DistantNews
Support us
🇳🇬 Nigeria /Crime & Justice

Supreme Court to Rule on Whether Pre-Action Conditions Bar Court Access

From ThisDay · () English

Translated from English, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.

At a glance

News Named sources In the courts
  • The Supreme Court of Nigeria is hearing a case regarding whether a condition precedent to instituting an action bars access to court.
  • The appeal concerns the selection of the Alara of Aramoko, where the appellant challenged the election process after failing to pay a mandatory security for costs.
  • The core issue is whether the appellant's action, challenging the election process, required payment of security for costs under the Chiefs Law of Ekiti State and the Nigerian Constitution.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria is set to determine a critical legal question: whether a mandatory condition precedent for initiating a lawsuit can serve as a bar to accessing the court system. This case, SC/143/2015, involves Prince Olusegun Aderemi as the appellant and Prince Adegoke Adeyemi, along with others, as respondents concerning the chieftaincy of the Alara of Aramoko in Ekiti State.

The dispute arose following the death of the previous Alara. The Arakele/Arosoye Ruling House nominated 12 candidates, and after a close vote, the 1st Respondent was elected by the kingmakers on August 10, 2009. The Ekiti State Government subsequently approved this selection and issued an instrument of appointment on August 20, 2009.

Whether the lower court rightly affirmed the decision of the trial High Court in the light of the provisions of the sections of the Chiefs Law of Ekiti State, and the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

— Supreme CourtThe issue for determination in the appeal.

However, the appellant, Prince Aderemi, commenced legal action on August 24, 2009, challenging the election process and seeking to nullify the kingmakers' decision and compel a fresh selection. The respondents raised objections, including a motion to dismiss the suit for the appellant's failure to pay a mandatory N25,000 security for costs, a requirement under the Chiefs Law of Ekiti State before instituting such an action.

The trial court and the Court of Appeal both ruled that this non-compliance deprived the court of jurisdiction, leading to the suit's dismissal. The appellant's further appeal to the Supreme Court hinges on the argument that his action was directed at the election process, not the final appointment, and therefore, the security for costs was not applicable. He relies on previous judicial decisions to support his contention that challenging the election process itself does not necessitate payment of security for costs.

NKUMA v ODILI (2006) 2-3 SC 57 AT 61 – 62 and UZOUKWU v EZEONU II (1991) 6 NWLR (PT. 200) 708 AT 784 – 785

— Appellant's CounselCiting previous decisions to support the argument that security for costs was not required.
DistantNews Editorial

Originally published by ThisDay in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.

More Stories

From Our Blog