFILL CONDITION PRECEDENT – ACTION INCOMPETENT AB INITIO

---

I completely agree that the appeal is wanting in merit on the ground that the court below is right that the failure by the appellant to fulfil the requisite condition precedent before the institution of a valid and competent action at the trial court automatically rendered the action incompetent ab initio thereby depriving the trial court of the jurisdiction to purport to have gratuitously extended the time the condition should have been fulfilled. – Per Garba JSC (cited by Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA)

 

---

STATUTORY PROVISIONS – NO OUSTER OF JURISDICTION

---

Contrary to the reasoning of the trial court this Section of the law does not run afoul of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as it does not seek to oust the court’s jurisdiction or limit same but rather it creates a ladder that leads to the court and to get to the court each rung of the ladder has to be stepped on to get to the top. – Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS – EXHAUSTION OF STATUTORY PROCEDURES

---

In a Chieftaincy matter in respect of a minor chieftaincy all awareness and procedures or formalities imposed by statute such as Section 22 of the Chiefs Law of Oyo State, 1978 must be followed and exhausted before recourse can be made to the law courts by the aggrieved party. Consequently, where the aggrieved party or candidate has not exhausted or the awareness or has not complied with all the formalities under the law, the court will have no jurisdiction to hear and determine his case or suit because the condition precedent to the court’s exercise of jurisdiction in the case has not been satisfied. – Per Court of Appeal (cited by Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA)

 

---

PREMATURE SUIT – FAILURE TO ACTIVATE JURISDICTION

---

I therefore find that the failure of the Respondents to fulfill the laid down condition precedent prior to the institution of this action completely robs the lower court of the jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit as the case was filed prematurely and thus failed to properly activate the jurisdiction of the court below and the suit ought to have been struck out by the learned trial judge.” – Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

DELEGATION – DEFINITION AND REQUIREMENTS

---

A delegate is a person sent or authorized to represent others, or entrust a task or responsibility by another person, typically one who is less senior – Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

DELEGATION – SPECIFIC APPOINTMENT REQUIRED

---

A delegate is not an assumed position, the person must be specifically appointed by the donor of the power and the duties spelt out.– Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – ASSERTION OF DELEGATION

---

The respondents herein have stated that the Permanent Secretary is a delegate of the Governor. This assertion has to be directly and specifically proved beyond a mere ipsit dixit. As clearly stated in Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011. – Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

STATUTORY CLARITY – SPECIFIC DESIGNATION REQUIRED

---

The statute is clear and unambiguous and it clearly says the ‘state governor’ and as such if anyone else is to step into that shoe, it must be a person specifically appointed by the governor for that role. – Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

PREMATURE ACTION – UNLIMITED JURISDICTION NOT ACTIVATED

---

Consequently I find that the respondents herein have failed to fulfill the condition precedent for the institution of this case and until they do so, the unlimited jurisdiction of the court have not been activated and as such this case is premature. – Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

CONSTITUTIONAL MISAPPLICATION – IRRELEVANT REFERENCE

---

From the foregoing it is crystal clear that the ruling of the honorable trial judge wherein reference was made to the 1999 constitution specifically Section 271(1) is completely misplaced and irrelevant as what the statute intends is a condition precedent and the sanction for failing to comply with the set conditions is that the case filed without fulfilling these requisite conditions becomes premature and the jurisdiction of the court not yet activated.– Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

CONDITION PRECEDENT – NO PERMANENT OUSTER OF JURISDICTION

---

It, in no way limits or ousts the jurisdiction of a competent court ad infinitum, or makes the governor a judge in his own cause. This is especially so in the face of subsection (5) which clearly allows for the aggrieved party to ventilate his grievance in court after the governor has made a decision.– Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Benue State Council of Chiefs and Traditional Council’s Law, 2016

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

3. Evidence Act 2011

4. High Court Law, Cap. 75, Laws of Benue State, 2004

5. Court of Appeal Act, 2004

6. Court of Appeal Rules, 2021

7. Chiefs Law of Oyo State, 1978

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT