LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CHIEFTAINCY LAW — Chieftaincy Succession — What Constitutes a Chieftaincy Question
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Section 24 of the Chiefs Law defines 'chieftaincy question' as any question relating to the selection, appointment, installation, deposition, suspension or abdication of a chief. The plaintiff's suit is not against his deposition or suspension. The plaintiff is the chief and has neither been deposed nor suspended. The plaintiff's claim is not a chieftaincy dispute.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Katsina-Alu, JSC, in Aroyewun & Ors v. Adediran (2004) NLC-2061999(SC) at pp. 6–7; Paras D–A.
"Section 24 of the Chiefs Law, Cap. 19, Vol. 1, Laws of Western Nigeria, 1959 defines 'chieftaincy question' as 'any question relating to the selection, appointment, installation, deposition, suspension or abdication of a chief.' A casual reading of the claim of the plaintiff would reveal that plaintiff was not challenging the selection, appointment and installation of the 1st defendant. This is because the plaintiff contested with the 1st defendant for the throne of Ajoriwin of Irawo in 1952. The plaintiff won and was duly installed. He is still on the throne. In the second place, the plaintiff's suit is not against his deposition or suspension. As I indicated above, the plaintiff is the Ajoriwin of Irawo. He has neither been deposed nor suspended. It can therefore be seen clearly that the plaintiff's claim in the present action is not a chieftaincy dispute."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A chieftaincy question relates only to selection, appointment, installation, deposition, suspension, or abdication of a chief. A suit by a sitting chief not challenging his deposition or suspension is not a chieftaincy dispute. The principle applies to chieftaincy law and jurisdiction. An installed chief who remains on the throne does not raise a chieftaincy question. The court retains jurisdiction over non-chieftaincy claims involving chiefs. The rule prevents misuse of ouster clauses to bar ordinary claims by chiefs.