LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Inconsistency with Constitution – Effect on Contract Validity and Arbitrator’s Jurisdiction
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A statutory provision not having been modified by the Governor pursuant to section 274 of the Constitution is void for inconsistency; the provision is therefore inconsistent with the 1979 Constitution and to that extent must be regarded as having lapsed or been repealed by necessary implication.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"Following from the above, sections 2(2) of Edict No.7 of 1976 of Lagos State not having been modified by the Governor of Lagos State pursuant to section 274 of the Constitution, is void for inconsistency. Section 2(2) of Edict No.7 of 1976 is therefore inconsistent with the 1979 Constitution and to that extent, must be regarded as a provision which has lapsed or repealed by necessary implication."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Section 274 of the 1979 Constitution required existing laws to be modified to conform to the Constitution. Laws inconsistent with the Constitution that were not modified pursuant to section 274 are: void for inconsistency, deemed to have lapsed, or repealed by necessary implication from constitutional enactment. This automatic effect serves: constitutional supremacy (Constitution prevails over inconsistent ordinary laws), legal coherence (eliminating unconstitutional provisions), and democratic renewal (new constitutional order supersedes old laws). The consequence is: the provision has no legal effect, rights/obligations based on it are invalid, and courts must disregard it. This affects: contracts relying on void provisions, administrative actions under void provisions, and proceedings based on void provisions. The principle illustrates implied repeal—the Constitution’s enactment implicitly repealed inconsistent laws not brought into conformity through section 274 modifications. This ensures constitutional transition eliminates unconstitutional legacy provisions.