LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CHIEFTAINCY LAW – Selection of Traditional Rulers – Quorum Provisions – Presence of All Members Not Required
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The nullification of selection exercise presupposes that all 10 kingmakers as stipulated must be present at meeting; with due respect, this is disagreed with; it is accepted fact of life that in such situations, it is not always possible that every member would attend; if that were so, law would not provide for quorum; it is not business of anyone, court inclusive, to begin to speculate on how absent members would have voted; what is relevant always is what the members present and forming a quorum have done at such meetings.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The nullification of the selection exercise by the court below, presupposes that all the 10 Kingmakers as stipulated in Exhibit '6' must be present at the meeting. With all due respect, I disagree. It is an accepted fact of life that in such situations, it is not always possible that every member would attend. If that were so, the law would not provide for a quorum. It is not the business of anyone, the court inclusive, to begin to speculate on how the absent members would have voted. What is relevant always is what the members present and forming a quorum have done at such meetings."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This articulates fundamental quorum principle: Quorum purpose: Allows valid meetings without requiring universal attendance—recognizes practical impossibility of 100% attendance. Universal attendance not required: Law provides quorum precisely because not everyone can/will attend—quorum is minimum for valid proceedings. No speculation about absent members: Courts cannot speculate how absent members would have voted, assume absent members would have changed outcome, or invalidate based on hypothetical votes. Focus on present members: What matters is action by members actually present forming valid quorum. This serves: making chieftaincy selection practical, preventing sabotage through deliberate absence, and validating decisions by properly constituted quorums. “Accepted fact of life” recognizes: universal attendance is unrealistic, some absence is inevitable, and quorum provisions accommodate this reality. Courts must: verify quorum was met, assess actions of present members only, and avoid speculation about absents’ hypothetical votes. The principle prevents: invalidating valid selections over absent members, speculation-based challenges, and requiring impossible universal attendance. Quorum provisions enable: practical decision-making, valid selections by those who attend, and finality despite some absences. This reflects basic organizational reality that quorum provisions exist precisely because universal attendance isn’t guaranteed.