Whether Pre-Action Petition to Governor in Chieftaincy Disputes Applies to Deposition

Hot Source
Hot News
June 30, 2025
0 Comments

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

On Friday, the 4th day of June, 2025

Before Their Lordships

Uwani Musa Abba Aji

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim

Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme

Jamilu Yammama Tukur

Justices, Supreme Court

SC.266/2017

Between

GOVERNOR OF KEBBI STATE AND 12 ORS CROSS-APPELLANTS

And

1. ALH. AL-MUSTAPHA HARUNA JOKOLO

2. ALH. MUHAMMADU ILIYASU BASHAR CROSS-RESPONDENTS

(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, JSC)

Facts

On 13th September, 1995, the 1st Cross-Appellant appointed the 1st Cross-Respondent as the 19th Emir of Gwandu, pursuant to the powers conferred on him by Section 3 of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law, Cap. 20, Laws of Northern Nigeria, 1963 and the Appointment of the Emir of Gwandu Order, 1995. However, on 3rd June, 2005, the 1st Cross-Appellant summarily deposed the 1st Cross-Respondent and appointed the 2nd Cross-Respondent in his stead as Emir of Gwandu.

Aggrieved, the 1st Cross-Respondent filed Suit No. KB/HC/14/2005: Alhaji Al-Mustapha Haruna Jokolo v Governor of Kebbi State & 13 Ors, at the High Court of Kebbi State to challenge his removal. The case of the 1st Cross-Respondent was that the 1st Cross-Appellant breached the principle of fair hearing by not affording him the opportunity to be heard, before deposing him from the throne.

Following the conclusion of trial and final addresses, the trial court delivered its judgement in which it granted the 1st Cross-Respondent’s claims, and made amongst other orders, an order setting aside his purported deposition and an order directing the 1st Cross-Appellant to reinstate the 1st Cross-Respondent as Emir of Gwandu.

Dissatisfied, the 1st Cross-Appellant and the 2nd Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court. Thereafter, the 1st Cross-Appellant and other parties who were dissatisfied with the outcome of the appeal for varying reasons, filed different appeals in SC/2/2013; SC/314/2016; SC/1064/2024 and the instant cross-appeal at the Supreme Court. With the concurrence of all Counsel for the parties in the different appeals, the Supreme Court directed that since the Cross-Appeal deals with both the issues of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court and the merit of the case, the Court’s decision in the Cross-Appeal would bind the other sister appeals.

Issue for Determination

In determining the appeal, the Supreme Court considered the first issue raised by the Cross-Appellants, as follows:

Whether the proceedings conducted before the trial court and the court below without compliance with the precondition for the institution of a competent action by the 1st Cross-Respondent under the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law Cap. 21. Laws of Kebbi State 1996, were not null and of no effect whatsoever?

Arguments

Learned Senior Counsel for the Cross-Appellants argued that the 1st Cross-Respondent failed to comply with the condition precedent to the activation of the court’s jurisdiction provided in Section 4(3) of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law, Cap. 21, Laws of Kebbi State 1996, which, according to Counsel, requires that any complaint or dispute arising from the appointment or deposition of a chief must first be submitted to the Governor for resolution before any court action can be initiated. Counsel submitted that the 1st Cross-Respondent did not make any representation to the Governor for possible resolution, prior to filing the suit at the trial court. Counsel for the Cross-Appellants contended that since the law had designated the Governor as the sole authority to determine such disputes in the first instance and the 1st Cross-Respondent did not follow this procedure, the suit was incompetent and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. Counsel relied on the decision of the court in A-G KWARA STATE v ADEYEMO (2017) 1 NWLR (PT. 1546) PG 243-255 in support of his position.

In response, Counsel for the 1st Cross-Respondent argued that Section 4(3) of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law only applies to disputes over the appointment of a chief or a head chief, and is not applicable to disputes over the deposition of a chief or a head chief, such as the present case where the challenge is as regards the 1st Cross-Respondent’s deposition from the throne of Emir of Gwandu. Counsel submitted further that, that it would be a breach of the rule of natural justice; nemo judex in causa sua to require the 1st Cross-Respondent to first refer the matter to the Governor, who was the very authority responsible for his deposition. Counsel also distinguished the case of AG KWARA STATE v ADEYEMO (supra) relied on by the Cross-Appellants, arguing that the dispute in that case was over a vacant stool and succession, unlike the instant case where the dispute is on deposition without compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 6 of the Kebbi State Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law. Counsel submitted that the trial court validly exercised jurisdiction, in entertaining the 1st Respondent’s suit..

