chieftaincy delaration

A registered chieftaincy declaration when pleaded and tendered in court is admissible and valid when a matter before the court relates to chieftaincy issues. A registered chieftaincy declaration is a declaration of the tradition, customary law and usage pertaining to the selection and appointment to the particular chieftaincy stool/throne it is a form of codified customary law relating to the nomination and selection of persons for certain chieftaincy titles and positions. Adeosun V. Gov. Ekiti State (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1291) 581 SC.

No, the making of a chieftaincy declaration is purely an administrative act exercisable by the executive arm of government and not a function of the court. Thus, where need arises to amend a registered chieftaincy declaration so as to bring it in line with current customary trend of the people it relates to, it is the duty of the government to do so. Adekeye V. Adesina (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 449.

Where there is a registered chieftaincy declaration before the court, the duty of the court is to apply the provisions of the chieftaincy declaration established by the pleadings and evidence as tendered by the parties. The court has no power to assume the functions of making or amending the registered chieftaincy declaration brought before it governing the selection and appointment of traditional chiefs. Oladele V. Aromolaran II (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 453) 180; Ikine Vedkerode (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt. 945) 446.

Generally, the court and even the parties are not allowed to go outside the registered chieftaincy declaration in arguing and deciding, respectively, the applicable customary law. However, a court can set aside a chieftaincy declaration if it is proved to be contrary to the customs and traditions of the people. For the court to intervene in this circumstance relevant fact must be pleaded and evidence must be adduced to support such fact except such fact has been judicially noticed by the court. We dare also to suggest that if any provisions therein is considered to be contrary to public policy of decency and respect of human rights, equity and good conscience, the court will most likely reject to abide by those offensive aspects of the Chieftaincy Declaration. Olowu v. Olowu (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 13) 372; Mafimiseba v. Eluwa (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1018) 385.

The party seeking to nullify a chieftaincy declaration has a duty to put same in evidence as the court will not speculate on what is not before it. Of course, he must first plead it so he will have the practice right to lead evidence in proof of what he has pleaded. Evidence follows pleadings. The court has no duty to speculate on what is not before it. Oladipo V. Moba L.G.A (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1186) 117; UBN Plc. V. Ofagbe Farms Ltd. (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt. 787) 242.

On any particular issue where a Chieftaincy Declaration has no clear provision the court is not bound to use it as a true reflection of the applicable customary law of the people it relates or concerns. For example, where a chieftaincy declaration neither advocated rotational nor hereditary succession the court will not rely on it to give judgment in favour of the party who advocated that the chieftaincy declaration advocated a rotational succession. See Mafimisebi V. Ehuwa (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1018) 385 SC.