Dokun Ajayi Labiyi V. Alhaji Mustapha Moberuagba Anretiola & Ors. (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

B. KARIBI WHYTE, J.S.C.

The point of law involved in this appeal is a very short one. It is not new. It is however, a point of law of immense constitutional importance.

The point of law we are called upon to decide is whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction to rule upon the effect of the provision of an Edict which is inconsistent with a provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic. Appellant before us has contended that a Court has no jurisdiction to declare on the status of an Edict. The Respondent holds the contrary view that the Court is vested with jurisdiction to declare on the validity vel non of an Edict whose provision is inconsistent with provision of the Constitution.

Although the background facts leading to these contentions are not crucial to the determination of the issues involved, and the construction of the provisions, it will be somewhat helpful to State them in the elucidation of the issues.

The litigation arose from the dispute as to the number of branches constituting the Anretiola Ruling House of Hero. Anretiola was the great grandfather of the Plaintiff. He was also the first Elero of Hero. Ilero is a village in the Kajola Local Government Area of Oyo State. On the death of Anretiola, Falodun his half brother succeeded him as the Elero of Hero. The Defendants are the descendants of Falodun. The Anretiola and Falodun families constitute the Ruling Houses of the Elero Chieftaincy.

Under the Declaration made in 1957 under Section 9 of the Chiefs Law, the Abere, Labiyi, Akintayo and Ige Houses were the only Ruling Houses named in respect of !be Elero of Hero Chieftaincy.

In 1976 the Oyo State Government set up a commission of inquiry to report on the Chieftaincy Declaration following petitions by Plaintiff’s family. The findings of the inquiry increased the Ruling Houses by the addition of Anretiola. This recommendation was approved by the Oyo State Government in 1981. Plaintiffs were still not satisfied since the measure, in their view, did not meet with the tradition and yearnings of the majority of the Hero community. They then brought an action against the Defendants seeking the Declarations stated therein to set aside the Declaration of 1957, and a Declaration that Hero customary law recognised only the Anretiola and Falodun Ruling Houses. They also sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from implementing the said purported declaration of 1981.

In the statement of defence of the 1st Defendant, the issue of the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the claim was raised for the 3rd Defendant. It was also argued in addition that the statement of claim did not disclose any cause of action. In para. 7 of the affidavit in support of the Motion to dismiss the action, it was averred as follows –

“That the Chieftaincy Matters (Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Courts) Edict, 1985 precludes this Honourable Court from entertaining any civil cause or matter pertaining to Chieftaincy Matters.”

On his part, 6th Defendant pleaded in paragraph 14 of his statement of defence the ouster of the jurisdiction of the courts in Chieftaincy matters by the Chieftaincy Matters (Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Courts) Edict, 1985.

In his ruling on this objection, the learned trial Judge held,

“The Chieftaincy Matters (Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Courts) Edict supra bars the Courts from entertaining suit regarding Chieftaincy matters as well as Decree No.13 supra.”

Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court reversed the decision of the High Court and held that the High Court has jurisdiction to declare the Chieftaincy Matters (Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Courts) Edict inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution 1979 and therefore void. Defendants have appealed to this court against the decision of the Court of Appeal, seeking to restore the decision of the High Court the two grounds of appeal filed against the judgment read:

“(i) The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they, in their lead judgment, said;