By Moruff Balogun
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Over the years, disputes arising from chieftaincy matters have remained a persistent feature of traditional governance in Nigeria. Owing to the deep historical, cultural, and communal significance attached to traditional institutions, disagreements relating to succession, appointment, or recognition of chiefs are almost inevitable. However, such disputes are not left to arbitrariness, they are regulated by established legal and customary frameworks which prescribe specific procedures for their resolution.
The law generally emphasizes the settlement of chieftaincy disputes through internal mechanisms in accordance with customary practices and relevant statutory provisions before recourse is made to the courts of law. This approach seeks to preserve traditional institutions, maintain communal harmony, and ensure that disputes are resolved within structures familiar to the affected communities.
2.0 THE CONCEPT OF CHIEFTAINCY UNDER NIGERIAN LAW
According to the Obas and Chiefs’ Law of Ogun State, 2021, a “chief” means a person whose chieftaincy title is associated with a native community and includes both recognised and minor chiefs. Chieftaincy itself denotes a position of dignity and honour occupied by traditional rulers such as an Oba. However, the concept extends beyond paramount rulers to include various categories recognised under customary law, including Obas, Emirs, Obis, Ezes, Baales and other minor chiefs.
2.1 CLASSIFICATION OF CHIEFSLegal Document Templates
Several state enactments provide for the classification of chiefs into two broad categories, namely Recognised Chiefs and Minor Chiefs. This structure is reflected under the Obas and Chiefs’ Laws of Ogun State, 2021; Chiefs’ Laws of Oyo State, 2023; Chiefs’ Laws of Osun State, 2003; and the Chiefs’ Laws of Ondo State, 1991; particularly Cap. 20, Cap. 28, Cap. 25 and Cap. 20 of the respective States Laws.
(a) Recognised Chiefs
Recognised chiefs are persons appointed to recognised chieftaincy titles under the relevant State Chiefs’ Laws. They typically occupy paramount or superior traditional positions such as Obas, Emirs, paramount rulers and other equivalent traditional heads whose stools are formally recognised by the State.
(b) Minor Chiefs
Minor chiefs are all chiefs other than recognised chiefs. They occupy subordinate traditional positions within their respective communities and perform supporting customary functions under recognised traditional rulers.
Beyond the two broad statutory classifications, other categories of chiefs exist within the customary and legal framework. These include:
(c) Coronet Chiefs
Coronet chiefs are chiefs who transition from minor chieftaincy status to recognised chieftaincy positions. This progression is provided for under Section 26(1) of the Oba and Chiefs’ Law of Ogun State, 2021.
(d) Honorary Chiefs
Honorary chiefs are appointed by Obas in recognition of their notable contributions to the development and welfare of the communities. They form part of the chiefs under Sections 2 and 49 of the Oba and Chiefs’ Law of Ogun State, 2021.
This structure preserves the primary statutory distinction between recognised and minor chiefs while accommodating other customary titles that operate within the broader chieftaincy system.
2.2 JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS
Where disputes arise in respect of chieftaincy matters, jurisdiction is vested in the High Court of the State. Section 272(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) confers unlimited jurisdiction on State High Courts in civil proceedings involving legal rights, duties, obligations and interests.
This position was affirmed in Mafimisebi & Ors v Governor of Ondo State & Ors (2012) LPELR-8477(CA), where Adumein, JCA held that the High Court of Ondo State possessed undoubted and unlimited jurisdiction over chieftaincy disputes.
3.0 THE DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF INTERNAL REMEDIES
Notwithstanding the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, chieftaincy disputes are subject to a condition precedent before judicial intervention can be invoked. This is encapsulated in the doctrine of exhaustion of internal remedies.
Under this doctrine, an aggrieved party must first explore and complete all available customary, administrative, or statutory dispute resolution mechanisms provided by law. Failure to comply renders any court action premature and the suit would be adjourned for jurisdiction by the court. Thus, “internal remedy” is a condition precedent that must be satisfied before approaching the courts.
According to Blacks’ Law Dictionary, a “condition precedent” is an act or event, other than a lapse in time that must exist or occur before a duty to perform something promised arises. It was also explained in the case of Atolagbe v Awuni (1997) 9 NWLR (pt. 522) at 562, as a condition which delays the vesting of a right until the happening of an event. See also the case of AG Kwara State v Adeyemo (2017) 1 NWLR (pt. 1546) Pg 210 at 253-254.
In Ogun State, this requirement is reinforced by Section 22 of the Obas and Chiefs’ Law, 2021, which empowers the State Executive Council to approve or set aside chieftaincy appointments within twenty-one (21) days upon notification by an aggrieved party. Only after the completion of this process may recourse properly be made to the courts.
Nevertheless, the courts have cautioned against unduly restricting access to justice. In the case of Ibitiowotisi v Agbaje (2026) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2024) 115 (p. 151, paras. D-F), the court emphasized that the constitutional right of access to court must not be hindered without lawful justification. These principles seek to strike a balance between respecting established internal dispute resolution mechanisms and safeguarding the right to judicial intervention where necessary.
