The Abolition of the Customary Court of Appeal in some States

in Nigeria: Issues and Prospects

HW Emmanuel J. Samaila, Esq.
Upper Customary Court, Kaduna State
Email: samailaemmanuelj@gmail.com

Abstract
This paper examines the issues surrounding the abolition of
the Customary Court of Appeal in some States in Nigeria. In
the discourse, the establishment, jurisdiction and factors
leading the abolition of the Court and the rationale for the
abolition are highlighted. The significance of the Court in the
preservation, protection and promotion of customary law and
the continuous development of customary jurisprudence are
also underscored. The paper ends with some
recommendations aimed at ensuring the continuous
existence of the Court in the States that have established it
and inspiring the States that are yet to establish it to initiate
or complete the process of establishing it.

Keywords: Customary Court of Appeal, abolition,

supervisory jurisdiction, customary law

Introduction

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

(hereafter referred to as “the Constitution”) provides for the
establishment of the Customary Court of Appeal (hereafter referred to
as “the CCA”) of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and of a State.1 The
Court is one of the superior courts of records in Nigeria.2 While several
States have already established the CCA,3 arrangement has been on

1
Section265(1) and 280(1)
2
ibid. Section 6(h)(i) of the Constitution
3
These States include: Kaduna, FCT, Rivers, Adamawa, Taraba, Ondo, Osun, Ekiti, Abia, Enugu, Imo,
Bayelsa, Nasarawa, Plateau, Delta, Ebonyi, Ondo, Benue, Cross River, Kogi, Imo, Ogun.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4226929

course for the establishment of the CCA in Akwa Ibom.4 Meanwhile,
there have been calls in Lagos5 and Kwara6 States for the establishment
of the CCA.7 However, it is noteworthy that Edo8 and Anambra9 States
have abolished their CCA. The abolition of the Court in those States is a
cause for concern to all stakeholders in the operation of the Customary
Courts system, in particular, and the administration of justice, in
general, in Nigeria.

The Establishment and Jurisdiction of the Customary Court of

Appeal

The CCA is a specialized court with a peculiar and restricted

jurisdiction.10 Sections 267 and 282 make provisions for the jurisdiction
of the CCA of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and of a State
respectively.

Section 267 provides:

The Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital

Territory, Abuja shall, in addition to such other jurisdiction as
may be conferred upon by an Act of The National Assembly

4
“Akwa Ibom State Judiciary” (Akwa Ibom)
<http://akwaibomstate.gov.ng/ebudget/031800100100DC.html> Accessed 22 August 2022
5
Adebisi Onanuga, “Wanted-Customary Court of Appeal for Lagos” The Nation (Lagos, 15 December
2015) <http://thenationonlineng.net/wanted-customary-courts-of-appeal-for-lagos> Accessed 22
August 2022; Maritha Ebolosue, “Lagos’ll soon get Customary Court of Appeal, says CJ” Punch
(Lagos, 29 July 2021) <http://www.punchng.com/lagosll-soon-get-customary-courts-of-appeal/>
Accessed 22 August 2022
6
“Elelu-Habeeb Wants Customary Court of Appeal in Kwara”
<http://www.ilorin.info/fullnews.php?id=2565> Accessed 22 August 2022
7
It is noteworthy that both Akwa Ibom and Lagos State have established Customary Courts. Appeals
from the Customary Courts in both States presently lie to their Magistrate Courts. See Section 41(1)
of the Customary Law Cap. 40, Vol.2, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2000 and Section 38(1) of the
Customary Law of Lagos State 2015 (as amended). It is opined that this arrangement will not
enhance the proper development of customary jurisprudence as having a CCA would.
8
Simon Ebegbulem & Gabriel Enogholase, “Edo Abolishes Customary Court of Appeal” Vanguard
(Lagos, 23 December 2015) <http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/12/edo-abolishes-customary-
court-of-appeal/> Accessed 22 August 2022
9
David-Chyddy Eleke, “As Anambra Prepares to Scrap the Customary Court of Appeal” ThisDay
(Lagos, 25 July 2016) <http://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2016//07/25/as-anambra-prepares-
to-scrap-the-customary-court-of-appeal/> Accessed 22 August 2022
10
Sections 267 and 282(1) of the Constitution

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4226929

 exercise such appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil
proceedings involving questions of customary law.

Section 282 (1) & (2) of the Constitution, which is in pari materia with
section 267 of the Constitution, provides for the jurisdiction of a
Customary Court of Appeal established by a State.11 The import of
section 282 was considered in the case of DANIEL ONWERE V CHIEF C.
NWAZUO & ORS (2012)12 - (quoted below in extenso). While considering
the jurisdiction of the High Court vis-à-vis the CCA, the Court held that:

With respect to the jurisdiction of a Customary Court of

Appeal, Section 282(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution
provides that: "282. (1) A Customary Court of Appeal of a
State shall exercise appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in
civil proceedings involving questions of customary law. (2)
For the purpose of this section, 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 prescribed." It would be seen here
that the constitution does not confer any original jurisdiction
on a Customary Court of Appeal established by a State. Sub-
section 1 of section 282(2) of the said constitution limits the
jurisdiction of a Customary Court of Appeal to appellate and
supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving
questions of customary law. Subsection 2 however gives the
House of Assembly of a State power to confer such
jurisdiction on the Customary Court of Appeal, in order to
enable the court to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on it by
Section 282(1) of the 1999 Constitution. It appears to me
therefore that the jurisdiction of a Customary Court of Appeal
is not specifically spelt out in the Constitution, but is left to

11
The section provides thus:
(1) A customary court of Appeal of a state shall exercise appellate and supervisory Jurisdiction in civil
proceedings involving questions of customary law.
(2) For the purpose of this section, 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.
12
LPELR-20838 (CA), Pp. 31-33, Paras. G-C

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4226929

 be prescribed in a law to be enacted by the House of
Assembly of a State.

Such law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State

cannot detract from, derogate from or in any way override
the general jurisdiction granted a Customary Court of Appeal
by section 282(1) of the Constitution (supra). In other words,
such law to be enacted by the House of Assembly shall be for
the purpose of enabling the Customary Court of Appeal
exercise its appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in matters
of civil proceedings involving customary law. Thus, the power
granted the State House of Assembly in Section 282(2) of the
1999 Constitution is limited to granting such jurisdiction that
is incidental to the restrictive jurisdiction granted a
Customary Court of Appeal in Section 282(1) of the
constitution (supra). It is not a power to grant such
jurisdiction that is wider in scope or to enlarge the limited
jurisdiction granted by section 282(1) of the Constitution. See
A.G; FEDERATION v. AG; OF IMO STATE & ORS (1982) 12
S.C. Pg.274."

The Rationale for the abolition of Customary Court of Appeal in

some States
In 2016, the plea by the Judges of the CCA for the transfer of their
services to the High Court set in motion the process for the abolition of
the CCA in Anambra State.13 This came a year after the abolition of the
CCA in Edo State.14 After the abolition of the Court, the Judges of the
Edo and Anambra States were subsequently sworn-in as Judges of the
High Court in 2016 and 2017 respectively.15 Both Courts were faced with
a dearth of cases on appeal.

13
See Note 9
14
Sebastian Ebhuoman, “Edo Abolishes Customary Court of Appeal” Premium Times (Abuja, 11
March 2016) <http://www.premiumtimesng.com/regional/south-south-regional/199988-edo-
abolishes-customary-court-of-appeal.html> Accessed 26 August 2022
15
See Notes 13 & 14

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4226929

It is noteworthy that the abolition of the CCA in Nasarawa State was
made with the approval of the National Judicial Council (NJC).16 One of
the factors taken into consideration by the NJC in making its
recommendation is the performance of the Judges of the Court based on
the Quarterly Return of cases disposed, which was found to be
consistently below average.17 A common denominator in the rationale
given for the abolition of the CCA is the dearth of cases on appeal and
the consequential underutilization of the Judges. It is noteworthy that
unlike the case in Edo and Anambra States, the CCA in Nasarawa State
has been reinstated with the appointment of a President and Judges for
the Court.18

