H.R.M. ALHAJI ABUBAKAR GARUBA V. RAIMI AKANDE & ORS (2019)

Background

This case centers on the appeal of H.R.M. Alhaji Abubakar Garuba, the Olupako of Share, against the ruling of the Kwara State High Court regarding the appointment of the Baale of Alegongo-Temidire. The court originally dismissed the claims of Raimi Akande and others who sought a declaration that they were entitled to appoint the Baale, claiming breaches of native laws and customs in the appointment process of the third respondent, Abraham Adebayo Kuranga.

Issues

Several significant issues were raised, including:

1. Whether the appellant was denied fair hearing.
2. Whether the action brought was properly constituted.
3. Whether the documentary evidence submitted was admissible.
4. Whether the creation of a new chiefdom was beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that:

1. The appellant, as a necessary party, was not joined, impacting his right to fair hearing.
2. The action was improperly commenced, as it should have been via certiorari instead of a writ of summons.
3. Documents submitted during the pendency of the trial were determined inadmissible due to procedural irregularities.
4. The trial court overstepped its jurisdiction in determining matters overseen by local government regulations.

Court Findings

The Court of Appeal found that the lower court did not provide a conducive environment for ensuring fair hearing, as the Olupako of Share was not included in the proceedings where his traditional rights were effectively negated. The Court emphasized that fair hearing is a fundamental right under section 36 of the Constitution of Nigeria that requires all affected parties to be involved in judicial proceedings.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal concluded that the initial suit was null and void due to the procedural missteps in its constitution. The appeal was allowed in part, striking out the proceedings before the lower court and ruling in favor of the appellant due to the implications of the earlier decisions and jurisdictional errors.

Significance

This case reinforces the principles surrounding the right to fair hearing and highlights the importance of proper legal procedure in matters involving traditional and local government authority. It serves as a decisive reminder for future cases on the significance of parties in proceedings being afforded opportunities to partake in judicial processes concerning their interests.