JUDICATURE

CONTENTS

1.0       Introduction

2.0       Objectives

• Main Content
• The Supreme Court of Nigeria
• The Court of Appeal
• The Federal High Court
• The State High Court
• The Sharia Court of Appeal
• The Customary Court of Appeal
• Jurisdiction of State Court in respect of Federal Cases
• Tenure of Office of Judicial Officers
• Removal of Judicial Officers from Office
• Determination of Cases and Matters
• Establishment of other Courts or Tribunals
• Restrictions on Legal Proceedings
• Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
• Appeals from Decisions of Presidential Election Tribunals
• The Constitution under the Military

4.0       Conclusion

5.0       Summary

6.0       Tutor-Marked Assignment

7.0       References/Further Readings

INTRODUCTION

The term Judicature means the system of administration of justice. Without going too far into the past, the 1979 – 1999 Constitutions can  be used as the basis of our discussion as this is the only Constitution that is certain of extent and application (New Lexicon Webster Dictionary). 

Section 6 of the both Constitutions state the judicial powers of the courts.  By virtue of section 6(6) of the 1979 and 1999 Constitutions,  the courts have the power to decide disputes. It states that the judicial powers vested in the courts by virtue of this section, shall:

• extend, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution to all inherent powers and sanctions of a court of law;
• extent to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and any person in Nigeria and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person; and accordingly, the doctrine of state immunity in respect of the liability in tort no longer applies;
• not, except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, extend to any issue or question as to whether any act or omission by any authority or person or as to whether any law or any judicial decision is in conformity with the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of the State Policy set out in chapter II thereof.

Prior to the present dispensation, the Supreme Court had won several toga of authority. It was first akin to what is today the High Court in terms of authority and hierarchy. It was later referred to as the Federal Supreme Court. At this time, it served the purpose of an intermediate court of Court of Appeal from where appeals lay to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Lord Cave discussing the position of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council in Nadan V. The King (1962)

A.C. 482, a Canadian case held:

“The presence of invoking the exercise of the Royal Prerogative by way of appeal from any court in His Majesty’s Dominions has long obtained throughout the British Empire. In its origin such an application may have been no more than a petitory appeal to the Sovereign as the fountain of Justice for protection against an unjust administration of the laws but if so, the practice has long since ripened into a privilege belonging to every subject of the King in parliament, and was the foundation of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords: but in  His Majesty’s Dominion beyond the seas the method of appeal to the King in Council has prevailed, and is open to all the King’s subjects in those Dominions”.

With the abolition of appeals from the Nigerian courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council², the Supreme Court became the apex court for the land. For example, section 120 of the 1963 Constitution³ provided thus:

“……..no appeal shall lie to any other body or person from any determination of the Supreme Court.”

By this provision, the Supreme Court of Nigeria became the final court of record for the trial of issues and in respect of appeals to any court of law by any person or authority in respect of issues, rights or disputes between persons or between any persons or authority in Nigeria. In Adigun v. Governor of Osun State(1995), it was held that there  can be no appeal against the judgement of the Supreme Court. This  court  being the apex court in the hierarchy of our judicial system. Furthermore, section 215 of the 1979 Constitution provides thus:

“Without prejudice to the powers of the President or of the Governor of a State with respect to prerogative of mercy, no appeal shall lie to any other body from any determination of the Supreme Court.”

This provision was replicated in Section 235 of the Constitution, 1999.

The need to have finality in respect of decisions of our courts has made it imperative to adorn the Supreme Court with the toga of the final court to which appeals may lie, and from which there can be no  further appeal.

Apart from the Supreme Court, other courts are also in existence.  In  any event, when one talks of an appellate court, there must be other courts down the ladder looking up to the Supreme Court as the apex court. Such other courts are the Court of Appeal, the Federal High  Court, the High Court of a State, Sharia Court of Appeal of a State and Customary Court of Appeal of a State. The existence of these courts is constitutionally guaranteed.

OBJECTIVES

At the end of this unit, you should be able to:

discuss fully the administration of justice in Nigeria from the federal to state level.

MAIN CONTENT

The Supreme Court of Nigeria

Composition

The Head of the Supreme Court is the Chief Justice of Nigeria. The Constitution also provides that such number of Justices of the Supreme Court, not exceeding 21, as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly may also be appointed. While the appointment of a person to the Office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria shall be made by the President on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council, subject to confirmation of such appointment by the Senate. The appointment of a person to the office of a Justice of Supreme Court shall be made by the President on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council subject to confirmation of such appointment by the Senate. See the Constitution 1979:211 and 1999:230.

To be qualified for appointment to the office of Chief Justice of Nigeria or of a Justice of the Supreme Court, such a person must be qualified to practice as a legal practitioner in Nigeria and must have been so qualified for a period of not less than 15 years. In case of a vacancy in respect of the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, or where the holder of that office is for any reason unable to perform the functions of that office, the President shall appoint the most senior Justice of the  Supreme Court to perform those duties until a person has been  appointed to such has resumed these functions or until the person holding the office has resumed these functions.

For the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred upon it by this Constitution or any law, the Supreme Court shall be duly constituted if  it consists of not less than five justices of the Supreme Court.  But  where the court sits to consider an appeal brought under section 213(2) (b) or (c) (1979) or 233 (2) (b) or (c) (1999) of the Constitution, or is to exercise its original jurisdiction in accordance with section 212 (1979) or 232 (1999) of the Constitution, the court shall be constituted by seven Justices.

Jurisdiction

Essentially, the Supreme Court is an appellate court. It however has power to exercise original jurisdiction in certain instances. It has  original jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court, to determine  any dispute between the Federation and a State or between states if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact (in which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. Furthermore, the Supreme Court shall have such original jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by any Act of the National Assembly provided that no original jurisdiction shall be conferred upon the Supreme Court with respect to any criminal matter. See the Constitution: 1979, Section 212 or 1999 Section 232.

In respect of the appellate jurisdiction of the court, it is provided that the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other  court to hear and determine appeals from the Court of Appeal.