The Question of Customary Law and the Restricted Jurisdiction

of the Customary Court of Appeal

The issue of the restricted nature of the jurisdiction of the CCA, which is
not within the purview of this paper, has been severally adjudicated
upon up to the apex Court.19 The concern revolves around the provision
that the CCA has civil jurisdiction over proceedings “involving questions
of customary law” only. Several authors, writers, commentators and
jurists have lamented that this narrow and restricted Constitutional
requirement is the primary factor stifling the growth of the CCA.20 This
16
Nasarawa State Government scraps Customary Court of Appeal.
<https://premiumtimesng.com/regional/north-central/247014-nasarawa-govt-scraps-customary-
court-appeal.html >
17
Hon. Justice Benedict Bakwaph Kanyip, “Performance of Judicial Officers in Nigeria: The Role of the
National Judicial Council (NJC)” A paper presented during a workshop for newly appointed Judicial
Officers at National Judicial Institute (NJI), Abuja
18
“Governor Sule Swears-In New Judges, Acting President Customary Court of Appeal
<https://www.channelstv.com/2021/01/11/governor-sule-swears-in-judges-acting-president-
ustomary-court-of-appeal/amp> Accessed 25 August 2022
19
See Ben Ikpang & Others v. Chief Sam Edoho (1978) 6-7 SC. 221; Bahang Golok v. Mamhok
Diyalpwan (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 139) P.411; Ahmadu Usman v. Sidi Umaru (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt 254)
p.377; Pam v. Gwom (2000) F.W.L.R. (Pt. 1) 1; Subor v. Asemakeme (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt. 502) 617;
Hirnor v. Yongo (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt.824) 77; Nwaigwe v. Okere (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt.1105) 445;
Ozoemena & Anor v Nwokoro & Anor (2018) LPELR 4446 (SC) Pp. 13-22, Paras. A-A.
20
Hon. Justice S. H. Makeri, “Jurisdictional Issues in the Application of Customary Law in Nigeria”
<https://edojudiciary.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Jurisdictional-Issues-In-The-Application-
Of-Customary-Law-In-Nigeria.pdf>; Hon. Justice Joseph Otabor Olubor, “Customary Court of Appeal
in Nigeria: Focus on the Jurisdiction” presented at the All Nigeria Judges’ Conference, 1995, held at
Kano, Nigeria. 2007 <https://edojudiciary.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Customary-Court-

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4226929

popular perspective of the issue necessitates a re-visitation of the
jurisdiction of the Customary Court of Appeal as provided for in sections
267 and 282 of the Constitution.

Does the Constitution actually grant a perpetually narrow jurisdiction to

the CCA? The answer to this question is found in sections 262 and 282
of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of the CCA as seen in the sections
can be summarized thus:
1. Appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving
questions of customary law.
2. Such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of
the National Assembly or as may be prescribed by a State’s House
of Assembly.

Apparently, the complaints about the restricted nature of the jurisdiction

of the CCA almost always overlook the provision which empowers the
Federal and State Legislatures to expand the jurisdiction of the Court.
The non-activation of that option within the limitation stated in the case
of DANIEL ONWERE V CHIEF C. NWAZUO & ORS (supra) is one of the
banes for the dearth of cases at the CCA.

It is noteworthy that in 2011, the National Assembly set the pace for
States by granting additional and original jurisdiction to the FCT CCA.
Pursuant to section 267 of the Constitution, the National Assembly
conferred original and exclusive jurisdiction on Chieftaincy Matters to the
FCT CCA. In 2011, the Federal Legislature enacted the Customary Court

Of-Appeal-In-Nigeria-Focus-On-The-Jurisdiction.pdf>; Dr. Nuleera Ambrose Duson & Sunny D. James,

“Stultification Of The Jurisdiction Of Customary Court Of Appeal In Nigeria: The Need To Jettison
Restrictive Judicial Interpretation Of Section 282(1) Of The 1999 Constitution Of Federal Republic Of
Nigeria (As Amended)”
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350007617_t_Of_The_Jurisdiction_Of_Customary_Cou
rt_Of_Appeal_In_Nigeria_The_Need_To_Jettison_Restrictive_Judicial_Interpretation_Of_Section_28
21_Of_The_1999_Constitution_Of_The_Federal_Republic_Of_Nige> Accessed 25 August 2022; Mr.
Emmanuel Esiaba, “Appeals from the Customary Courts to the Customary Courts of Appeal: Issues
and Challenges” A paper presented at the the Induction Course for Newly Appointed Magistrates
and Other Judges of the Lower Courts at the National Judicial Institute, Abuja, 30th May-3rd June,
2022 ; O.K. Edu, “The Relevance or Otherwise of Customary Courts of Appeal in Nigerian Legal
System” <https://journals.co.za/doi/10.10520/AJA15955753_59