Court’s Judgement and Rationale

The Supreme Court held that it had since been established by the Apex Court in a long line of its decisions on chieftaincy disputes, in which provisions similar to Section 4(3) of the Kebbi State Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law were applied, that a pre-action complaint or petition must first be made to the Governor in any dispute concerning the appointment or deposition of a chief before an action can be validly instituted in court. The Court cited its decisions in ARIBISALA v OGUNYEMI (2005) 6 NWLR (PT 921); A-G KWARA STATE v ADEYEMO (2017) 1 NWLR (PT 1546) 210; OLATIFU v AKOMOLAFE (2011) ALL FWLR as binding precedents under the doctrine of stare decisis. The Apex Court held that although it is absurd to require that a pre-action complaint be made to the same Governor that carried out the disputed deposition or appointment of a chief for review, the prevailing case law as established by the previous decisions of the Supreme Court on the point, is that a pre-action complaint or petition to the Governor must first be made before an action over a chieftaincy dispute can be filed in court, and the absence of a pre-action complaint or petition to the Governor before an action is filed is a feature that renders the action incompetent and robs the court of the jurisdiction to entertain it.

With particular reference to its recent decision in AGBODEMU & ORS v AGBOOLA & ORS (SC/169/2015), in a judgement delivered on 7th February, 2025, the Apex Court emphasised that the requirement to first approach the Governor forms part of a domestic grievance resolution process and does not violate the constitutional right of access to court, since it is not a final determination, but a mandatory preliminary step; hence, failure to comply with this condition precedent renders the suit incompetent and deprives the court of jurisdiction.

On the 1st Cross-Respondent’s submission that the requirement for pre-action complaint or petition to the Governor is only applicable to dispute over selection and appointment of a chief and not applicable to disputes over the deposition of a chief, the Supreme Court held that existing case law on this point has established that similar provisions apply to all chieftaincy disputes, regardless of whether the dispute involved the selection or appointment or deposition of a chief. The Court held further that the Apex Court while applying provisions exactly the same with Section 4(3) of the Kebbi State Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law in OLATIFU v AKOMOLAFE (2011) ALL FWLR (PT.575) 292, had defined chieftaincy dispute as a dispute or question as to the validity of selection, appointment, approval of appointment, recognition, installation, grading, deposition or abdication of a chief.

The Supreme Court held that, in this instant case, the grant of the relief of the 1st Cross-Respondent for his reinstatement and reinstallation would be rendered illusory, sterile and academic without a concomitant grant of the relief for the setting aside of the appointment and installation of the 2nd Cross-Respondent as the 20th Emir. The Court held that, the deposition of the 1st Cross-Respondent and the appointment of the 2nd Cross-Respondent as the 20th Emir of Gwandu are intertwined and cannot be dealt with separately. The Court held further that the appointment of the 2nd Cross-Respondent was made upon the deposition of the 1st Respondent by the 1st Cross-Appellant pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Kebbi State Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law that empowers the Governor to appoint a new chief to replace a deposed one, hence, it follows therefore that a pre-action complaint or petition to the Governor concerning the deposition of the 1st Cross-Respondent and the subsequent appointment of the 2nd Cross-Respondent as the 20th Emir of Gwandu ought to have been made before Suit No. KB/HC/14/2005 was commenced. The Supreme Court consequently found that the suit filed by the 1st Cross-Respondent was incompetent, thus, the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court to entertain it as well as the judgement of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court’s decision, were null and void.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court struck out Suit No. KB/HC/14/2005 for being incompetent, and set aside the judgement of the Court of Appeal.

Cross –Appeal Allowed on a Majority of 3:2

Dissenting Opinion of Honourable Uwani Musa Abba Aji, JSC and Honourable Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa, JSC

Their Lordships, Honourable Ibrahim M. Musa Saulawa and Honourable Uwani Musa Abba Aji, JSC, dissented from the majority decision, and opined that Section 4(3) of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law of Kebbi State would apply only in situations where a dispute arises between two candidates to the throne who contested but one lost, and not to cases involving the deposition of an incumbent chief such as the instant case. Their Lordships reasoned that requiring a deposed chief to submit a pre-action complaint to the Governor who effected the deposition would violate fundamental principles of natural justice, particularly the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem), and would also amount to an infringement of the 1st Cross-Respondent’s right of access to the Court. The Honourable Justices also opined that since the issue of non-service of pre-action notice was not raised at trial or at the Court of Appeal, it was too late to raise it on appeal. Their Lordships viewed that accepting the Cross-Appellants’ argument would effectively shield executive action from judicial scrutiny, allowing the Governor to act with impunity and still determine the legality of his own actions. In finality, the Honourable Justices opined that the failure to first submit a petition to the Governor did not render the 1st Cross-Respondent’s suit incompetent, and did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

Representation

Y. C. Maikyau, SAN; Abdullahi Yahya SAN; Wale Fapohunda, SAN with others for the Cross-Appellants.

Sylvester Imhanobe with others for the 1st Cross-Respondent.

