LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JURISDICTION — Subject-Matter Jurisdiction — Ouster Clause in Chiefs Law Does Not Apply to Claims Not Relating to Chieftaincy Questions
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
There is a concurrent finding of fact that the claim herein is not a chieftaincy claim. What the plaintiff sought to do in this action was to abate the nuisance created by the rebellion of the 1st defendant. There is a concurrent finding by the two lower courts that the claim of the plaintiff was not a chieftaincy claim.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Katsina-Alu, JSC, in Aroyewun & Ors v. Adediran (2004) NLC-2061999(SC) at pp. 6–7; Paras C–A.
"There is a concurrent finding of fact that the claim herein is not a chieftaincy claim. ... What the plaintiff sought to do in this action was to abate the nuisance created by the rebellion of the 1st defendant. ... There is a concurrent finding by the two lower courts that the claim of the plaintiff was not a chieftaincy claim."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
An ouster clause in the Chiefs Law applies only to chieftaincy questions, not to claims seeking to abate nuisance from rebellion. Where the claim is found not to be a chieftaincy claim, the ouster clause does not apply. The principle applies to jurisdiction and chieftaincy law. The court retains jurisdiction over ordinary civil claims involving chiefs. The rule prevents ouster clauses from being used to bar non-chieftaincy disputes. The substance of the claim, not the status of the parties, determines jurisdiction.