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4226929

of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (Jurisdiction on
Chieftaincy Matters) Act 2011.21 Section 1 of the Act provides thus:
1. Subject to section 267 of the Constitution, the Customary
Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, shall-

(a) exercise appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in

proceedings where the subject matter of the claim is on, or
relates to customary law; and

(b) have exclusive original jurisdiction in the Federal Capital

Territory, Abuja to hear and determine dispute on or relating
to Chieftaincy matters.

It is noticeable that section 1(a) of the Act significantly modifies the

provision of section 267 of the Constitution. It replaces the restrictive
phraseology “questions of customary law” with a liberal expression:
“where the subject matter of the claim is on, or relates to customary
law”. This puts to rest the notorious issue of a ground of appeal being
incompetent at the FCT Customary Court of Appeal for not raising or not
being connected to a question of customary law.

Furthermore, section 1(b) of the Act contains the conferment of the

additional and original jurisdiction on chieftaincy matters on the FCT
Customary Court of Appeal. This is the first and so far, the only known
instant in the nation’s judiciary that the jurisdiction of a CCA was
expanded pursuant to section 267(2) of the Constitution which is in pari
materia with section 282(2). Ordinarily, one would have thought that
original jurisdiction over chieftaincy matters, which are so connected
with customs, would have been exclusively been conferred on the CCA
being a subject matter suitable for its specialized nature.

It is noteworthy that any increase in the jurisdiction of a court by law

must be in connection to its original jurisdiction as constitutionally
conferred. Otherwise, the law will be found to be ultra vires, null and
void to the extent of its inconsistency. In the case of Proforte Limited v.
21
The long title of the Act reads: “An Act to confer exclusive original jurisdiction in the Federal
Capital Territory, Abuja, on Chieftaincy Matters on the Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal
Capital Territory, Abuja; and for related matters.”

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4226929

President, CCA, Abuja & 8 Ors22, the Plaintiff challenged the jurisdiction
of the Customary Court, Mpape, Abuja over what it argued was a purely
commercial transaction without any flavour of customary law. The trial
Court’s basis for assuming jurisdiction over the matter were the
provisions of sections 1, 14 and the Schedule of the FCT Customary
Court Act, 2007. Items 3 and 5 of the Schedule to the Act empowered
the Customary Court to exercise an unlimited civil jurisdiction without
restricting it to questions of customary law. In the suit commenced by
an Originating Summons, the FCT High Court, per Ogakwu, J (as he
then was) held thus:

1. Items 3 and 5 of the Federal Capital Territory Customary

Court Act No. 8 of 2007 which confers unlimited
jurisdiction on the Customary Court in respect of civil
causes and matters that are not related to customary law
is (sic) null and void for being inconsistent with the
provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1999.
2. It is declared that the Federal Capital Territory Customary
Court cannot adjudicate on any subject matter not
involving the interpretation or questions of customary law.

3. It is declared that the Federal Capital Territory Customary

Court lacks the competence to enforce commercial
contracts which do not involve questions of customary
law.
4. It is declared that the Customary Court, Mpape, Abuja was
not seised of jurisdiction to entertain the cause of action
between the Plaintiff and the 8th and 9th Defendants.

There is no known record of this decision being challenged on appeal.

The Way Forward for States’ Customary Court of Appeal

In view of the foregoing, the following recommendations are made for

consideration by States’ CCA towards ensuring the perpetuity of the
Court. It is unarguable that the continuous existence of the CCA in a
22
FCT/HC/CV/1078/2010 (unreported), delivered on The 17th Day of March, 2011

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4226929

State will further enhance the development of its customary
jurisprudence.