Hussaini Zakariya, SAN with others for the 2nd Cross-Respondent

Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)

Hot Source

Hot Source
Hot News
October 6, 2025
2 views

Proof of Murder Where the Victim’s Body Cannot be Found

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

On Friday, the 7th day of March, 2025

Before Their Lordships

Helen Morenikeji Ogunwumiju

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim

Haruna Simon Tsammani

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru

Muhammed Baba Idris

Justices, Supreme Court

SC/1051/2018

Between

BETTY STEPHEN APPELLANT

And

1THE STATE RESPONDENT

(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Haruna Simon Tsammani, JSC)

Facts

The Appellant was the first accused before the trial Court on four counts: conspiracy to steal a child, conspiracy to commit murder, child stealing, and murder. It was alleged that the Appellant abducted one Ifueko, a child of about three years, and handed her over to the second accused for a money-making ritual. Subsequently, the child disappeared and was never seen again. The Appellant, who was apparently in custody of the child, failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the child’s disappearance. This matter was reported to the Police, who investigated and arrested both the Appellant and his co-accused. The Appellant and the co-accused persons made confessional statements at the Police station, which were tendered in evidence and admitted after the conduct of a trial-within-trial to test their veracity.

The Appellant and other accused persons were tried and convicted on all four counts. Dissatisfied with the conviction, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal. The Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues for Determination

The Appellant and the Respondent raised two similar issues for determination of the appeal, thus:

i. Whether the learned trial Judge was not in error when he admitted Exhibit “B 1” in the main trial (after the mini trial), even when the Plaintiff’s witness who testified as PW 1 in the mini trial admitted that one Inspector Ogunsare was the maker or recorder of same, and no proper foundation was laid as to his whereabouts?

ii. Whether the learned Justices of the Court below were not in error, when they affirmed the position of the trial Court that the Respondent proved beyond reasonable doubt the four count charge against the Appellant, considering the totality of the evidence led in this case at the trial Court?

Arguing the appeal, Counsel for the Appellant submitted on issue one that the trial court erred in admitting Exhibit B1, an extra-judicial statement, without properly determining its voluntariness through a mandatory trial-within-trial. Citing cases such as DAURA & ANOR v THE STATE (1980) 12 NSCC 334 AT 345, Counsel emphasised that whenever voluntariness is questioned, the trial Judge must assess the statement’s admissibility by hearing evidence on whether it was made voluntarily and free from duress, threats, or undue influence. Counsel submitted further that, the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary, and the accused need only raise doubt on voluntariness to challenge admission. He contended that in this case, the prosecution failed to discharge this burden, noting that PW4, who testified on voluntariness, lacked proper foundation as he was neither the recorder of the statement nor shown to satisfy the conditions under Section 39 of the Evidence Act, 2011. The absence of the actual recorder’s testimony and any explanation or evidence negating torture or coercion, further undermined the prosecution’s case.

In response, the Respondent maintained that the statement was properly admitted after a valid trial-within-trial, highlighting that the Appellant volunteered the statement in English, which was also recorded in English, removing the necessity to call the original recorder. PW4 was part of the Police team involved and competent to testify on the voluntariness of the statement. The prosecution was not obliged to call multiple witnesses, when one eye witness suffices. Counsel referred to relevant authorities such as MICHAEL OLOYE v THE STATE (2018) LPELR-44775 (SC), to support this position. The Respondent submitted further that the assertion of torture by the Appellant was contradicted by the circumstances, noting the signing of the statement and hospital visit afterward. Hence, the confessional statement was rightly admitted and properly relied upon by the courts in convicting the Appellant.

