A.G., KWARA STATE V. ADEYEMO (2017)

Background

This case arose from a dispute concerning the appointment of the Olofa of Offa, a traditional ruler in Kwara State, following the death of the previous chief. The two ruling houses in Offa, the Olugbense and Anilelerin, were ordered by the kingmakers to nominate candidates for the position. The Anilelerin house's candidate was appointed, which led the Olugbense house to file a suit challenging this decision, arguing that succession should follow a rotational system between the two ruling houses. The trial court ruled in favor of the Anilelerin candidate, deeming the appointment valid, but this was overturned by the Court of Appeal, prompting the current appeal by the Attorney-General of Kwara State.

Issues

The key issues before the Supreme Court were:

1. Whether the Court of Appeal and the previous courts acted without jurisdiction due to improper procedural compliance with the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Olofa's succession was by rotation.
3. Whether the appellate court's use of its sense of justice as a basis for changing the lower court's ruling was appropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the courts below lacked jurisdiction because the Olugbense house did not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 3(3) of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law. This section requires any disputes regarding appointments to first be presented to the Governor for resolution. Non-compliance with this statutory requirement rendered their actions incompetent.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that:

1. Jurisdiction is fundamental; without it, a court cannot exercise its powers, and any proceeding is void.
2. The failure of the claimants to seek the Governor's determination voided the lower courts' jurisdiction to entertain their claims.
3. There was clear evidence that the Olugbense house did not follow due process, exhibiting a fundamental flaw in their approach.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that since the trial court had no jurisdiction, the ruling of the Court of Appeal was also without authority. The judgments of both the trial court and the Court of Appeal were declared null and void, and the appeal was allowed without any order concerning costs.

Significance

This case underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and procedures in chieftaincy disputes in Nigeria. It emphasizes that statutory malaise could fundamentally affect jurisdiction, compelling litigants to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention.