The Chief (Appointment and Deposition) Law, like any other legislation that raises the issue of jurisdiction may or may not be pleaded and it may be raised without leave. All that is required is that a process is filed wherein the issue is raised so that the adverse party is not taken by surprise. Raising the Jurisdiction point in Section 3(3) of the Chief (Appointment and Deposition) Law for the first time in this Court is correct.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KWARA STATE & ANOR v. ADEYEMO &
The Chief (Appointment and Deposition) Law, like any other legislation that raises the issue of jurisdiction may or may not be pleaded and it may be raised without leave. All that is required is that a process is filed wherein the issue is raised so that the adverse party is not taken by surprise. Raising the Jurisdiction point in Section 3(3) of the Chief (Appointment and Deposition) Law for the first time in this Court is correct.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KWARA STATE & ANOR v. ADEYEMO &
A Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine chieftaincy appointments only after the Governor fails in his effort to resolve the dispute. The Chiefs law (supra) is an important issue on jurisdiction. It is long settled that jurisdiction of a Court to hear a matter can be raised in the trial Court or in the Supreme Court for the first time. See Dangana & Anor v. Usman & 4 Ors (2012) 2 SC (Pt. III) P. 103
Society Bic S.A. & 2 Ors v. Charzin IND Ltd (2014) 2 SC (Pt. II) p.57.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KWARA STATE & ANOR v. ADEYEMO &
In Oba Adebanjo Mafimisebi & Anor v Prince Macaulay Ehuwa & 8 Ors (2007) 2 NWLR (pt. 1018) 385 at 428 this Court observed that it was to avoid the problem of calling evidence each time a particular native law and custom needs to be established in relation to a chieftaincy in the former Western Region of Nigeria that gave rise to the attempt at codification of the relevant customary laws and traditions of the relevant people in relation to particular chieftaincies otherwise known as Chieftaincy Declarations.
Therefore, the purpose of a registered Chieftaincy Declaration is to embody in a legally binding written statement of fact, the customary law of the relevant area in which the method of regulating the nomination and selection of a candidate to fill a vacancy is clearly stated so as to avoid uncertainty.
Thus, the registered chieftaincy Declaration is therefore a declaration of the tradition, customary law and usages pertaining to the selection and appointment to a particular chieftaincy stool which necessarily dispenses with the need of proof by oral evidence of such tradition, custom, usages each time the need arises to determine the matter.
It is the duty of the Court to apply the provisions of a chieftaincy Declaration to the facts of the case established by evidence particularly as the Court has no power to assume the functions of the chieftaincy committee as regards the making or amendment of customary law governing the selection and appointment of traditional chiefs in such relevant case. See Oladele v Aromolaran II (1996) 6 NWLR (pt. 453) 180, Adigun v Attorney General Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (pt. 53) 678 . -PER JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.
I need to add that where evidence is led by any party which is contrary to the provisions of a registered chieftaincy declaration, such contrary evidence will be discountenanced by the Court as no evidence shall be led to defeat the contents of a registered chieftaincy declaration -PER JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.
The question may be asked: what is the male line? Trying their hands on the definition, the learned Justices of the Court below, relying on the definition given in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, (5th Edition) Vol. 3 page 1113, they held as follows on page 623 of the record:- “I most respectfully stand by the true prima facie meaning of the phrase “Male line” given by Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary (Fifth Edition) Vol. 3 page 1513 – “Male line… Properly means a line commencing with a male and continued through males.” (my emphasis): -PER JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.
It was held by this Court in: Mafimisebi Vs Ehuwa (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1018), 385 per Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was): “The purpose of registered chieftaincy declaration is to embody in a legally binding written statement of fact, the customary law of the relevant area in which the method regulating the nomination and selection of a candidate to fill a vacancy is clearly stated so as avoid uncertainty. See also: Oladele & Ors. Vs Oba Aromolaran & Ors. (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 453) 180: Olanrewaju vs Oyesomi (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 25$; Fasade Vs Babalola (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt. 830).
In the interpretation of a Chieftaincy Declaration, the Court is guided by the general principles of interpretation of statutes, bearing in mind the fact that the community concerned has already stated what the applicable customary law is. The Court is enjoined to give the words used their natural and ordinary meaning where they are clear and unambiguous, unless to do so would lead to absurdity. See: Ibrahim Vs Barde (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt. 474) 513 @ 577 B-C: Ojokolobo Vs Alamu (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 377 @ 407 F-H. -PER KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.:
The law is trite that where a declaration has been validly made and registered in respect of a recognized chieftaincy, the declaration represents the applicable customary law regulating the selection and appointment of a candidate to the chieftaincy where same becomes vacant; and the provisions of such a registered declaration should prevail until amended. See FASADE & ORS V. BABALOLA & ANOR (2003) LPELR-1243 (SC); MAFIMISEBI & ANOR V. EHUWA & ORS (2007) LPELR-1812 (SC). -PER ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.: