CASE TITLE: YENGE v. A-G., FEDERATION (2023) LPELR-61122(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 17TH AUGUST, 2023
PRACTICE AREA: LEGISLATION
LEAD JUDGMENT: JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on the applicability of the Child’s Rights Act 2003 to all the States of the Federation.
FACTS:
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Federal Capital Territory, Abuja Division in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/699/2019 delivered on April 5, 2022, by Honourable Justice Z.B. Abubakar against the Appellant.
The facts of the matter that culminated in this appeal revolve around the question of whether the Child’s Rights Act 2003 applies in all the States of the Federation. Seeking to enforce the foregoing, the Appellant brought an action before the lower Court via Originating Summons dated and filed on June 21, 2019, seeking the determination of a sole question, that is:
“Whether by the combined readings and intendment of the entire provisions of the Child Rights Act, 2003, vis-à-vis the Spirit of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the said Act is not applicable all over the states of the Federation unless domesticated by the State Government?”
The Originating Summons went on to state that upon the determination of the above question in the Appellant (“plaintiff’s) favor, the Appellant seeks the following:
- A Declaration that the Child Rights Act, 2003, is applicable all over the States of the Federation and does not legally require adoption or domestication by any State Government for its applicability in any State of the Federation
- A Declaration that any Act (enactment) made by the National Assembly automatically applies to all the States of the Federation by the doctrine of covering the field except specifically/expressly limited to a particular section of the Federation by the Act itself or the Constitution
- A Declaration that there is no constitutional provision for the adoption or domestication of an Act of the National Assembly by the State House of Assembly; therefore, any act of adoption or domestication of an Act of the National Assembly by the State House of Assembly would be unconstitutional, null and void, and of no effect whatsoever.
The originating summons was supported by a 21-paragraph affidavit deposed to by the Appellant and a written address. The respondent filed a 6-paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by one Ojile I. Jonah and a written address on 8th August, 2019.
Upon hearing of the Originating Summons, the learned trial Judge in a judgment delivered on April 5, 2022, held that the Child Rights Act 2003 does not generally apply to all the States of the Federation, but that the States will have to domesticate and adopt it before it can be applicable in the States. The lower Court consequently dismissed the suit for want of merit.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower Court, the Appellant appealed.
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The appeal was determined on:
“Whether the lower Court was right in dismissing the Appellant’s Originating Summons in its entirety and refusing to grant the consequential reliefs sought therein with regard to the sole question submitted for determination by the Appellant and the unchallenged legal submissions in the Appellant’s written address?”
DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.
RATIOS:
• APPEAL- BRIEF OF ARGUMENT: Effect of failure of respondent to file brief of argument in an appeal
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION: Nature and Effects of the supremacy of the Constitution
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- DOCTRINE OF COVERING THE FIELD: Nature of doctrine of covering the field; when same will be inapplicable
• LEGISLATION- CHILD RIGHT ACT: Position of the law on the Child Rights Act
• LEGISLATURE- LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE: Position of the law as regards legislative competence of the federal and state government
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