An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court as of right in the following instances:

• where the ground of Appeal involves a question of law alone, decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings before the Court of Appeal;
• decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to the interpretation or application of the Constitution;
• decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to whether any of the provisions of chapter IV of this Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to any person;
• decisions in any criminal proceedings in which any person has been sentenced to death by the Court of Appeal or in which the Court of Appeal has affirmed a sentence of death imposed by any other court;
• decisions on any question whether any person has been validly elected to any office under this Constitution or to the membership of any legislative house or whether the term  of office of any person has ceased or the seat of a person in a legislative house has become vacant; and
• such other cases as may be prescribed by any law in force in any State.

Except as stated above, an appeal shall lie from the decision of the  Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court with the leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.

 

The right of Appeal to the Supreme Court from the decisions of the Court of Appeal shall be exercisable in the case of civil proceedings at the instance of a party thereto, or with the leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court at the instance of any other person having an interest in the matter, and in the case of criminal proceedings, at the instance of an accused person or subject to the provisions of this Constitution and any powers conferred upon the Attorney-General of  the Federation or the Attorney-General of a State to take over and continue or to determine such proceedings, at the instance of such other authorities or persons as may be prescribed. In Ajomale v. Yaduat & Anor. (1991), the Supreme Court emphasised that in ordinary cases, it cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction over matters emanating other than from the Court of Appeal.

It should also be pointed out that the Supreme Court does not treat its decisions lightly. In Bronik Motors Ltd. v. Wema Bank Ltd. (1983), it was held that none of its decisions can be overruled by any of the lower courts. It will not depart from its decisions except three conditions are satisfied, namely: (a) on account of a broad issue of justice, or (b) policy or (c) a question of legal principle such that the retention of the decision would amount to a perpetuation of injustice.

The issue of jurisdiction of a court is very fundamental. A court  that  has no jurisdiction has no judicial basis for trying an action. In Bronik Motors Ltd. v. Wema Bank Ltd. (1983), the Supreme Court held that where a court has no jurisdiction with respect to a matter before it, the judicial basis for the exercise of any power with respect to such matter  is also absent. This is because power can only be exercised where the court has the jurisdiction to do so. In the same vein, the Supreme Court held in Ajomale v. Yaduat & Anor. (No. 1) (supra) that:

“jurisdiction is not to be equated with  powers. Whereas jurisdiction is the right in the court to hear and determine the dispute between the parties, the power in the court is the authority to make certain orders and decisions with respect to the matter before the court. This is clearly implied by the provisions of section 6 of the 1979 Constitution which presented the powers of the courts and in chapter VII on the judicature        ”

The foregoing discussion shows that before a court can exercise jurisdiction, the legal basis for assumption of power to try a case has to be established. While it is true that section 6 of the Constitution  provides in general terms the basis for the inherent jurisdiction of the court, specific provisions in chapter VII state the extent and mode of exercising the jurisdiction conferred on each court through the blanket provision of section 6of the Constitution.

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal derives its existence from the Constitution. Thus the determination of the existence and power of the Court should be traced to the Constitution. This was also the view of the Court in Afribank (Nig.) Ltd. v. Caleb Owoseni (1995). In this case, the Court of Appeal held that “it is a well settled principle of law that the existence  of appellate jurisdiction is entirely statutory. An appellate court derives its jurisdiction from the statute creating it and other enabling statutory power.”

Appointment

The Constitution makes provision for the establishment of the Court of Appeal. The court is made up of a president and such  number  of justices of the Court of Appeal not less than forty-nine, of which not  less than three shall be learned Islamic personal law, and not less than three shall be learned in Customary law. See the Constitution: 1979 (Section 217) or 1999 (Section 237).

A president of the Court of Appeal shall be appointed by the President on the recommendation of the National Judicial Service Council subject to confirmation of such appointment by the Senate. Where there is a vacancy in the office of the president of the Court of Appeal, the President shall appoint the most senior Justice of the Court of Appeal to perform such functions, but such appointment shall not last for more than three months.  A person shall not be qualified to hold the office of  a Justice of the Court of Appeal unless he is qualified to practice as a legal practitioner in Nigeria and has been so qualified for a period of not less than twelve years.

Jurisdiction

The Court of Appeal is as its name connotes. That is, it is an appellate court. In Iyimoga v. Governor of Plateau State (1994), it was held that section 6 (6) of the 1979 Constitution does not confer original jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal. Unlike the Supreme Court that has original jurisdiction as stipulated by section 212 (1979) or 232 (1999), the Court of Appeal is essentially a court to which appeals lie. This is  the purport of section 219 (1979) or 240 (1999) of the Constitution. It states:

“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Court of Appeal shall have jurisdiction to  the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, to hear and determine appeals from  the   Federal   High Court, High Court of FCT, High Court of a State, Sharia Court of Appeal of a State and Customary Court of Appeal of FCT, Customary Court of Appeal  of a State, and from decisions of a Court Martial or other Tribunals as maybe prescribed by the Act of the National Assembly.”

The jurisdiction conferred on the Court of Appeal may be invoked in one of two ways, viz: (a) as of right and (b) in some respect by leave of the Court of Appeal or the Court from which the appeal is to come to  the Court of Appeal. An appeal shall lie from the decisions of a High Court to the Court of Appeal as of right in respect of the following matters:

• final decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings before the High Court sitting at first instance;
• where the ground of appeal involves questions of law alone, decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings;
• decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to the interpretation or application of this Constitution;
• decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to whether any of the provisions of chapter IV of this Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to any person;
• decisions in any criminal proceedings in which the High Court has imposed a sentence of death;
• decisions on any question whether any person has been validly elected to any office under this Constitution, or to the membership of any legislative house or whether the terms of office of any person has ceased or the seat of a person in a legislative house has become vacant:
• where the liberty of a person or the custody of an infant is concerned;
• where an injunction or the appointment of a receiver is granted or refuse;
• in the case of a decision determining the case of a creditor or the liability of a contributory or other officer under any enactment relating to companies in respect of misfeasance or otherwise;
• in the case of a decree nisi in a matrimonial cause or a decision in any admiralty action determining liability; and
• in such other cases as may be presented by any law in force in Nigeria.

