LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CHIEFTAINCY LAW — Appointment of Minor Chiefs — Dispute Resolution by Prescribed Authority
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where there is a dispute whether a person has been appointed in accordance with customary law to a minor chieftaincy, the prescribed authority may determine the dispute. The authorized body may in an appropriate case hold an election to make the spirit of the law manifest.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Pats-Acholonu, JSC, in Adejugbe & Anor v. Ologunja (2004) NLC-2302000(SC) at pp. 12–13; Paras D–B.
"Where there is a dispute as to whether a person has been appointed in accordance with customary law to a minor chieftaincy the prescribed authority may determine the dispute and the person concerned shall be notified of the decision. Every conceivable effort as indeed adumbrated by the appellants was made to settle the matter but all efforts proved futile. The Court of Appeal appears to me to have given a skewed interpretation to section 13(4) supra. I hold that the words are manifestly clear and explicit in their intendment; that the authorized body could in an appropriate case hold an election. In that way the spirit of the law would be made manifest."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The prescribed authority may resolve disputes over minor chieftaincy appointments. The authorized body may hold an election to determine the appointment. The principle applies to chieftaincy law under relevant statutes. The rule gives effect to the spirit of the law. Elections may be appropriate to resolve disputes. The prescribed authority has power to determine such disputes.
