LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JURISDICTION – Native Courts – Determination of Subject Matter – Substance Over Form
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The form of an action in a Native Tribunal must not be stressed where the issue involved is clear. It is the substance of such a claim that is the determinant factor. Proceedings in such courts have to be carefully scrutinized to ascertain the subject matter of the case and the issues raised therein. In this regard, it is permissible to study the claim, the findings and even the evidence given in such a case to ascertain what the real issues were.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Oshatoba & Anor v. Olujitan & Anor (2000) NLC-331994(SC) at p. 14; Paras B–D.
"The form of an action in a Native Tribunal must not be stressed where the issue involved is clear. It is the substance of such a claim that is the determinant factor. Proceedings in such courts have to be carefully scrutinized to ascertain the subject matter of the case and the issues raised therein. In this regard, it is permissible to study the claim, the findings and even the evidence given in such a case to ascertain what the real issues were."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
When reviewing proceedings of Native/Traditional Courts, courts focus on substance rather than procedural formality. Such courts may not adhere strictly to technical pleading rules, but their jurisdiction is determined by the real issues litigated. To ascertain the true subject matter, appellate courts may examine the claim, findings, and even evidence. This approach prevents invalidation of proceedings based on technical drafting errors where the substantive dispute was clearly within the court’s competence. It respects the practical realities of customary courts while ensuring jurisdictional boundaries are respected in substance.