There shall be no right of appeal in respect of (a) a decision of any High Court granting unconditional leave to defend an action, (b) an order absolute for the dissolution of nullity of marriage in favour of any party who, having had time and opportunity to appeal from the decree nisi on which the order was founded, has not appealed from that decree nisi and

(c) except by leave of a High Court (Federal or State) or Court  of Appeal from a decision of the High Court made with the consent of the parties or as to costs only.

Except as stated by section 220 (1979) or 242 (1999) of  the Constitution, an appeal shall lie from decisions of a High Court to the Court of Appeal with the leave of that High Court or the Court of Appeal.

In exercise of the right of appeal in civil cases, the interested party shall or with the leave of the High Court (Federal or State) or the Court of Appeal at the instance of any other person having an interest in the matter, and in the case of criminal proceedings at the instance of an accused person, or, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and any powers conferred upon the Attorney-General of the Federation or the Attorney-General of a State to take over and continue or to discontinue such proceedings, at the instance of such other authorities or persons as may be prescribed.

In Nigerian General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alhaji Y. Ola Ishola Bello (1994), it was held that by virtue of section 217 (1) of the 1979 Constitution (identical with Section 237 of the 1999 Constitution) and section 7 (1) of the Court of Appeal Act 1976, there is only one Court of Appeal and its territorial jurisdiction runs throughout the Federation.  The division of the Court to various divisions throughout the country  has been regarded as a matter of convenience for litigants and non- litigants. For effective performance of the duties relating to hearing and determination of cases brought before the Court of Appeal, Rules of Court have been made. This is in consonance with  the  powers conferred on the president of the Court of Appeal by section 227 (1979) or 248 (1999) of the Constitution.

An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Sharia Court of Appeal of a State to the Court of Appeal as of right in any civil proceedings before the Sharia Court of Appeal with respect to any question of Islamic personal law which the Sharia Court of Appeal is competent to decide. By this provision, it means that the Sharia Court of Appeal can only decide questions of Islamic personal law. A right of appeal in this  regard is exercisable at the instance of a party thereto or, with the leave of the Sharia Court of Appeal or of the Court of Appeal, at the instance of any other person having an interest in the matter.

In similar terms, section 224 (1979) or 245 (1999) of the Constitution provides that an appeal shall lie from decisions of the Customary Court of Appeal of a State to the Court of Appeal as of right in any civil proceedings before the Customary Court of Appeal with respect to any question of Customary law and such other matters as may be presented by an Act of the National Assembly. In Golok v. Diyalpwan (1990), it was held that by the provisions of section 224 (1) of the 1979 Constitution (same as Section 245 of 1999 Constitution), there is only one right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decisions of a State Customary Court of Appeal and that right is in respect of a complaint or ground of Appeal which raises a question of customary law alone. This section does not accommodate any complaint or ground of appeal which does not raise a question of customary law. It was further stated in this case that the intendment of the Constitution is that right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the Customary Court of Appeal of a state be one tier. In the words of Uwais J.S.C:

“It cannot, therefore be possible to interprete the provisions of section 224 (1) which gives the right to appeal by leave. To  do  otherwise  will,  in  my opinion, give a wide interpretation to the provisions of the subsection which are clearly intended, in the context of the Constitution, to have narrow meaning.”

 

The Court of Appeal has the right to hear appeals from decisions of the Code of Conduct Tribunal established by the Constitution. The Court of Appeal may also hear appeals from such other courts  duly established by law. See the Constitution: 1979 Section 225; 1999: Section 246.

In relation to the constitution of the court, the Court of Appeal shall be duly constituted if it consists of not less than three Justices of the Court of Appeal, and in the case of Appeals from a Sharia Court of Appeal, if it consists of not less than three Justices of the Court of Appeal learned in Islamic personal law. In the case of a Customary Court of Appeal, if  it consists of not less than three Justices of Appeal learned in Customary law.

The Court of Appeal is bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of Nigeria: Enang v. Obeten (1979) and Adegoke Motors Ltd. V.  Adesanya (1989). It is bound by its own previous decisions in civil cases: Osumanu v. Kofi Amadu and Kanada v. Governor of Kaduna State (1986). In the case of two conflicting decisions of its own, it may choose to follow any of its conflicting decisions: (Enang and Adegoke Motors Ltd. (supra)).

The Court of Appeal must do away with its own decisions where having regard to the decision it cannot stand vis-à-vis the decision of the Supreme Court (Enang v. Obeten) where the Court of Appeal is  satisfied that its previous decisions was given per incuriam, it  may refuse to follow the decision. In respect of criminal cases, it is not  bound by its own previous decisions: Ganiyu Adisa Motayo  v. C.O.P. In Enang v. Obeten, it was held that by reason of the hierarchical set up of Nigerian courts and by the dictates of the principles of judicial precedent, a Court of Appeal faced with conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court is privileged to choose between such conflicting decisions in reaching its decision on a matter in controversy before it.

It was also held in this case that a division of the Court of Appeal is not obliged to follow a previous decision of another division which has  been adjudged to have been delivered per incuriam.

The Federal High Court

The history of the Federal High Court can be traced to 1973 when the then Federal Military Government felt that it was necessary to establish a court of a different character but with limited powers. The reason for this was the felt need that issues relating to the revenue of the Federal Government should be determined expeditiously. Thus Decree No. 13  of 1973 was promulgated and the court tagged ‘Federal Revenue Court’ was established. It was given original jurisdiction in respect of issues touching on taxation of companies, customs and excise duties, banking, foreign exchange, currency and fiscal measures of the Federal Government. The court also had power in respect of copyright, patents, designs, trade-marks, merchandise marks and Admiralty cases. The name of the court was later changed from Federal Revenue Court to the Federal High Court.