On issue two, it was argued for the Appellant that the prosecution bears the burden to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt, and this burden never shifts. Citing ONUGBOGU v THE STATE (1974) 9 NSCC 356 and AIGBADION v THE STATE (2000) 7 NWLR (PT.666) 686, as well as Section 36(5) of the Constitution oF Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, Counsel argued that the evidence of the Respondent was conflicting, insufficient, and raised reasonable doubt. It was contended that the testimony of PW1 was inconsistent with his earlier Police statement (Exhibit A), and no explanation was given for these contradictions, relying on authorities including UKPONG v THE QUEEN (1961) 1 SCNLR 53 and NWANKWOALA & ANOR v THE STATE (2006) 14 NWLR (PT. 1000) 663. Also, PW2 and PW3 did not implicate the Appellant in their evidence, with PW 3 notably not making any statement to the Police. Citing OHWOVORIOLE v FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2003) 3 NWLR (PT. 803) 176 and GBOKO v THE STATE (2009) 17 NWLR (PT. 1063) 272, the testimony of PW 5 was described as hearsay, and therefore, inadmissible under Section 38 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Counsel also criticised the Police investigation led by PW4 as incomplete and shoddy, referencing Section 214(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, the Police Act, and OLATINWO v THE STATE (2013) 8 NWLR (PT. 1355) 126. He posited that the prosecution failed to conduct further investigations after the Appellant’s denial, relying solely on the confessional statement (Exhibit B1). Counsel argued that no prosecution witnesses were eyewitnesses to the commission of the offence, and urged that the case was built on inadmissible hearsay. Regarding the victim’s presumed death, Counsel submitted that under Section 164(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, death cannot be presumed death until the end of seven years, and since the case commenced within that period, the trial court erred in its presumption.

Reacting to the submissions above, the Respondent argued that the confession was voluntarily made and properly admitted after a trial-within-trial. It was stressed that the lower courts made concurrent findings of fact, which the Supreme Court should not disturb except if perverse or unjust, citing ARCHIBONG v STATE (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt.1000) 349. The confession was corroborated by credible evidence, and it is settled law that a direct, positive, and unequivocal confession may ground a conviction alone, in line with the decision in AKPA v STATE (2008) 14 NWLR (PT.1106) 72. The Respondent maintained that the offences of conspiracy, child stealing, and murder were proved beyond reasonable doubt under the Criminal Code Law applicable to Edo State. Circumstantial evidence and the presumption of death were appropriately relied on, guided by the decision in MUSTAPHA MOHAMMED & ANOR v THE STATE (2007) LPELR-1894 (SC). PW1’s minor inconsistencies were immaterial to the overall evidence, citing OGUNBAYO v THE STATE (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt.789) 76. Counsel urged that the Police investigation was proper and sufficient, to support the convictions.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale

Deciding the first issue, the Supreme Court first clarified the point that an accused may be convicted solely on his confessional statement, so long as the statement is shown to have been made voluntarily, and is direct, positive, unequivocal, and duly proved at trial. It is the reasoning of the court that PW 4 in whose presence the confessional statement was made is competent to testify on the circumstances under which the statement was made, even though PW 4 was not the person who recorded the statement. Regarding the Appellant’s argument that the prosecution’s failure to call the recorder amounted to withholding evidence under Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011, the Supreme Court held that “it is the duty of the prosecution to call such number of material witnesses as it requires to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and it is not within the power of the defence to dictate for the prosecution, which witness to call or not to call.” Their Lordships reasoned that since there is another witness to give testimony on the Appellant’s voluntariness in making the statement, the evidence of the recorder of the confessional statement is dispensable, and failure to call the recorder did not amount to withholding of evidence. The court concluded that based on the trial-within-trial evidence, the Appellant’s confessional statement was voluntarily made, as the Appellant did not successfully challenge the evidence of PW 4.

Regarding the second issue on evaluation of evidence, specifically on whether the charge of murder could be sustained even though the victim, Ifueko Stephen, was not found. The Supreme Court held that for the fact of death to be proved by circumstantial evidence, the evidence relied upon must clearly, positively, and unequivocally suggest that the victim of the offence charged is dead. The fact of death, may be presumed by circumstantial evidence – OTKIR v A-G OF BENDEL STATE (1986) 2 NWLR (PT. 24) 648. The court held further that the fact of death can be proved by circumstantial evidence, even when neither the body nor any trace of the body could be found – ADEPETU v STATE (1998) 9 NWLR (PT. 565) 185 AT 207.

In the present case, the Court found that the Appellant confessed to delivering the victim to the second accused person for ritual purposes involving mutilation of the victim’s body, including the cutting of the victim’s fingers and removal of hair, in exchange for the sum of N1,500,000.00. Since the child could not be found, the Court reasoned that “the only reasonable and logical conclusion is that, the child died and the remnant (body) secretly discarded where it has not been found.” Their Lordships, therefore, concluded that based on the circumstantial evidence and Appellant’s confessional statement, the offences for which the Appellant was charged were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgement of the lower courts.

Appeal Dismissed.

Representation

O.T. Okeke (Legal Aid Pro bono Counsel) for the Appellant

S.M. Iteinmo (On the fiat of the HAG of Edo State) for the Respondent.

Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Abuja On Friday, the 7th day of March, 2025 Before Their Lordships Helen Morenikeji Ogunwumiju Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Haruna Simon Tsammani Habeeb

Hot Source
Hot News
October 6, 2025
2 views

Tinubu Celebrates Dele Alake at 69, Describes him as consummate strategist, outstanding journalist, accomplished public servant

Deji Elumoye in Abuja

President Bola Tinubu has felicitated his long-time ally and Minister of Solid Minerals, Dr Dele Alake, on his 69th birthday anniversary.
The President, in a statement issued on Monday by his Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, described Alake as a dependable ally, a consummate strategist, an outstanding journalist, and an accomplished public servant whose commitment to national development and good governance has remained unwavering over the decades.
President Tinubu recalled his long years of friendship and partnership with the celebrant, noting his exceptional public communication and national development service.
The President commended the Minister’s ongoing efforts to reposition the Solid Minerals sector as a significant revenue earner for Nigeria through policy innovation, investment promotion, and integration of artisanal miners into the formal economy in line with the Renewed Hope Agenda.
“On this special day, I pray that Almighty God will continue to bless Dele with good health, wisdom, and strength.
“He has remained a committed, loyal, and outstanding ally for several decades. His steadfastness and unyielding commitment to national development and progress stand him out as a patriot.
“I wish him a long life and more years of service to our nation and humanity”, President Tinubu said.

Deji Elumoye in Abuja President Bola Tinubu has felicitated his long-time ally and Minister of Solid Minerals, Dr Dele Alake, on his 69th birthday anniversary.The President, in a statement issued

Hot SOURCE News

Or check our Popular Categories...

Hot SOURCE News

Or check our Popular Categories...

Whether Pre-Action Petition to Governor in Chieftaincy Disputes Applies to Deposition

Related

Hot Source

Related Posts

Proof of Murder Where the Victim’s Body Cannot be Found

Tinubu Celebrates Dele Alake at 69, Describes him as consummate strategist, outstanding journalist, accomplished public servant

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Business & Economy

CBN directs banks to submit monthly reports on POS agents activities

Transforming energy solutions: Starsight Energy’s vision for Nigerian businesses

Nigeria Startup Act: NITDA names Iyin Aboyeji, 3 others for Innovation Council

JAMB mandates Microsoft Camera for CBT centres ahead of 2026 UTME registration

PZ Cussons shares rally 22% after Q1 profit beats full-year record

Livestock Policy: Nigeria unveils new framework to boost food security

Dangote Refinery: Shettima warns PENGASSAN against disrupting operations

SendOva launches in the UK to redefine cross-border remittances

From Renters to Owners: FG-backed mortgage reforms help 700+ Nigerians secure homes in 6 Months

FGN Savings Bond: DMO opens October offer at 14.06%, 15.06%

Markets in shock: 25% capital gains tax, PenCom rules & Naira outlook

Cooking gas price soars to N3,000 per kg in Lagos amid scarcity

Gold hits $3,900 after 50% year-to-date rally

Payaza sets new African Fintech Standard with N20.3 billion ($13.5M) Debt Redemption and Triple Credit Rating upgrades

CPPE seeks new law to protect investors, employers in Nigeria

Seplat Energy ties Africa’s prosperity to Domestic Gas Development

Presco launches academy, training Africa’s next agriculture business leaders

FCCPC approves sale of Chivita|Hollandia (CHI Limited) to UAC of Nigeria PLC

AccessCorp, Aradel Holdings, MTN, two others get analysts’ buy recommendation

Top 10 African countries with the largest number of airports and airfields

NiMet forecasts 3 days thunderstorm, heavy rain across Nigeria

Jaiz Bank, FCMB Group, Julius Berger top stock pick this week

NUPRC approved 79 FDPs with $40 billion potential investment within two years – Official

FG revamps agricultural education to boost food security, jobs

Trillion-Naira club: 10 most profitable heavyweight stocks in Q3 2025

United Capital: Profit up, stock down; is the market overlooking its growth

Capital Gains Tax on equities triggers investor panic, capital flight fears

Sahara Group targets 350,000 bbl/d, acquires new seven oil rigs

NUPRC: Nigeria’s rig count surges to 69

Imisi wins N150M BBNaija S10 grand prize

DataPro Marks 30th Anniversary with Finance Webinar

Adedeji: New Tax Regime Will Usher Unprecedented Opportunities for Economy

Polaris Bank, NCF Expand Tree Planting Drive to Lagos, Others

ipNX Calls for Reliable Backbone Infrastructure to Drive AI Adoption

Segilola: Nigeria’s Solid Minerals Sector is Investable, Profitable

Panasonic, Proxynet Communications to Deliver Advanced Broadcast Solutions