Firstly, the States that have established the CCA should take steps
towards seeking an amendment to section 282(1) of the Constitution for
the substitution of the constricted phrase “civil proceedings involving
questions of customary law” with a liberal phrase: “civil proceedings
where the subject matter of the claim is on, or relates to customary
law.” If the 8th Assembly Bill23 containing submissions from the Judiciary,
among which was a proposed amendment to sections 267 and 282(1) of
the Constitution was assented to, the restricted jurisdiction of the CCA
would have been liberalized to accommodate other issues associated
with adjudication in the Court. The CCA would have been able to
entertain all issues on appeal from the decisions of the Customary
Courts in their civil proceedings. It is hoped that the Bill will be
reintroduced to the Federal Legislature and made law someday.

Secondly, States’ CCA should take steps to have their jurisdiction

expanded by their Legislatures. This will be pursuant to Section 282(2)
of the Constitution as the National Assembly did for the FCT CCA
pursuant to section 267 of the Constitution and granted it original and
exclusive jurisdiction over chieftaincy matters. The Customary Court of
Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (Jurisdiction on Chieftaincy
Matters) Act 2011 repealed section 12 of the Chiefs (Appointment and
Deposition) (Federal Capital Territory) Act 1997. Such an expanded
jurisdiction will potentially boost the caseloads of States’ CCA and also
enable a more specialized adjudication over chieftaincy disputes.

Thirdly, the Courts should consider seeking the amendment of their

Customary Courts establishment laws to enhance their adjudication in
civil matters from which appeals lie to the CCA. They should ensure that
the type of civil causes to be adjudicated upon by the Customary Courts
are derived from or connected to customary law. As a way of ensuring
that adequate cases get to the Kaduna State CCA on appeal, the
Customary Courts Law 2001 was amended in 2011. Section 53 of the
principal law was amended to allow all appeals from the Customary
23
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Fourth Alteration) Bill, No. 20, 2017.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4226929

Court and Upper Customary Courts lie to the CCA.24 Both Courts were
presided over in the majority by legal practitioners. Prior to 2011, the
Upper Customary Courts hears appeals from the Customary Courts and
appeals from its decisions lie to the CCA.

In addition to the amendment of the Customary Courts law in Kaduna

State, infrastructural development was a hallmark of the CCA
Management. New Courts were also built to further improve access to
justice by disputants. Each Customary Court and Upper Customary Court
Judge has his own courtroom with sufficient supporting staff. Coupled
with the Management’s enhanced concern for staffs’ welfare, the
gestures boosted the morale of the staffs leading to more commitment
and dedication to the discharge of their duties. As expected, the
resultant effect is an increase in the influx of cases to the Courts,
thereby creating a pool of cases that could go on appeal to the CCA.

Fourthly, the CCA should seek an amendment to section 282(2) of the

Constitution to empower them to interpret statutes which are relevant to
and have direct bearings to customary matters and adjudication in the
Customary Courts. In the case of Ohai v Akpoemonye,25 the apex Court
held that the interpretation of statutes is not within the jurisdiction of
the CCA. An amendment allowing the CCA to interpret question
connected to customary law and customary adjudication will further aid
aggrieved litigants’ quest to have all their grounds of appeal considered
and resolved by the CCA without recourse to the High Court for the
resolution of issues raised by the interpretation and application of
statutes during adjudication in the trial Customary Court or questions
bordering on the interpretation of statutes in an appeal before the CCA.

Fifthly, each Judge of the CCA should write his own opinion in each of
the case he sits in, either concurring with or dissenting from the leading
judgment. The Judges’ different perspectives, drawn from the fountains
of their individual knowledge and peculiar experiences, expressed in
their individual resolution of the issues for determination, will further

24
Section 4 Customary Courts (Amendment) Law, 2011. Law No.2 of 2011
25
(1999) 1 NWLR (Pt.588) 521

10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4226929

deepen customary jurisprudence. In addition, such practice will
immensely reduce the underutilization of their potentials.