Of all the courts recognised by the 1979 Constitution, none has been bedeviled by controversies and varying or wavering jurisdictional powers as the Federal High Court. As Aguda rightly noted, the imponderable problems of conflict of jurisdiction which characterised  its existence led to the clamour for its abrogation.

Appointment

Section 228 of the 1979 and 249 of the 1999 Constitutions make provision for the creation of a Federal High Court. It is made up of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court and such number of judges of the Federal High Court as may be appointed by an Act of the National Assembly. The appointment of persons to the offices of the Chief Judge and Judges of the Federal High Court shall be made by the President on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council, subject to confirmation of such appointment by the Senate.

To qualify for appointment as a Judge of the Federal High Court, such a person must have qualified to practice as a legal practitioner in Nigeria and should be so qualified for a period of not less 10 years. Where there is a vacancy, the President shall appoint the most senior Judge of the Federal High Court to perform those functions. Such holder  of  an acting appointment shall so hold office for a period of not more than 3 months from the date of such appointment and the person so appointed shall not be re-appointed at the end of the three months period, except  on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council.

Section 230 of the 1979 Constitution states that except as otherwise provided by the Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil causes and matters arising from:

• relating to the revenue of the Government of the Federation;
• taxation of companies and other bodies established or carrying on business in Nigeria and all other persons subject to Federal taxation;
• custom and excise duties and export duties including any claim by or against the Nigeria Customs Service or any member or officer thereof, arising from the performance of any duty imposed under any regulation relating to customs and excise duties;
• banking, banks, other financial institutions including any action between one bank and another, any action by or against the Central Bank of Nigeria arising from banking, foreign exchange, coinage, legal tender, bills of exchange, letters of credit, promissory notes and other fiscal measures, not being any dispute between individual customer and his bank:

the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, its regulation or any other enactment replacing it;

copyright, patent designs, trade marks, and passing off, industrial designs and merchandise marks, business names, commercial and industrial monopolies and standards etc.

admiralty jurisdiction;

diplomatic, consular and trade representation; bankruptcy and insolvency;

aviation and safety of aircraft; arms, ammunition and explosives; drugs and poisons;

mines and minerals, weights and measures;

administration or management and control of Federal Government or any of its agencies;

operation and interpretation of the Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies;

declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision of Federal Government or any of its agencies;

and such other jurisdiction (civil or criminal) and whether to the exclusion of any other court or not;

treason, treasonable felony and allied offences;

criminal causes and matters in respect of matters within its jurisdiction.

This provision does not affect the right of any person to seek redress against the Federal Government or any part of its agencies in any action for damages, injunction or specific performance, where the action is based on any enactment, law or equity.

The Constitution (1999:252) provides that the Federal High Court shall have all the powers of the High Court of a State, for the purpose of exercising its jurisdiction. This provision has often been misinterpreted to mean that the Federal High Court is not different from the State High Court. That it is a duplication of effort in the search for justice as the former is not different from the latter, and that both can be said to have concurrent jurisdiction. In Jammal Steel Structures Ltd. v. A.C.B. Ltd. the plaintiffs sued the defendants for the sum of N641,328.39 being the balance due to the plaintiffs in respect of overdraft facilities granted by the plaintiffs for money paid by the plaintiffs as bankers to the defendants at defendants’ request.  When the case came up for hearing  at the High Court, learned Counsel for the defendants argued that the High Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter having regard to the provisions of the Federal Revenue Court. The Court held that it had jurisdiction.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the court held that where there is involved only a dispute between a bank and one or more of its  customers in the ordinary course of banking business or transaction, as in the case with the subject matter of the present case, any State High Court should be competent to entertain the case, because “the Government is not really interested in the outcome of the dispute apart of course from its interest in the general maintenance of law and order; that certain criminal offences relating to banking transactions, such as embezzlement or criminal breach of trust committed by anyone against  a commercial bank should be prosecuted like any other crimes in any appropriate State High Court and not in the Federal Revenue Court”. However, in American International Insurance Corporation Ltd. v. Ceekay Traders Ltd., it was held that only the Federal High Court could assume jurisdiction in cases similar to that in Jammal Steel Structures v. A.C.B.

A case that really dealt with the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court was Bronik Motors Ltd. v. Wema Bank Ltd. the respondent, a bank, instituted an action in the High Court claiming specific performance of a mortgage agreement to secure the appellants overdraft and N2,135,095.70 being balance due to the respondent for overdrafts to the first appellants in the normal course of their business as bankers.

At the close of the case, the trial judge gave judgement for the respondent. Aggrieved by this judgement, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. It confirmed the High Court’s judgement and dismissed the appeal. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, it was contended by the appellant that the two lower courts erred in failing to observe that jurisdiction over the claim in the action was not vested in the High Court but in the Federal High Court in accordance with section 7 of the Federal High Court Act 1973. The court was thus urged to overrule its decision in Jammal Steel Structures Ltd. v. A.C.B. Ltd.

The Supreme Court held inter alia that in respect of a dispute between a bank and one or more of its customers in the ordinary course of banking business or transaction, any State High Court is competent to exercise jurisdiction since the Government is not really interested in the outcome of the dispute, apart of course from its interest in the general maintenance of law and order. The Supreme Court held further that the time object and purpose of the Federal High Court can be gathered from the four corners of it which is that of expeditious dispatch of the  revenue cases, particularly those relating to personal income tax, company tax, customs excise duties, illegal currencies, deals, exchange control measures and the like which the State High Courts were supposed to have been too tardy to dispose of especially in recent years.

The case could be said to be the locus classicus in respect of the extent of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. As stated above, of all the courts constitutionally established, none except the Federal High Court has witnessed much somersaulting jurisdictional powers. The recent is contained in schedule 1 to the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993.

The State High Court

Each State is empowered to create its own High Court.

Composition

The High Court of a State shall consist of the Chief Judge of the State and such number of Judges of the High Court as may be prescribed by a Law of the House of Assembly of the State.

