LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CHIEFTAINCY LAW — Chiefs — Appointment to Traditional Council — Distinction from Chieftaincy Appointment
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Appointment to membership of a Traditional Council is distinct from appointment as a chief; the statutory deposit condition for challenging chieftaincy appointments does not apply to Traditional Council membership.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Abdullahi, JCA (as he then was), cited with approval by Ogundare, JSC, in Ajayi & Ors v. Yemi (2001) NLC-51997(SC) at p. 9; Paras A–C.
"It is clear without having to say it that the provision of this section has nothing to do with appointment to membership of a Traditional Council. In any case, it is common ground that both the 1st appellant and the respondent are already chiefs in their respective domains. Membership of the Traditional Council has nothing to do with appointment of a person as a Chief or appointment to a vacant chieftaincy stool."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appointment to a Traditional Council is separate and distinct from appointment as a chief. A person may be a member of a Traditional Council without being a chief, and a chief may serve on a Council. Statutory deposit requirements for challenging chieftaincy appointments do not apply to challenges to Traditional Council membership. The two are governed by different legal frameworks. The principle prevents litigants from using chieftaincy laws to impose procedural hurdles on non-chieftaincy claims. The court must distinguish between the nature of the right being asserted. The deposit condition is specific to chieftaincy matters. Membership of a Traditional Council is not a chieftaincy appointment.