Whether the Provisions of Chapter 2 of the 1999 Constitution Are Justiciable

CASE TITLE: MUHAMMED v. EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR KANO STATE & ORS (2024) LPELR-62086(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 22ND MARCH, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: EVIDENCE
LEAD JUDGMENT: USMAN ALHAJI MUSALE, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Affidavit Evidence.

FACTS:
This appeal emanated from the decision of the National Industrial Court, Kano Division, delivered on May 22, 2019.

At the trial Court, the appellants commenced this action by Originating Motion pursuant to Sections 42 and 46(1) of the Constitution 1999 (as amended), Sections 2, 3, 9, and 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, CAP A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004; and Order II Rules 2, 3, and 4 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009.

​According to the appellant, Kano State Government announced its intention to recruit/employ 1,196 female holders of National Certificate of Education (NCE) in 2017 through the respondents. Interested Kano State indigenes were directed to apply. Only those who participated in all stages of the employment process and scored the required marks would be considered. The appellants applied and participated in all stages of the exercise, including filling out and submitting application forms, an aptitude test, and an interview. At the end of the day, the respondents employed people who had never participated in the exercises due to their political affiliations with the Ruling Party (All Progressives Congress). The appellants felt discriminated against, thus this suit.

In a considered ruling, the applicant’s application was struck out for being non-justiciable.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the appellants filed this appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court considered:

“Whether based on the facts of this case, the lower Court was right in holding that the appellants claim pursuant to Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) amounts to a non-justiciable right and proceeded to strike out the same.”

DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• COURT- duty: Duty of an appeal Court to consider all issues for determination raised before it
• ACTION- PLEADINGS: Whether it is the affidavit that constitute the pleadings in an originating summon
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY: Whether the provisions of Chapter 2 of the 1999 Constitution are justiciable
• EVIDENCE- AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE: Effect of not filing a counter affidavit or a reply to a counter affidavit
• EVIDENCE- AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE: What an affidavit can/cannot contain
• EVIDENCE- AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE: Who can depose to an affidavit
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- APPLICATION(S)/MOTION(S): Effect of incompetence of/defect in an affidavit in support of a motion/application

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