APPLICATION OF RETROSPECTIVE CONSTRUCTION TO THE PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE OF THE COURTS

CASE TITLE: ZUBAIR v. KOLAWOLE (2019) LPELR-46928(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 8^TH MARCH, 2019

PRACTICE AREA: CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS

LEAD JUDGMENT: KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION

This appeal borders on Chieftaincy Matters.

FACTS

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin, upturning the decision of the Kwara State High Court.

The contention of parties was, which of the two families, the appellant’s Sunmonu Okunoye family or the respondent’s Kolawole family, is entitled to produce the Baale of Ganmo through its male line by virtue of being the founder of Ganmo. On the appellant’s side, there was an allegation that the respondent’s predecessor in title had put himself out as Baale of Ganmo for which he was issued a warning in writing. On the respondent’s side, it was also contended that there was a decision rendered by the Traditional Council in 1978, after a thorough hearing, recognizing the respondent’s family as the family entitled to the Baaleship. The defendant/respondent joined issues with the plaintiff/appellant and contended, inter alla, that in fact it was his own great grandfather, named Ganna-Nganku who founded Ganmo and that it is the male line of his own family that produces the Baale.

The matter proceeded to trial. Both sides called witnesses and tendered documents. At the conclusion of the trial and after considering the written addresses of learned counsel, judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. Dissatisfied, respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which, by majority decision, allowed the appeal. Appellant therefore appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Court determined the appeal on following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff’s suit is justiciable and whether the Court of Appeal is right in finding in the negative?
2. Whether the defendant proffered any credible evidence of traditional history to warrant the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeal that the traditional history of the defendant is preferable to that of the plaintiff? and
3. Whether in the face of existing documentary evidence, the Court of Appeal was right in giving judgment to the defendant?

DECISION/HELD

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• COURT- JURISDICTION: Whether Courts have jurisdiction over chieftaincy matters where the cause of action arose before the 1979 Constitution
• ACTION- APPLICABLE LAW TO A SUIT: What is the applicable law to a cause of action/suit
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Whether the rule governing practice and procedure is the rule in force at the time of the trial or when an application is taken