LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CHIEFTAINCY LAW — Judicial Review in Chieftaincy — Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies Before Resort to Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where a statute prescribes a legal line of action for determination of an issue, the aggrieved party must exhaust all remedies in that law before going to court. Section 236 of the 1979 Constitution is not an open gate for all High Courts to assume jurisdiction in all subjects.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Oguntade, JSC, in Aribisala & Anor v. Ogunyemi & Ors (2005) NLC-2732000(SC) at pp. 11–12; Paras D–A.
"Where a statute prescribes a legal line of action for determination of an issue, be that issue an administrative matter, chieftaincy matter or matter of taxation, the aggrieved party must exhaust all the remedies in that law before going to court. The provisions of section 21 and section 22(1) - (6) of the Traditional Rulers and Chiefs Edict (No. 16) 1979 (Bendel State) are clear as to steps to take. The plaintiff seemed to have jumped the stile as he avoided all avenues that availed him and went to the High Court. I am of the view that he did a wrong thing indeed … The provisions of section 236 of the 1979 Constitution is not an open gate for all High Courts to assume jurisdiction in all subjects. All the local remedies in the statute on every subject must be exhausted before embarking on actual litigation in court."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Statutory remedies must be exhausted before court action in chieftaincy and administrative matters. The High Court cannot assume jurisdiction where local remedies are unexhausted. The principle applies to chieftaincy law and judicial review. Jumping the stile deprives the court of jurisdiction.
