LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Condition Precedent to Litigation – No Mandatory Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies in Chieftaincy Disputes
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
While domestic forums for settlement of chieftaincy disputes may exist, an aggrieved person should be free to decide if and when he should go there; mandatory exhaustion of domestic remedies should not be to his detriment.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kutigi, JSC, in Osagie v. Offor (1998) NLC-1821991(SC) at p. 7; Paras D–E.
"While I do not quarrel with the existence of a domestic forum for settlement of chieftaincy disputes, an aggrieved person should be free to decide if and when he should go there and it should not be to his detriment if he is dissatisfied with such a decision and wants to go to court on the same dispute."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Exhaustion of domestic remedies is not a mandatory condition precedent to accessing the High Court. The plaintiff may choose to go directly to court. The principle applies to chieftaincy and other disputes. The court will not dismiss an action for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The rule protects the constitutional right of access to court.
