Chieftaincy Matters (35)
HELD:
"It is apposite to stress here, that the subject matter or core issue of this appeal revolves on the interpretation of the Exhibit the Legal Notice No. 1 1992 which obviously governs the selection or election of Sum Pyem.
HELD:
"I agree with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the mere inclusion of officers who were not provided for in the enabling law and their presence at the venue of the meeting for the selection exercise conducted on the 17th day of May, 2004 without more is not sufficient reason to vitiate the election of the 1st appellant.
HELD:
"My lords, I think the only relevant issue in all the issues formulated by the parties, and upon which both parties are in tandem. is appellants issue No. 2 that is: "Whether the Court of Appeal is right in holding that the non-compliance with the provision of Section 20(1) and (2) by the respondent before coming to Court did not rob the Court of the jurisdiction to entertain the matter."
HELD:
"I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached by my learned brother that the appeal should be allowed.
HELD:
"15(1) where the governor or the appointing authority has approved the appointment of a person as a chief, any person who intends to challenge the validity of such appointment shall first deposit with the state Accountant General a non refundable sum of one Hundred Thousand Naira only.
"Native Law and Custom recognizes the importance of chiefs or traditional rulers in the society coupled with the rights and privileges that may attach to their offices. In Nigerian Land Law by B.O. Nwabueze, 1982 Reprint, the learned author wrote at pages 149 to 152 concerning the importance of a Chief within a Community as follows: "As the physical embodiment of his community, village or family, it is clear that the chief must occupy a central position in the whole system of communal tenure. The institution of chieftaincy is rather a unique one, so unique indeed that any attempt to describe it by reference to analogous English institutions is bound to mislead. Thus in the celebrated but cautious words of Rayner, C.J., which have been repeated and approved times without number in the cases, the chief is referred to as being "to some extent in the position of a trustees, and as such holds the land for the use of the community or family." There is nothing sacrosanct about the idea of trusteeship nor is it necessarily a term of art, so that the description of the chief's position by analogy to it may not be so terribly objectionable, once the essential differences between him and a trustee strictly so-called are clearly understood. Perhaps the most fundamental of these differences is that whereas a trustee of land has the legal title vested in him and is therefore the legal owner of it, the legal title to communal land is vested in the quasi-corporation, the community, village or family, and not in the chief individually. To describe him as an owner, even in a loose sense, is therefore misleading. This is not to say, however, that the position of the chief is merely one of "mere honour or dignity". In Adanji vs. Hunvoo (1908) 1 NLR 74, the plaintiff who had sued to establish his right to the chieftaincy of the Fiyento of Badagry was non-suited on the ground that the claim related only to a position of mere honour or dignity, and did not raise any issue of a legal or equitable right. This decision, with respect, shows a lack of understanding of the true significance of chieftaincy in Nigeria. It is a position which by its own inherent force carries certain rights and powers under customary law, particularly in relation to land - a fact which distinguishes the claim in Adanji vs. Hunvoo from that in the English case of Cowley vs. Cowley (1901) A.C. 450 upon which the decision purports to have been based.