Does the Federal High Court Have Jurisdiction to Hear Chieftaincy Matters?

CASE TITLE:  KANO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY & ANOR v. AGUNDI & ORS (2025) LPELR-80007(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 10TH JANUARY, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: GABRIEL OMONIYI KOLAWOLE, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Jurisdiction.

FACTS:

On 23rd May 2024, the Kano State House of Assembly, the 1st Appellant, enacted the Kano State Emirate Council (Repeal) Law, 2024 (1445 AH). This law repealed the extant Kano State Emirate Council Law, 2019 (1441 AH), and it was subsequently assented to by the Governor of Kano State on the same day, thereby becoming a valid and subsisting law of Kano State. Aggrieved by the enactment of the repealing law, the 1st Respondent filed an application on the same date before the Federal High Court, Kano Division, invoking the enforcement of his fundamental rights under the provisions of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009.

Aggrieved by the enactment of the repealing law, the 1st Respondent filed an application on the same date before the Federal High Court, Kano Division, invoking the enforcement of his fundamental rights under the provisions of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009.

During hearing, the learned trial judge raised the issue of jurisdiction of his Court suo motu and directed the parties to address it at the subsequent hearing fixed for 3rd June, 2024. Furthermore, the Court ordered parties to maintain status quo ante the passage and assent of the Kano State Emirate Council (Repeal) Bill, 2024, into law, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive fundamental rights application. Meanwhile, during the proceedings of the trial Court on June 6, 2024, counsel for the parties extensively canvassed arguments for and against the trial Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the 1st Respondent’s suit. On 13th June 2024, the trial Court delivered its ruling, holding that it possessed the jurisdiction to entertain the 1st Respondent’s claims. The lower Court further resolved to immediately proceed with the substantive matter…

In a considered ruling delivered on 20th June, 2024, contained in pages 581–602 of Volume II of the record of appeal, the Court “ordered that every step by the Defendants in pursuance to (sic) the Kano State Emirate Law be hereby annulled and set aside.”

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Appellants approached the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

In determining the appeal, the Court adopted the issues raised by the appellant:

1. Whether the Hon. Court, having given its order ex parte, was right to have entertained the application as an alleged contempt ex facie, which by law and judicial decisions ought to be taken by another judge of the Court?

2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when the Hon. Court held that the Appellants and the 2nd and 3rd Respondents were in willful disobedience of the ex parte Order of Court when the Record of the Court attests to the fact that the bailiff of the court served the enrolled order of the Court signed on May 23, 2024, only on the 4th Defendant (now the 3rd Respondent) on the 27th day of May, 2024 alone without any order of substituted service on other respondents and thereby violated the laid down principle of lis pendis and this occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice?

3. Whether the trial judge was right in making orders that affected and bothered the right of Malam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, who was not a party to the suit, nor was he given a right of fair hearing as guaranteed under Section 36 of the 1999 Nigeria Constitution?

4. Whether the Hon. Court did not abdicate its judicial functions/responsibility consequently breaching the right of the Appellants to a fair hearing when the Hon. Court admitted in evidence a flash drive containing what was purported to be a recorded oral statement of the Governor of Kano state and proceeding to listen to the same in-chambers without affording the parties the privilege of knowing or listening to the evidence admitted and relied upon in nullifying their actions?

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was struck out.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- RIGHT OF APPEAL: Who can exercise a right of appeal
• COURT- JURISDICTION: Whether a Court that lacks jurisdiction to entertain a substantive matter can make orders/grant reliefs in respect of that matter
• JURISDICTION- JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT: Whether the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to hear chieftaincy matters
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ACADEMIC OR HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION(S)/ISSUES/SUIT/EXERCISE: Attitude of Courts to academic/hypothetical issues or questions

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol