LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CHIEFTAINCY LAW — Judicial Review in Chieftaincy — Dismissal of Chieftaincy Suit Without Hearing Evidence on Pleadings Is Premature
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A trial judge is duty bound to examine the pleadings, the relevant chieftaincy declaration, and the applicable edict to see if the reliefs sought are outside the registered declaration. Dismissing a substantive suit without hearing evidence on the pleadings is premature and an abdication of responsibility.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Katsina-Alu, JSC, in Elugbe v. Omokhafe & Ors (2004) NLC-2852001(SC) at p. 7; Paras D–E.
"In the instant case the learned trial Judge was duty bound to examine the pleadings vis-a-vis the Traditional Rulers and Chiefs Edict, 1979; the Registered Declaration of Otuo Chieftaincy (otherwise known as B.S.L.N. No. 141 of 1979) and the Edo State Legal Notice (E.S.L.N. No.5) of 1996 to see if the reliefs sought in the suit are outside the said Registered Declaration on Otuo Chieftaincy. The learned trial Judge abdicated this responsibility and peremptorily dismissed the substantive suit on his understanding of the consequences attaching to exhibit 'B'."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Dismissing a chieftaincy suit without examining pleadings and relevant declarations is premature. The principle applies to chieftaincy law. The court must evaluate the claim against the governing instruments. The rule ensures proper adjudication. The trial judge must not abdicate responsibility. The principle is well-established.
