Skip to content 
Abstract
Chieftaincy disputes have been a major source of concern in modern-day Nigeria. In recent times, chieftaincy disputes seem to touch every religion and tribe. Even the first-class chiefs are not left out of the troubles that emanate from Chieftaincy battles. The overwhelming powers given to elected officials over traditional rulers could be said to be one of the underlying reasons for the instability of traditional rulers in various states in Nigeria. With the power to appoint and remove comes the possibility of infringement on the rights or dissatisfaction by one party. In addition to these varying issues is the burning question of the Court with jurisdiction to hear and determine chieftaincy matters including infringement of right.
KEYWORDS: Chieftaincy, Jurisdiction, Chieftaincy.
INTRODUCTION
Over the years, Chiefs have been regarded as very important aspect of communal and cultural living as they hold the deep customs and tradition of people from all works of life. In essence, Chieftaincy seems to be the most enduring traditional position to have survived the different stages of socio-political changes. Chieftaincy connotes the position of dignity and honour occupied by a traditional ruler such as an Ọba or an Emir. The historical development of towns and cities in Nigeria often demonstrate the diligence, astuteness and resourcefulness of their respective traditional rulers in the growth and development of each of them. Most times these traditional positions are domiciled in a particular family line and passed on from generation to generation.
SUBSTANTIVE JURISDICTION OVER CHIEFTAINCY DISPUTES
Jurisdiction means the power or right of a Court to exercise its authority over a person, subject matter, or territory. A court is said to have jurisdiction with regards to a suit or proceeding when it has power to hear and determine it or exercise any judicial powers therein.[1]
The definition of Jurisdiction was well enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Alade v. Alemuloke & ors (1988) LPELR-398(SC) (Pp. 12 paras. A) where the Court held as follows:
“Jurisdiction is the legal authority, the extent of the power given to a Court by the law or statute establishing the said Court. This jurisdiction may be limited or unlimited. It may be limited either locally, that is, in terms of the geographical area over which the Court’s jurisdiction may extend. It may be limited personally as where a quorum is required for the Court to be properly constituted. It may be limited as to the amount over which the Court should not exceed for the case to fall within its jurisdiction. It may be limited as to the type or character of the questions to be determined by and in the Court. It may be limited by and as to the value of the property in litigation etc. When the jurisdiction of the Court is thus limited that Court is called a Court of limited jurisdiction. When there is no such limitations the Court is called a Court of unlimited jurisdiction.” Per OPUTA ,J.S.C
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) is the supreme law in Nigeria and it is very specific on the separation of powers between the arms of government to wit: the executive, legislature and judiciary at both federal and state levels. Each arm has its role to play in the democratic process.
Before the coming into existence of the 1979 constitution and 1999 Constitution, the Courts in Nigeria did not have a say over Chieftaincy matters. See Zubair v. Kolawole (2019) LPELR-46928(SC) (Pp. 48 paras. B) where the Supreme Court held as follows:
It is instructive to note that the 1963 Constitution of the Federation of Nigeria and 1963 Constitution of Northern Nigeria which were the applicable laws as at 1978 when the cause of action arose expressly ousts the jurisdiction of Courts in all chieftaincy matters. Indeed Section 161 (3) of the 1963 Constitution provides to the effect that … “no chieftaincy question shall be entertained in any Court of law in Nigeria.” The 1979 Constitution may have cured that seeming defect but it did not operate retroactively.” Per OKORO ,J.S.C in zubair v. kolawole (2019) LPELR-46928(SC) (Pp. 48 paras. B)
The Chiefs Law [2] 26 (1) provides as follows:
The Governor may suspend or depose any chief whether appointed before or after the commencement of this Law, if (such) is satisfied that such suspension or deposition is required according to customary law or is necessary in the interests of peace, or order or good government.
However, with the Coming in force of the 1979 and now the 1999 Constitution, the tide has changed. Section 1(i) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as Amended, provides that;
“if any law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, the other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void while the Constitution shall prevail”.
A close look at Section 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, reveals that the High Court of a State has unlimited jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence of a legal right, power, duty, liability, interest, obligation or claim is in issue.
Given the supremacy of the constitution, therefore, no law can super impose over the constitution over the issue of Chieftaincy. See the case of BALOGUN v. ODE[3]where the court held;
“Any law (including a Chieftaincy declaration) of a state which amounted to a removal or purported to remove Chieftaincy questions or matters from the jurisdiction of a State High Court was inconsistent with the provision of Section 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended”.
From the above, the provision of the constitution supersedes any law. The burning question arising is where does an unsatisfied Chief run to? is it the High Court of a state/FCT or the Federal High Court?
Under Section 272 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) the High Court of a state has jurisdiction over any matter or matters not expressly mentioned in the constitution. There is no mention either in Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) that has to deal with the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court or Section 254 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) that has to do with the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court of anything relating to chieftaincy. It would appear then a safe point to state that the High Court of a state has jurisdiction over Chieftaincy matters.
The aforementioned position has found judicial backing in the case of Mafimisebi & ors v. Governor of Ondo State & ors (2012) LPELR-8477(CA) (Pp. 35-36 paras. D) where the Court of Appeal held as follows:
“I really wonder what on earth will make a claimant file a suit in respect of claim to a chieftaincy stool in the Federal High Court. I do not expect a prudent plaintiff to file a suit as the one in this case in the Federal High Court, even if that Court is located or situated the door next to the claimant’s or that of the chambers of his learned counsel.Going by the items listed, as falling within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, by Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, chieftaincy disputes are clearly out of its jurisdiction. The appellants would have saved themselves, the respondents, the Court below and even this Court the pains of battling and settling such a trivial matter, if only ab initio the suit were filed in the High Court of Ondo State which has undoubted and unlimited jurisdiction over chieftaincy disputes.” Per ADUMEIN ,J.C.A in mafimisebi & ors v. governor of ondo state & ors (2012) LPELR-8477(CA) (Pp. 35-36 paras. D)
However, Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) states as follows:
Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that State for redress.
The Courts have interpreted High Court in section 46 to include both the State High Court and the Federal High Court. See Adetona v Igele (2011) 7 NWLR Pt 1247 535 at 564 para A-E where the Supreme Court held as follows:
Therefore, it is my understanding that where a person’s fundamental right is breached, being breached or about to be breached, that person may apply under section 46(1) to the judicial division of the Federal High Court in the State or the High Court of the State or that of the Federal Capital Territory in which the breach occurred or is occurring or about to occur. This is irrespective of whether the right involved comes within the legislative competence of the Federation or the State or the Federal Capital Territory.
Conclusion
It would appear that the inference to be drawn is that any Chief is free to approach either the Federal High Court or the State High Court in respect of Fundamental Human Rights enforcement. Secondly, the State High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over chieftaincy affairs. Thirdly a Chief approaching the Federal High Court will appear to be well within his right if his right to the throne is being threatened or has been infringed upon. It will be interesting to see the position of the Superior Court on the issue of where a Chief should channel his grievance to. There seems to be a thin dividing line and only the Superior Courts will state clearly when the line has been crossed.
Caveat:
The information above is solely for educational and information purposes and is not meant to serve as legal advice. It is based on inference and is subject to change.
For more information contact Lehi Attorneys:
+234-8134699398
[1] Comm. for local government v. Ezemuokwe (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 181) 615, Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) SC NLR 31
[2] Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law Cap 20, Laws of the Northern Nigeria 1963
[3] (2007) 1-2 SC 230 @ 242-243; Ogolo v. Fubara (2003) FWLR (Pt. 109) 1285 at 1324 and 1035