The Chief Judge shall be appointed by the Governor of the State on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council subject to confirmation of such appointment the House of Assembly of the State. The appointment of a person to the office of a Judge of a High Court of a Sate shall be made by the Governor on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council. To qualify for appointment as a Judge of the High Court, such a person must have qualified for a period of not less than 10 years.

In a situation where the office of the Chief Judge is vacant or where the person who holds the office is unable to perform the functions of that office, then until the person holding the office has resumed those functions, the Governor of the State shall appoint the most senior Judge of the High Court to perform those functions. Such appointment shall cease after the expiration of 3 months from the date of such appointment and the person so appointed shall not be re-appointed at the expiration  of the three months except on the confirmation of the House of Assembly of the State.

Jurisdiction

The High Court of a State enjoys unlimited jurisdiction. See the Constitution (1979: Section 236; 1999: Section 272) which provides:

1979: S.236  “Subject    to    the    provisions    of    this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by law, the High Court of a State shall have unlimited jurisdiction to            hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue or to hear        and       determine  any     criminal proceedings involving or relating to any penalty, forfeiture, punishment or other liability in respect of an offence committed by any person.”⁶⁴

1999: S.272 “Subject to the provisions of Section 251 and other provisions this Constitution and in addition the High Court of a State shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue or to hear and determine any criminal proceedings involving or relating to any penalty, forfeiture, punishment or other liability in respect of any offence committed by any person”

In order to appreciate the extent and beauty of this provision, it is necessary to quote again section 6 (6) (a) and (b). Section 6 (6) (a) provides:

“The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section shall extend, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this constitution, to all inherent powers and sanctions of a court of law”.

Section 6 (6) (b) states that the power:

“shall extend to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and any person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person”.

The sweeping nature of this power makes it possible for the High Court of a State to have original jurisdiction in all matters. Indeed, the Federal High Court, despite the fact that its jurisdiction has been extended, does not enjoy this kind of overwhelming jurisdiction.

There is only one High Court for each State although there may and are usually many judicial divisions. The same goes for the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal: See MBA v. Owoniboys Technical Service Ltd. (1994).

Sharia Court of Appeal

The Constitution permits any state that desires it to establish a Sharia Court of Appeal. The reason for this development is not unconnected with the secular nature of the country as well as the presence of two dominant religions in Nigeria i.e. Christianity and Islam.

Composition

The Sharia Court of Appeal of the State shall consist of a Grand Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal and such number of Kadis of the Sharia Court of Appeal as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly of the State.

The Governor is saddled with the responsibility of appointment of any person to the office of the Grand Khadi of the Court. This is done  on  the recommendation of the National Judicial Council subject to confirmation of the House of Assembly.  The appointment of a person  to the office of a Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of a State shall be made by the Governor of the State on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council.

To qualify for appointment as a Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of a State, such a person must be:

• a legal practitioner in Nigeria and must be so qualified for a period of not less than 10 years and has obtained a recognized qualification in Islamic law from an institution acceptable to the National Judicial Council, or
• have attended and obtained a recognised qualification in Islamic personal law from an institution approved by the National Judicial Council and must have held the qualification for a period of not less than 10 years; and he must either have considerable experience in the practice of Islamic personal law or must be a distinguished scholar of Islamic personal law.

In the case of a vacancy in respect of the office of the Grand Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of a State or where a person so appointed is unable to perform the functions of that office, the Governor of the State shall appoint the most senior Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the State to perform those functions.

An appointment made in the case of such vacancy shall cease to have effect after the expiration of 3 months from the date of such  appointment and the Governor shall not re-appoint a person whose appointment has lapsed on the recommendation of the House of Assembly of the State.

The Constitution provides that the Sharia Court of Appeal of a State shall in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by the Law of the State, exercise such appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving questions of Islamic personal law which the court is competent to decide in accordance with the provisions of subsection 2 of section 242 (1979) which is identical with section 277 (1999).

The Sharia Court of Appeal shall be competent to decide:

• any question of Islamic personal law regarding a marriage concluded in accordance with that law, including a question relating to the validity or dissolution of such a marriage or a question that depends on such a marriage and relating to family relationship or the guardianship of an infant;
• where all the parties to the proceedings are Moslems, any question of Islamic personal law regarding a marriage, including the validity or dissolution of that marriage, or regarding family relationship, a founding or the guardianship of an infant;
• any question of Islamic personal law regarding a “wakf”, gift, will or succession where the endower, donor, testator or deceased person is a Muslim;
• any question of Islamic personal law regarding an infant, prodigal or person of unsound mind who is a Moslem or the maintenance or guardianship of a Moslem who is physically or mentally infirm; or
• where all the parties to the proceedings (whether or not they are Moslems) have requested the court that hears the case in the first instance to determine that case in accordance with Islamic personal law, any other question.

See the Constitution: Section 242 (1979) and 277 (1999).

In Maishanu v. Hardo (1991), it was held that where the claim of a plaintiff does not fall within the ambit of the provision of section 242 of the 1979 Constitution, it is outside the jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal. In Muninga v. Muninga (1997), it was held  that notwithstanding all the amendments introduced by various Decrees or Acts, the provisions of section 242 (2) of the 1979 Constitution is still the law.

It was also the view of the Court of Appeal in this case that the jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal in land matters is restricted to cases where questions of Islamic personal law is involved and in  Gambo v. Tukuyi (1997) the court held that the deletion of the word “personal” from the phrase “Islamic personal law” under the 1979 Constitution has not altered the scope or extent of the jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal.

For the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred upon it by the constitution, or any law, a Sharia Court of Appeal of a State shall be duly constituted if it consists of at least three Kadis of the Court according to the 1999 Constitution, Section 278.

Customary Court of Appeal of a State

The Constitution empowers any state that desires it to establish its own Customary Court of Appeal.

Composition

A Customary Court of Appeal of a State shall be constituted by a President of the Customary Court of Appeal of the State and such number of Judges of the Customary Court of Appeal as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly of the State.

The appointment of a person to the office of the President of a Customary Court of Appeal shall be made by the Governor of the State on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council subject to the confirmation of such appointment by the House of Assembly of the State. In the case of a Judge of a Customary Court of Appeal, this shall be made by the Governor of the State acting on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council.

