JURISDICTION ā State High Court ā Internal Church Affairs ā Day-to-Day Business of Church
Principle Statement
The claims include a complaint of lack of fair hearing against the 1st-5th appellants before dissolving the National and District Youth Fellowships; illegal or unconstitutional appointments extraneous to the procedure laid down in the Church Constitution; lack of accountability by the appointees to the members of the Church and an injunction restraining the 1st-5th appellants from amending the said Constitution of the Church other than by the manner provided in or prescribed by their Constitution. These, in my considered view, are not matters touching and concerning the law regulating the operation of Companies and Allied Matters and therefore fall outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Onnoghen, JSC, in Godwin & Ors v. Okwey & Ors (2010) NLC-123-109-2003(SC) at pp. 8ā9; Paras EāA.
"The claims include a complaint of lack of fair hearing against the 1st-5th appellants before dissolving the National and District Youth Fellowships; illegal or unconstitutional appointments extraneous to the procedure laid down in the Church Constitution; lack of accountability by the appointees to the members of the Church and an injunction restraining the 1st-5th appellants from amending the said Constitution of the Church other than by the manner provided in or prescribed by their Constitution. These, in my considered view, are not matters touching and concerning the law regulating the operation of Companies and Allied Matters and therefore fall outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that State High Courts have jurisdiction over internal church affairs such as dissolution of fellowships, appointments, accountability, and constitutional amendments. These matters do not concern the regulation of companies under CAMA and thus fall outside the Federal High Court’s exclusive jurisdiction. The principle applies where church or association disputes are brought before the courts. It ensures that such disputes are heard in the proper forum. The principle reflects the limits of the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction. It prevents the Federal High Court from being cluttered with internal association disputes. The court must examine the nature of the dispute. The principle provides guidance on the proper forum for internal association disputes.
