LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CHIEFTAINCY LAW – Selection of Traditional Rulers – Challenge to Participation of Kingmakers – Effect on Validity of Election
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The trial judge reviewed evidence and accepted their evidence; there is no apparent contradiction between witnesses' evidence; what witness was saying was that as at the material time of installation arrangements they were not king-makers; and other witnesses did not categorically say they were king-makers but that they were allowed to participate in election exercise because of traditional positions they held at that time.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The learned trial judge reviewed the evidence of both DWs 1, 3 and 4, as can be seen on page 152 of the record, and accepted their evidence. There is in my view no apparent contradiction between the evidence of PW 4 and that of DWs 1, 3 and 4. What the P.W. 4 was saying as in the above quoted passage of his evidence was that as at the material time of the installation arrangements when he collected the pictures of DWs 3 and 4, they were not king-makers. And DWs 1, 3 and 4 did not categorically say that they were king-makers but that they were allowed to participate in the election exercise because of the traditional positions they held at that time."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Challenged kingmaker participation doesn’t automatically invalidate selection if: evidence shows no actual contradiction, participants held traditional positions justifying participation, and selection procedures were substantially followed. Here, evidence showed: disputed participants weren’t formally “kingmakers” but held traditional positions permitting participation. No contradiction exists when: one witness says they weren’t formal kingmakers, others say they participated based on traditional positions—both can be true. This serves: recognizing customary practice flexibility, distinguishing formal status from participatory rights, and preventing technical invalidation of valid selections. Courts assess: were disputed participants entitled to participate based on custom? did their participation affect outcome (see Principle 534)? was selection substantially valid? The principle recognizes: customary chieftaincy processes may be flexible, formal titles don’t exclusively determine participation rights, and traditional positions may justify participation. Challenging kingmaker status requires: proving they weren’t entitled to participate under custom, showing their participation affected outcome, and demonstrating selection invalidity. Mere technical status disputes don’t invalidate otherwise proper selections following customary practice.