LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JURISDICTION — Jurisdiction of Court — Ouster of Jurisdiction in Chieftaincy Matters — 1963 Constitution
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Sections 158(4)(a) and 161(3) of the 1963 Constitution effectively ousted the jurisdiction of the court in chieftaincy matters. A person's vested right must be determined by the law applicable when the right vested and when the cause of action arose, not the law when proceedings are instituted.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Wali, JSC, in The Governor of Oyo State v. Oba Ololade Folayan (1995) NLC-2561989(SC) at pp. 10, 38–39; Paras. D–B, D–A.
"Sections 158(4)(a) and 161(3) of the 1963 Constitution effectively ousted the jurisdiction of the court in chieftaincy matters. The issues referred to the Ademola Commission are chieftaincy questions within the meaning of section 165(1) of the 1963 Constitution. A person's vested right must be determined by the law applicable when the right vested and when the cause of action arose, not the law when the proceedings are instituted or judgment given. It is of no consequence for the determination of that vested right that the law was subsequently repealed."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The 1963 Constitution ousted court jurisdiction over chieftaincy matters. Vested rights are determined by the law at the time they vested. Subsequent repeal does not affect vested rights. The principle applies to all chieftaincy disputes under the 1963 Constitution. The court will apply the law as it existed. The rule protects vested rights. The party cannot rely on later constitutional changes. The principle is well-established.