Apart from other qualifications that may be prescribed by the National Assembly, a person shall not be qualified to hold office of a Judge of a President or of a Customary Court of Appeal of a State unless:

• he is a legal practitioner in Nigeria and he has been so qualified for a period of not less than 10 years and in the opinion of the National Judicial Council, he has considerable knowledge and experience in the practice of customary law; or
• in the opinion of the National Judicial Council, he has considerable knowledge or experience in the practice of Customary law

If the office of the President of the Customary Court of Appeal of a  State is vacant or if the person holding the office is for any reason  unable to perform the functions of the office, or until the person holding the office has assumed those functions, the Governor of the State shall appoint the most senior Judge of the Customary Court of Appeal of the State to perform those functions. Except on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council, such appointment shall cease to have effect after the expiration of 3 months from the date of such appointment, and the Governor shall not re-appoint a person whose appointment has lapsed.

Jurisdiction

A Customary Court of Appeal of a State shall exercise appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving questions of customary law. In this regard, a Customary Court of Appeal of a State shall exercise such jurisdiction and decide such questions as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly of the State for which it is established.

In carrying out its duties, a Customary Court of Appeal of a State shall be duly constituted if it now consists of at least three Judges of that Court (1999 Constitution, Section 283). 

Jurisdiction of State Court in Respect of Federal Cases

By the combined effect of sections 6, 236 and 250 of 1979 Constitution, a State court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine federal cases and of appeals arising out of such cases. This idea is of great value as it is not necessary to have federal courts in respect of federal cases alone and state courts in respect of matters relating to the state courts alone. Sections 6, 236 and 250 of the 1979 Constitution are the same as Sections 6, 272 and 286 of the 1999 Constitution.

However, the Constitutions (Suspension and Modification) Decree 1993 otherwise called Decree No. 107 of 1993 has widened the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in respect of matters or issues relating to the Federal government and its agencies.

Tenure of Office of Judicial Officers

Previously, a judicial officer may retire when he attains the age of 60 years, and cease to hold office when he attains the age of 65 years. This position has however been altered by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 (Amendment) Decree No. 6 of 1997, and the 1999 Constitution Supreme Court Judge now retires at the age of 65 and ceases to hold office at the age of 70 years. The Judicial officers may retire at the age of 60 and shall cease to hold office when he attains the age of 65 years.

Removal of Judicial Officers from Office

A judicial officer shall not be removed from his office or appointment before his age of retirement except as stipulated by section 292 of the 1999 Constitution, formerly by Section 256 of the 1979 Constitution.

• in the case of Chief Justice of Nigeria, President of Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of Federal High Court, Chief Judge of High Court of FCT, Grand Kadi, Sharia Court of Appeal (FCT), President Customary Court of Appeal (FCT) by the President acting on an address supported by two-thirds majority of the Senate;
• in the case of Chief Judge of the High Court of a State, Grand Kadi of a Sharia Court of Appeal of a State or President of a Customary Court of Appeal of a State, by the Governor acting on an address supported by two-third majority of the House of Assembly of the State, praying that he be so removed for his inability to discharge the functions of his office or appointment (whether arising from infirmity of mind or of body) or for misconduct or contravention of the Code of Conduct;
• in any other case, by the President or, as the case be, the Governor acting on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council that the judicial officer be so removed for his inability to discharge the functions of his office or appointment (whether arising from infirmity of mind or of body) or for misconduct or contravention of the Code of Conduct.

Any person who has held office as a judicial officer shall not, on  ceasing to be a judicial officer for any reason whatsoever thereafter, appear or act as a legal practitioner before any court of law or tribunal in Nigeria.

Determination of Cases and Matters

Upon conclusion of evidence and final addresses, the court shall deliver its decision in writing not later than ninety days after conclusion of evidence and final addresses are furnish all parties to the cause,  or matter with duly authenticated copies of the decision within seven days of the delivery thereon. It is not unusual not to get a copy of the judgement on the day its delivery. This however does not vitiate the judgement.

Establishment of Other Courts or Tribunals

It is not strange to establish tribunals or other courts for the purpose of taking care of specific problems, exigencies or particular affairs or certain affairs. Thus several tribunals are in existence for the purpose of determining particular issues. Such tribunals include Public Property Investigation of Assets Tribunal, Election Tribunals, Code of Conduct Tribunal, etc.

A notable feature of such tribunals is that the enabling law usually determines their composition and jurisdiction. As stated above, they do not operate as regular courts in respect of infiniteness of existence and duration of tenure of members of such tribunals. In certain cases, the decisions of such tribunals are subject to appeal to a higher court. In other cases, appeal is to the Governor or the President.

Restrictions on Legal Proceedings

No civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against certain persons during that period of office. Such persons shall not be arrested or imprisoned during that period either in pursuance of the process of any court or otherwise. No process of any court requiring or compelling the appearance of such persons shall be applied for or  issued:

In ascertaining whether any period of limitation has expired for the purposes of any proceedings against a person to whom this privilege applies, no account shall be taken of the period of office.  This restriction shall not apply to civil proceedings in his official capacity or to civil or criminal proceedings in which such a person is only a  nominal party.

The persons to who these restriction on legal proceedings apply are persons holding the office of:

• President
• Vice-President
• Governor
• Deputy Governor

In this context, “period of office” means ‘the period during which the person holding such office is required to perform the functions of the office’

Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Section 213 (e) of the 1979 Constitution has been expunged. It dealt with the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in relation to appeals from  the Court of Appeal as regards to whether any person has been validly elected to any office under the Constitution or to the membership of any Legislative House or whether the term of office of any person  has ceased or the seat of a person in a legislative house has become vacant. Section 246 (3) of the Constitution, 1999 has provided that ‘the decisions of the Court of Appeal in respect of appeals from election petitions shall be final’.

