LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CHIEFTAINCY LAW – Amendment of Declarations – Powers of Executive Council under Section 25 of Chiefs Law
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The wide powers of Section 25(1) cannot be so restrictively construed. The purposes and objects of sections 10 and 25 are distinct and different. Whereas section 10 speaks of amendments or replacement of defective or faulty registered declarations, Section 25 which is wider, is concerned with the causing of the inquiries to be held in respect of Chieftaincies. The Executive Council is at liberty to resort to any of the enabling provisions which best serves its purpose.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, in Wilson v. Oshin (2000) NLC-2291994(SC) at pp. 16–17; Paras D–A.
"The wide powers of Section 25(1) cannot be so restrictively construed. The purposes and objects of sections 10 and 25 are distinct and different. Whereas section 10 speaks of amendments or replacement of defective or faulty registered declarations, Section 25 which is wider, is concerned with the causing of the inquiries to be held in respect of Chieftaincies. The Executive Council is at liberty to resort to any of the enabling provisions which best serves its purpose."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Section 25 of the Chiefs Law confers wide powers on the Executive Council to cause inquiries into chieftaincy matters. It is distinct from Section 10 (amending defective declarations). The Executive Council may choose which provision best serves its purpose. Section 25 is not restrictively construed—it allows inquiries even where Section 10 might also apply. The Council’s discretion is broad. This flexibility enables effective resolution of chieftaincy disputes. The provisions are alternative, not mutually exclusive. Courts should not unduly limit the Executive Council’s choice of enabling provisions.