GOVERNOR OF KEBBI STATE V. JOKOLO (2025)

Background

This appeal arose from a long-running chieftaincy dispute concerning the Emirate of Gwandu in Kebbi State. On 13 September 1995, the Military Administrator of Kebbi State appointed Alhaji Mustapha Haruna Jokolo as the 19th Emir of Gwandu. On 3 June 2005, the Governor of Kebbi State issued a deposition notice, announced Jokolo’s removal on state television and caused him to be banished from the State. On the same occasion, Alhaji Muhammadu Iliyasu Bashar was appointed and installed as the 20th Emir of Gwandu.

Jokolo commenced Suit No. KB/HC/14/2005 at the High Court of Kebbi State on 29 August 2005. He challenged the legality of his deposition and the appointment and installation of Bashar. He alleged that the Governor had failed to conduct the inquiry and consultations required by sections 6 and 7 of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law of Kebbi State, 1996. He also alleged a breach of his constitutional right to fair hearing under section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.

During the proceedings, successive counsel amended the pleadings. The Governor and the Kebbi State Council of Chiefs were initially joined, later removed, and eventually restored as parties. The trial High Court granted Jokolo’s declarations and consequential orders, including setting aside his deposition, nullifying Bashar’s appointment and installation, directing Jokolo’s reinstatement and awarding arrears of salary and other entitlements. The Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division, affirmed that decision. The Governor and other parties thereafter pursued a cross-appeal to the Supreme Court. By agreement, the decision in this cross-appeal was to govern related appeals.

Issues

1. Whether Jokolo’s failure to first complain or petition to the Governor rendered the action incompetent under section 4(3) of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law.
2. Whether the claims against the Governor and the Council of Chiefs were statute-barred under the Public Officers Protection Law and the Limitation Law of Kebbi State, particularly after their restoration as parties in 2013.
3. Whether the declaratory reliefs were properly supported by pleadings and admissible evidence, and whether the lower courts’ findings could stand.

Ratio Decidendi

By a majority of three Justices to two, the Supreme Court allowed the cross-appeal. The majority held that section 4(3) created a mandatory domestic grievance-resolution procedure. A person aggrieved by a chieftaincy dispute must first submit a complaint or petition to the Governor before approaching the court. The requirement applies broadly to disputes concerning selection, appointment, approval, recognition, installation and deposition. The expression “any dispute” was given its ordinary, comprehensive meaning.

The Court held that the requirement was not unconstitutional. It did not oust the jurisdiction of the courts because the Governor’s determination was not final and conclusive; an aggrieved party could still proceed to court after exhausting the preliminary procedure. Since Jokolo had not first petitioned the Governor, the action was premature and incompetent. The trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeal’s affirmance was also a nullity.

The majority further reasoned that a challenge to a deposition must, where another person has been appointed and installed, also challenge that subsequent appointment and installation. Otherwise, an order restoring the deposed chief would be sterile because the replacement would remain in office. The deposition and the replacement appointment were consequently treated as intertwined.

Court Findings

Because the jurisdictional issue disposed of the appeal, the majority considered the remaining issues academic. Nevertheless, the judgment restated important principles. A limitation defence must be pleaded and the court must ordinarily determine it from the writ and statement of claim. The Public Officers Protection Law protects a public officer only where the complained-of act was done in pursuance or intended pursuance of lawful public authority; it does not protect acts outside legal jurisdiction.

The Court also explained that amendment ordinarily takes retrospective effect from the date of the original process. A misnomer is not fatal unless it creates reasonable doubt about the identity of the party sued. An order striking out a suit or party does not necessarily extinguish the matter; a suit may be relisted or a party restored upon a proper application. The Court stressed, however, that necessary parties must be joined, particularly in declaratory actions where their interests may be directly affected.

On evidence, the judgment reiterated that a claimant seeking declaratory relief must succeed on the strength of his own case. Pleadings are not evidence, and a written witness statement on oath must be adopted before it can constitute evidence-in-chief. Documents must be linked to the relevant pleadings and issues; a judge cannot conduct an inquisitorial examination of documents outside the adversarial proceedings.

Dissenting Opinions

Abba Aji and Saulawa JJ.S.C. dissented. They considered the dispute to be principally about the legality of Jokolo’s deposition, not a contest between rival candidates for appointment. In their view, section 4(3) was directed to disputes over selection or appointment and could not require a person removed by the Governor to petition that same Governor before seeking judicial review. They emphasised the principles of audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua, arguing that the Governor could not act as deposer, prosecutor and adjudicator.

The dissenting Justices would have upheld the concurrent findings that the Governor failed to conduct the mandatory inquiry, failed to consult the relevant councils and denied Jokolo a fair hearing. They also held that the Governor and Council had been named in the original writ filed within time, and that their temporary removal by counsel was a procedural mistake that should not prejudice the litigant. They regarded the restoration of the parties as retrospective and rejected the limitation objection. On that approach, the cross-appeal ought to have been dismissed.

Conclusion

The majority set aside the judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal and struck out Suit No. KB/HC/14/2005 for incompetence. No order as to costs was made. The related appeals were directed to abide by the decision in this cross-appeal.

Significance

The decision is significant for Nigerian chieftaincy litigation because it confirms, subject to future reconsideration by the Supreme Court, that statutory domestic grievance procedures may be jurisdictional preconditions to court proceedings. It also demonstrates the binding force of Supreme Court precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis. At the same time, the dissents underline the constitutional tension that may arise where a Governor exercises disciplinary or deposition powers and is then required to determine a complaint concerning his own conduct. The case remains an important authority on jurisdiction, fair hearing, statutory interpretation, limitation, joinder, declaratory relief and the proper conduct of counsel.