Appeals from Decisions of Presidential Election Tribunals

Appeals from decisions of the Presidential Election Tribunal lie to the Supreme Court which shall hear and determine appeals from decisions on any question as to whether any person has been validly elected to the office of President or Vice-President, under this Constitution or as to whether the term of office of any person as President or Vice-President has ceased”. See Section 253 (2) (e) of the 1999 Constitution.

The Constitution under the Military

The 1966 Coup d’etat led to the abrogation of the supremacy of the  1963 Constitution. For example, Decree No. 1 of 1966 tagged Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree 1966 provided: “Subject to this and any other Decree the provisions of the Constitution of the Federation which are not suspended by subsection 1 above shall have effect subject to the modifications specified in Schedule 2 of this Decree”. The provision to section 1 in Schedule 2 read: “Provided that this Constitution (the Republican Constitution 1963) shall not prevail over a Decree and nothing in this Constitution shall render any provisions of a Decree void to any extent whatsoever”.

In 1983 when the Military terminated the civilian government in power, a Decree similar in intendment was promulgated. Since 1983, Nigeria has had various Decrees suspending or modifying various sections of  the 1979 Constitution. Of particular importance is the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree 1993 otherwise called ‘Decree No. 107’. Its section (1) provides: “The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as suspended by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Suspension) Decree 1993 is hereby restored and amended as set out in this Decree”. Its sub-section 3 states  that  “Subject to this and any other Decree made before or after the commencement of this Decree, the provisions of the said Constitution which are not suspended by subsection (2) of this Section shall have effect subject to the modifications specified in the Second Schedule to this Decree”.

Section 5 of this Decree takes out of any court an inquiry into the validity or otherwise of a Decree or an Edict. It states:

“No question as to the validity of this Decree or any other Decree, made during the period 31st December, 1983 to 26th August, 1993 or made after the commencement of this Decree  or  of an  Edict shall  be entertained by any court of law in Nigeria”.

Section 15 of the Decree establishes the Advisory Judicial Committee whose functions among others include rendering advice to the Provisional Ruling Council on the appointment of the Justices of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judge and Judges of the Federal High Courts of the States and of the Federal Capital Territory, the Grand Khadi and other Khadis of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the States and of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as well as President and other Judges  of the Customary Court of Appeal of the States.

In the first Schedule to the said Constitution are contained various amendments to the mode of appointment of the Justices and Judges of various courts, original jurisdiction for the Federal High Court, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, establishment of a Sharia Court of Appeal and Customary Court of Appeal for Abuja and so on.   It is necessary to state that by virtue of this Decree, the Federal High Court has been empowered to handle matters or suits against the Federal Government or any of its agencies in an action for damages, injunction or specific performance where the action is based on any enactment, law or equity.⁸⁵

By virtue of the said Decree 107 of 1993, section 258 of the constitution has been extended to include sub-section 4 which states thus:

“The decision of a court shall not be set aside or treated as a nullity solely on the ground of non- compliance with the provisions of this section unless the court exercising jurisdiction by way of appeal from or review of that decision is satisfied that the party complaining of such non-compliance has suffered a miscarriage of justice by reason thereof”.

The implication of the amendments is that in the event of any conflict between the provisions of the constitution and any Decree, the Decree takes precedent.

The Judiciary is the third organ or arm of government. This arm of the government has been regarded as the last hope of any man. Notwithstanding the fact that it is an arm of government, it is usually advocated that it must be independent of the executive and Legislature so as to ensure impartiality of decisions. For example, section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, also identical with section 33 of the 1979 Constitution provides:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in suchmanner as to secure its independence and impartiality”.

The Constitution has guaranteed the existence of the judiciary in recognition of the fact that a free, impartial and independent Judiciary is a necessity to a virile judicial system especially in a developing country like Nigeria.

CONCLUSION

The judiciary as a constitutionally provided arm of government has the unique functions of adjudication and interpreting laws. In this process, it enforces the rights of all within the jurisdiction.

SUMMARY

In this module, you have learnt about the judicial system of Nigeria. You have also learnt about the hierarchy of courts in Nigeria.

TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

To what extent does the constitution guarantee the freedom of the judiciary in Nigeria?

REFERENCES/FURTHER READINGS

See The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition) p. 530.

Lord Cave discussing the position of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council in Nadan V.The King (1962) A.C. 482, a Canadian case held:

“The presence of invoking the exercise of the Royal Prerogative by way of appeal from any court in His Majesty’s Dominions has long obtained throughout the British Empire.  In its origin such  an application may have been no more than a petitory appeal to the Sovereign as the fountain of Justice for protection against an unjust administration of the laws but if so, the practice has long since ripened into a privilege belonging to every subject of the King in parliament, and was the foundation of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords: but in His Majesty’s Dominions beyond the seas the method of appeal to the King in Council has prevailed, and is open to all the King’s subjects in those Dominions”.

Section 120 of the 1963 Constitution, Laws of the Federation of  Nigeria, 1963.

(1995) 3 NWLR (Pt. 385) 513.

Section 215 of the 1979 Constitution, Cap. 62, Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.

Section 217 of the 1979 Constitution, Cap. 62, Laws of the Federation  of Nigeria, 1990 and section 236 of the 1989 Constitution Cap. 63, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.

Section 288 of the 1979 Constitution, Cap. 62, Laws of the Federation  of Nigeria, 1990 and section 247 of the 1989 Constitution, Cap. 63, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.

Section 234 of the 1979 Constitution, Cap. 62, Laws of the Federation  of Nigeria, 1990 and section 29 of the 1989 Constitution, Cap. 63, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.

Section 240 of the 1979 Constitution, Cap. 62, Laws of the Federation  of Nigeria, 1990 and section 259 of the 1989 Constitution, Cap. 63, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.

Section 245 of the 1979 Constitution, Cap. 62, Laws of the Federation  of Nigeria, 1990 and section 264 of the 1989 Constitution, Cap. 63, Las of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.

Section 210 (2) (a) of 1979 Constitution, section 228 (2) (a) of 1989 Constitution.

