CHIEFTAINCY LAW — Registered Declaration — Declaratory Relief as Jurisdictional Basis
Principle Statement
The court has the vires to declare or set aside a registered chieftaincy declaration found to be unconstitutional or contrary to the provisions of any Act or Law, including the Chieftaincy Law under which it was made. The court equally has the competence to declare the same null and void when, from the evidence, it is clear that the declaration does not truly represent the customary law it professes to restate.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Onnoghen, JSC, in Mafimisebi & Anor v. Ehuwa & Ors (2007) NLC-123-160-1995(SC) at p. 40; Paras B–D.
"The court has the vires to declare or set aside a registered declaration found to be unconstitutional or contrary to the provisions of any Act or Law including the Chieftaincy Law under which it was made. The court equally has the competence to declare same null and void when from the evidence, it is clear that the said declaration does not truly represent the customary law it professes to restate."
Explanation / Scope
Although chieftaincy declarations are administrative instruments, they are not immune from judicial scrutiny. Courts possess the jurisdiction to examine whether a registered declaration complies with constitutional requirements, statutory provisions, and the customary law it purports to embody. A declaration that misstates customary law or violates enabling legislation is a nullity and can be set aside. This jurisdiction is essential to protect the integrity of chieftaincy institutions and the rights of those claiming chieftaincy titles.
