LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CHIEFTAINCY LAW — Chiefs — Statutory Deposit — Condition Precedent — When Applicable
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The statutory deposit requirement for challenging chieftaincy appointments applies only to challenges to the validity of an appointment as a chief or to a vacant chieftaincy stool; it does not apply to appointment to a Traditional Council.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Ajayi & Ors v. Yemi (2001) NLC-51997(SC) at pp. 8–9; Paras D–A.
"Where the Military Governor or the appointing authority has approved the appointment of a person as a chief any person who intends to challenge the validity of such appointment shall first deposit with the State Accountant-General a non-refundable sum of ten thousand Naira... I think the plaintiff is right. I cannot, by any principle of construction of statute, say that the above claim comes within the ambit of section 15. The issue here is one of the appointment of a member of the Traditional Council who, by virtue of section 76(2)(d) of the Local Government Edict, 1976 need even not be a chief. The plaintiff by his claim is certainly not challenging the validity of the appointment of anyone as a chief nor has his claim anything to do with a vacant chieftaincy stool."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The statutory deposit requirement applies only to: (1) challenges to the validity of an approved appointment of a person as a chief; or (2) actions in connection with a vacant chieftaincy stool. It does not apply to challenges concerning appointment to a Traditional Council. The condition precedent is specific to chieftaincy matters. The court will not extend it by analogy to non-chieftaincy claims. The principle ensures that access to court for non-chieftaincy matters is not burdened by requirements intended for chieftaincy disputes. The plaintiff need not deposit any sum before suing over Traditional Council membership. The condition is jurisdictional; but jurisdiction is not ousted where it does not apply.