In the instant case, a dispute arose over the Olomodulawe chieftaincy title in Oke-Emo Quarters of Ilawe Ekiti. The 2nd to 4th appellants nominated the 1st appellant for the chieftaincy title, which the respondents opposed. Consequently, the respondents wrote letters of protest to the prescribed authority and other relevant parties. Despite these petitions, there was no response.
Notwithstanding the protests, the appointment of the 1st appellant was approved and he was subsequently installed as Chief by the Alawe of Ilawe Ekiti. After two years of inaction on their petitions, the respondents approached the trial court seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs.
The trial court struck out the suit for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the respondents had not exhausted the internal remedies provided under the applicable Chiefs Law. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the respondents had complied with the law and were entitled to approach the court. However, upon further appeal, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part.
Also, in the landmark case of Kassim v Adesemowo (2021) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1807) 67 at 71, regarding the succession of the vacant stool of the Orimolusi of Ijebu-Igbo town, the trial judge held that due process was followed in accordance with the Orimolusi of Ijebu-Igbo Registered Chieftaincy Declaration and the Obas and Chiefs’ Law of Ogun State, 2021.
3.1 IMPLICATIONS OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNAL REMEDIES
Practical experience in the handling of chieftaincy matters reveals that many disputes escalate into prolonged litigation due to the failure of parties and prescribed authorities to faithfully adhere to internal resolution mechanisms. Delays, administrative indifference, and procedural lapses often undermine the effectiveness of these statutory processes.
While the High Courts possess constitutional authority over chieftaincy disputes, that jurisdiction is designed to operate as a last resort rather than a first response.
The doctrine of exhaustion of internal remedies is therefore not a mere technical rule. It is a substantive safeguard aimed at preserving traditional institutions, preventing unnecessary litigation, and fostering communal peace. However, its effectiveness depends on the sincerity, efficiency, and promptness of the authorities entrusted with the resolution of such disputes. Where these bodies act with undue delay, bias, or disregard for petitions, they inadvertently compel aggrieved parties to seek judicial intervention.
3.2 DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN RESPECT OF MINOR CHIEFTAINCIES
Within the framework of exhaustion of internal remedies, the law places a distinct procedural obligation on parties involved in disputes relating to minor chieftaincies. Such disputes are not intended to be ventilated before the courts straight away but are to be resolved through prescribed traditional and administrative authorities subject to disparities in various jurisdictions.
Section 22(3) of the Chiefs’ Law of Oyo State, 2023 specifically provides that where a dispute arises as to whether a person has been appointed in accordance with customary law to a minor chieftaincy, the prescribed authority shall determine the matter. This statutory mechanism entrusts the initial resolution of minor chieftaincy disputes to traditional governance structures rather than judicial institutions.
Where a party is dissatisfied with the decision of the prescribed authority, this law further grants a right of administrative review. Such an aggrieved party may, within twenty-one (21) days of the decision, make representations to the Governor requesting that the decision be set aside.
The Third Schedule of the Subsidiary Legislation of the Oba and Chiefs’ Law of Ogun State, 2021, however derails from this provision by moving a step further. The schedule is in contrast to Section 22(3) of the Chiefs’ Law of Oyo State, 2023, which delegates the authority of the Governor to named prescribed authorities. As such, only after the exhaustion of internal remedies would judicial intervention be contemplated.
This procedure underscores the legislative intention to confine minor chieftaincy disputes primarily within internal customary and executive processes, with judicial intervention contemplated only after the exhaustion of these statutory remedies. In doing so, the law reinforces communal dispute resolution structures while preventing the premature invocation of court jurisdiction.
4.0 CONCLUSION
Chieftaincy institutions remain vital pillars of traditional governance in Nigeria, deeply interwoven with communal identity and social order. The legal framework governing chieftaincy disputes deliberately prioritises internal and customary dispute resolution mechanisms before recourse to the courts. This reflects a conscious effort to preserve traditional structures while reducing conflict escalation.
While the High Courts retain unlimited jurisdiction over chieftaincy matters, that power is conditioned by the doctrine of exhaustion of internal remedies. Courts are not intended to serve as the first arena of contest but as the final forum where statutory and customary processes have failed or been duly concluded.
For this framework to function effectively, prescribed authorities must act with diligence, impartiality and timeliness, while litigants and legal practitioners must strictly comply with laid down procedures. Where these responsibilities are faithfully discharged, chieftaincy disputes can be resolved more swiftly, harmoniously and with minimal judicial intervention.
Ultimately, a functional balance must be maintained between respect for traditional dispute resolution systems and the constitutional right of access to justice. When properly administered, internal remedies remain the most efficient path to preserving peace, legitimacy and stability within Nigeria’s traditional communities.
Thanks for reading.
Moruff Balogun & Co. [Reg. No: 3522294] – a litigation law firm based in Ijebu-Ode, Ogun State.
In this article