LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CUSTOMARY LAW — Native Arbitration — Status as Court of Law — Concurrent Findings
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A customary arbitration does not qualify as a court of law within the Constitution. Concurrent findings must be those of two courts of law. Decisions of customary arbitration do not qualify as concurrent findings with those of the High Court.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Tobi, JSC, in Ufomba & Anor v. Ahuchaogu & Ors (2003) NLC-141999(SC) at pp. 25–26; Paras C–B.
"A customary arbitration does not qualify as a court of law within the Constitution. … The expression 'concurrent findings' of two courts of law, mean exactly what it says. The two concurrent findings must be those of two courts of law. In view of the fact that a native or customary arbitration is not a court of law, … decisions of such body do not qualify as 'concurrent findings' with those of the High Court."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Customary arbitration is not a court of law. Concurrent findings require two courts of law. The principle applies to appellate practice. The Supreme Court’s deference to concurrent findings does not extend to customary arbitration. The rule ensures proper appellate review. The principle is well-established.
