CHIEFTAINCY LAW ā Selection of Traditional Rulers ā Chieftaincy as Creation of Statute Not Custom
Principle Statement
Once the constitution of autonomous communities is accepted by government under relevant law, it can only be amended by government after the community has passed a lawful resolution. Where a law gives exclusive power to a body to decide, the court cannot intervene before that body has exercised that power. The court can only come in after exhaustion of remedies before that body.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Belgore, JSC, in Ogologo & Ors v. Uche & Ors (2005) NLC-2042000(SC) at pp. 15ā16; Paras DāA.
"Once the Constitution of these autonomous communities is accepted by government under the relevant law it can only be amended by government after the community has passed a resolution lawfully requiring the amendment. In the instant case there was no proposal for such amendment much less being rejected to afford a litigation. Where a law has given exclusive power to a body to decide, the court cannot come in before that body has exercised that power. Court can come in only where there is exhaustion of all remedies before that body and court will then be able to decide whether that power had been exercised lawfully."
Explanation / Scope
Chieftaincy selection is governed by statute, not solely by custom. Courts cannot intervene before the designated body has exercised its power. The principle applies to chieftaincy law. The rule requires exhaustion of administrative remedies before judicial intervention. The designated body must first decide; the court reviews for legality only after final decision.
