Further Powers of the Court-The Doctrine of Ripeness

The courts have also power to declare an edict invalid on the grounds of its inconsistency with a Decree. See Onyuike V. Eastern States interim assets and liabilities agency, Bronik Motors Ltd. and another Vs. WEMA Bank.

However in the case of Military Governor of Ondo State V. Adewumi the Supreme court gave scintillating accounts of the powers of the court over such Edicts and many more as follows:-

1.  Where the Federal Government has validly legislated on a  matter, any state legislation on the same matter which is  inconsistent with the Federal legislation will be void to the extent  of the inconsistency.
2.  A Military Governor has no power to make any law which is inconsistent with any law made by the Federal Military  Government before or after December, 31st 1983 when the then  Federal Government came into power.
3.  By the provisions of section 1 subsections 1 and 2 of Decree No.  1 of 1984 which preserved sections 6 and 236 of the Constitution  of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979, Chieftaincy questions  among others are matters within the jurisdiction of the court of  every state.

Therefore, any edict or law of a state which purports to remove chieftaincy questions or matters from the jurisdiction of Decree No. 1 of 1984 (section 1 subsections 1 and 2) and sections 6 and 216 of the 1979 Constitution.

A High Court is therefore competent to entertain an action challenging an edict on the ground that it is inconsistent with the provisions of a Decree or the unsuspended provisions of the 1979 Constitution.

Honourable Justice Eso (JSC rtd) had this to say:

“Edict No. 11 of 1984Kayode  (of Ondo State) which purports  to delimit the jurisdiction conferred by the constitution  mis void. The edit is not a bean stock planted by JACK.  It cannot outgrow itself. It remains puny vis-à-vis the  constitution or the portions thereof unsuspended and  any Decree.”

As for Decree No. 13 of 1984, like its predecessor Decree No. 28 of the 1970, nothing therein stops an attack on an edict if it is inconsistent with a Decree. See Chief Adebiyi V. H.E. Col. Mobolaji Johnson10.

The Doctrine of Ripeness

Please note that there is a gulf of difference between actual ousting of the court’s Jurisdiction from entertaining an action and a proviso demanding something to be done before an action can be entertained in a court of law.

This proviso is not and can never be construed as OUSTING OF THE COURTS’ Jurisdiction.

In the main it must therefore be noted that the procedural requirements before one can take an action to the court is not a bar to the jurisdiction of any court.

those avenues or remedies are complied with and exhausted actions taken straight away to a high court in defiance of the statutory pre-conditional regulations will be struck out as being procedurally ultra-vires. See Sunday Eguamwense V. James Amashizemwen decided by the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

The case decided that if a plaintiff has not challenged the validity of any decision of the prescribed authority (as demanded by the Bendel State Chiefs Law) either by appeal to the Executive Council for review, or by certiorari removing it to the High Court to be quashed, it is inappropriate to do so by Declaration.

Similarly in O.A. Akintemi and 2 others Vs. Onwumechili it is graphically stated without contradictions that when a matter is for the domestic domain of any body, institution or authority as enshrined in the statute, it is not permitted to come to court until all avenues have been exhausted.

Such issues are then not justiciable. This view is equally adopted in the cases of Thorne V. University of London R. V. Dun Sheat, Ex-Parte Meredith and University of Lagos and 2 others Vs. Dr. Dada.

This is known as Justice Halan’s legal calculus or the doctrine of RIPENESS. The doctrine has been applied in series of cases like Falomo V. Lagos State Public Service Commission where it was held that unless the plaintiff has exercised his right under the proviso to the Regulation 52 of the Lagos State Public Service Rules, and a decision unfavourable to him has been given by the Commission pursuant to the exercise of its power under the proviso, his application will not succeed and he is strongly advised not to come to court as of first instance until he has exhausted all administrative channels opened to him.

Also variable provisions have been made in the Nigerian local government law stipulating that a notice of intention to sue is a necessary condition precedent to the commencement of an action against a Local Authority. See Shafiu V. Kaduna Native Authority17

Kaduna L.A. Vs. MakudawaKusada V. Sokoto Native Authority.

Also must be noted the decision in Animotu Abike Yesufu V. Ibadan City Council and another which states that the provisions of section 274 of the Local Government Law (Cap 68) Laws of Western Region are mandatory and therefore any failure to comply with them will debar a court from entertaining any action brought against any Local Government Council established under the provisions of the law.


For further cases see Alexander D. Yaskey V. The President Councillors and Citizen of Freetown, Aiyemobuwa V. Ondo Western District and another (1960) Dramani Ngelega V. Nongowa Tribal Authority23.