Section 210 (2) (b) of 1979 Constitution, section 228 (2) (b) of 1989 Constitution.

Section 211 of 1979 Constitution, section 229 of 1989 Constitution.

Section 211 of 1979 Constitution, section 229 (3) of 1989 Constitution.

Section 211 (4) of 1979 Constitution, section 229 (4) of 1989 Constitution.

See also section 233 of 1989 Constitution. When  the Supreme  Court sits with 7 Justices, this has been referred to as “full court” under the 1989 Constitution.

See also section 230 1) of the 1989 Constitution.

Section 213 (2) of 1979Constitution. It should be noted that the provision of the 1989 Constitution in section 231 (2) differs from what obtains under the 1979 Constitution.

Section 213 (2) of 1979 Constitution. It should be noted that the provision of the 1989 Constitution in section 231 (2) differs from what obtains under the 1979 Constitution.

Section 213 (6) of 1979 Constitution, section 231 (6) of the 1989 Constitution.

(1991) 5 S.C. 172

(1983) 6 S.C. 158 page 176.

(1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 375) 110 at 122, 123. See also Odofin v. Agu

(1992) 2 NWLR 2 NWLR (Pt. 229) 350 at 365.

See section 217 (1) of the 1979 Constitution and section 236 (1) of the 1989 Constitution in this regard.

See also section 236 (2) of the 1989 Constitution.

See section 218 (4) and (5) of the 1979 Constitution and 237 (1) of the

1989 Constitution.

See section 218 (4) and (5) of the 1979 Constitution and section 237 (4) and (5) of the 1989 Constitution.

(1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 360) 73

See section 238 of the 1989 Constitution and the inclusion of other courts not mentioned in section 219 of the 1979 Constitution. See also Adeniji v. Onagoruwa (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 349) 225.

See Golok v. Diyalpawan (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 139) 411 at 418.

Section 220 (1) of the 1979 Constitution and section 239 (2) of the 1989 Constitution.

Section 220 (2) of the 1979 Constitution and section 239 (2) of the 1989 Constitution.

Section 220 (1) of the 1979 Constitution and section 240 (1) of the 1989 Constitution.

Section 220 (a) of the 1979 Constitution and section 241 (a) of the 1989 Constitution.

(1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 319) 207.

See also section 246 of the 1989 Constitution Adeniji v. Onagoruwa

(1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 349) 225.

See also section 242 of the 1989 Constitution.

See section 223 (2) of the 1979 Constitution and section 242 (2) of the

1989 Constitution.

See also section 243 (1) of the 1989 Constitution.

(1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 139) 411at page 419.

Section 225 of the 1979 Constitution, see also section 244 of the 1989 Constitution.

Section 266 of the 1979 Constitution, and section 245 of the 1989 Constitution.

See Enang v. Obeten (1979) 11 NWLR (Pt. 528) 255. See also Adegoke Motors Ltd. v. Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250.

See Osumanu v. Kofi Amadu 12 WACA 437; see also Kanada v.

Governor of Kaduna State (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 35) 361.

See fnt 47

See Enang v. Obeten supra See Enang v. Obeten supra

See Ganiyu Adisa Motayo v. Commissioner of Police 13 WACA 114 (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt. 528) 255.

See Federal Revenue Court Decree No. 13 of 1973.

See Aguda T.A., The Challenge of the Nigerian Nation: An Examination of its Legal Development 1960 – 1985 Heinemann Ltd. (1985) pg. 50.

See also section 247 of the 1989 Constitution.

See section 229 of 1979 Constitution and section 248 of the 1989 Constitution.

(1973) All NLR (Pt. 2) 208

In Jammal Steel Structures v. A.C.B. Ltd.

(1981) 5 S.C. 81supra

See section 234 (1) of the 1979 Constitution and section 253 (1) of the

1989 Constitution.

See section 236 of the 1979 Constitution and section 254 of the 1989 Constitution.

See also section 255 of the 1989 Constitution.

See M.B.A.N. Owoniboys Technical Service Ltd. (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 365) 705.

See section 240 (1) of the 1979 Constitution and section 259 (2) of the

1989 Constitution.

See section 240 (2) of the 1979 Constitution and section 259 (2) of the

1989 Constitution.

See section 241 of the 1979 Constitution and section 260 of the 1989 Constitution.

See section 242 (1) of the 1979 Constitution and section 261 of the 1989 Constitution.

(1991) 11 NWLR (Pt. 528) 333. See also Garba v. Dogon-Yaro (1991)

1 NWLR (Pt. 165) 102 and Usman v. Kareem (1995) 2 NWLR

(Pt. 379) 537.

(1997) 11 NWLR (Pt. 527) 01.

(1997) 10 NWLR (Pt. 526) 591.

See section 243 of the 1979 Constitution and section 362 (1) of the 1989 Constitution.

See section 245 (1) of the 1979 Constitution and section 264 (1) of the

1989 Constitution.

See section 245 (2) of the 1979 Constitution and section 264 (2) of the

1989 Constitution.

See section 246 of the 1979 Constitution and section 265 of the 1989 Constitution.

See section 247 of the 1979 Constitution and section 266 of the 1989 Constitution.

See section 248 of the 1979 Constitution and section 267 of the 1989 Constitution.

See also sections 6, 255 and 270 of the 1989 Constitution.

See section 255 of the 1979 Constitution and section 275 of the 1989 Constitution.

Section 276 of the 1989 Constitution Provides a more Comprehensive provision in respect of removal of the Chief Judge of a State  from Office.

Unlike section 258 of the 1979 Constitution which states that the Court shall deliver its judgement in writing not later than 3 months after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses, section 280 of the 1989 Constitution states that the judgement should be delivered not later than 90 days after the conclusion of the evidence and final addresses.

See also sections 246 of the 1979 Constitution and section 265 (1) of the 1989 Constitution in respect of appointment of President and Judges of the Customary Court of Appeal of the State.

The first Military Coup d’etat in Nigeria occurred in 1966.

See Onyenucheya v. Military Administrator of Imo State (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 482) 374.