LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CHIEFTAINCY LAW — Appointment of Traditional Rulers — Discretionary Nature of Public Inquiry Under Section 27(1) of Traditional Rulers and Chiefs Edict 1979
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Whether the appropriate authority should cause an inquiry to be held depends on the circumstances of each case. If the authority has sufficient evidence to fairly resolve the dispute, there is no need to cause an inquiry under section 27(1).
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kalgo, JSC, in Umoru & Anor v. Zibiri & Ors (2003) NLC-1231999(SC) at pp. 14–15; Paras E–A.
"The question whether where there are two or more contestants the appropriate authority should cause an inquiry to be held depends on the circumstances of each case. The purpose of causing an inquiry to be held is to obtain further information or more evidence in addition to the evidence before the appropriate authority for the purpose of resolving the dispute or contest. Therefore, if in any particular case, the appropriate authority has sufficient evidence or materials before him that can enable him fairly to resolve the dispute or contest, then there will be no need to resort to the provisions of S. 27(1) of the Edict to cause any inquiry."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Public inquiry under section 27(1) is discretionary, not mandatory. The principle applies to chieftaincy law. The authority may decide based on available evidence. The rule prevents unnecessary inquiries. The court will not compel an inquiry where evidence suffices. The principle is well-established.