LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – State Creation – States (Creation and Transitional Provisions) Decree No. 36 of 1996 – Section 7(1) – Properties Vested in Ekiti State
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Section 7(1) vested properties described in it in Ekiti State, but it did not vest any property in Ondo State. It was in this wise that, in strict terms, the declaration sought by the plaintiff that properties were owned by the plaintiff by virtue of that subsection is misconceived.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ayoola, JSC, in A.G., Ondo State v. A.G., Ekiti State (2001) NLC-1362000(SC) at p. 70; Paras A–B.
"Section 7(1) vested properties described in it in Ekiti State, but it did not vest any property in Ondo State. It was in this wise that, in strict terms, the declaration sought by the plaintiff that properties were owned by the plaintiff by virtue of that subsection is misconceived."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Section 7(1) of the State Creation Decree vested only specifically described properties in Ekiti State; it vested no property in Ondo State. A declaration that Ondo State owned properties by virtue of that subsection is therefore misconceived. The provision does not confer ownership on the old state or its successor not named. The court must give effect to the plain language of the decree. If a property is not listed, it is not vested under that section. Parties cannot claim ownership under a provision that does not apply to them. The principle ensures strict adherence to legislative vesting schemes. Misconceived claims based on inapplicable provisions will fail.