Lastly, the Customary Court of Appeal should ensure that provision is

made in its laws to give more effect to its supervisory jurisdiction. In
Kaduna State, certain applications such as the prerogative writ of
certiorari against decisions of Customary Courts in civil cases are being
filed at and heard by the High Court. Counsel usually file such
application at the High Court only on the erroneous belief that the CCA
lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it. The dictum of Tsammani, JCA in the
case of DANIEL ONWERE V. CHIEF C. NWAZUO & ORS (2012) (supra)26
- (quoted below in extenso) is apt and instructive on this issue. His
Lordship held thus:
"It is trite law that prerogative writs are applied by a superior
court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction over
inferior or subordinate courts. Thus, in the case of
UWAZURUONYE v. GOV; IMO STATE (2005) 1 NWLR (Pt.
906) Pg. 19, it was held by Adeniyi; JCA at page 32 Paras. F-
H as follows: "On a close examination of the above provision,
it can be seen that the Customary Court of Appeal is vested
with both appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil
matters involving questions of customary law, In other
words, it can hear the regular appeals and also handle
supervisory matters that are matters which do not necessarily
come to it by way of normal appeals. Such matters subject to
higher courts supervision normally include application for the
writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and habeas corpus,
etc, which are classified as prerogative writs. ... By granting
supervisory jurisdiction to a Customary Court of Appeal, it
therefore means that, Section 282(1) empowers a Customary
Court of Appeal to entertain matters of prerogative writ, such
as certiorari, mandamus, habeas corpus and prohibition,
where the application of such writ are involved in respect of
matters involving customary law. Section 79 of the Edict
(Law) No. 6 of 1989, which is an existing law is deemed to
26
Pp. 34-36, Paras. B-A

11

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4226929

 have been enacted by the Abia State House of Assembly by
virtue of Section 315(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution. It is also
deemed to have been made by the Abia State House of
Assembly pursuant to section 282(2) of the 1999
Constitution. By the said Section 79 of the customary courts
(amendment) Edict No. 6 of 1989, the Abia State legislature
is deemed to have conferred original jurisdiction on the
Customary Court of Appeal in matters in which prerogative
writ is sought against a customary court. Adeniyi; JCA
captured the situation in UWAZURUONYE v. GOV; IMO
STATE (supra) at page 33 Paras. E - G as follows: "... It is
true that Section 247(1) did not contain the words "original
jurisdiction" as now incorporated in the Edict as amended.
Neither did the said Section 247 make mention of the words
"prerogative writ." To my mind, the purport and intent of the
law makers are clearly discernible in Sub-Section 2 of Section
247 of 1979 Constitution. The words used in Sub-Section 1
include the word "supervisory" which Black's Law Dictionary
had defined as quoted supra. Sub-Section 2 of the Section
247 of 1979 Constitution also prescribed how the Customary
Court (sic) could validly acquire the powers to exercise such
function through legislation by the State House of Assembly."

In the Kaduna State, section 52 of the Customary Court of Appeal Law

2001 (as amended) provides for the supervisory powers of the Court
pursuant to the 1999 Constitution (as amended).27 The section, which
has the same intent and purpose as Section 79 of the Abia State
Customary Court Law28 provides thus:

The Customary Court of Appeal shall have all the jurisdiction

of the High Court of Justice in Law to make an order of
mandamus requiring any act to be done, or an order of
prohibition prohibiting the proceedings in any cause or
matter, or an order of certiorari removing any proceedings in
any cause or matter and transferring the same from a
27
section 282 (1)
28
As amended by Law No. 6 of 1989

12

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4226929

 Customary Court to the Customary Court of Appeal for
determination.

Remarkably, in the case of CCA/KAD/KAF/MI/2019: Jeremiah Dutse &

Ors v James Turba & Anor,29 allusion was made to a ruling by the High
Court in of Justice Kaduna State, Kafanchan Division in Motion No.
KDH/KAF/107/2018 between the same parties. The Court reportedly
hinged its decision on Section 282 of the 1999 Constitution to decline
the jurisdiction to hear an application for certiorari and directed the
applicant to approach the CCA. This is a commendable decision as it will
ensure that the cases which ought to be heard by the CCA Kaduna will
be filed at the CCA.

The hearing and determination of cases in the exercise of the

supervisory jurisdiction of the CCA will further boost the docket of the
Court and significantly improve the return of cases. In addition,
aggrieved litigants will have the opportunity of having their cases
determined once for all and timeously, too, by the CCA rather than
roving between the High Court (for prerogative writs) and the CCA (for
appeals) over one decision of a Customary Court in a civil suit. This
practice will further improve access to justice and immensely reduce
litigants’ expenses in their quest for justice.

Conclusion

Every Court established by the Constitution is intended to meet a

particular need in the justice system and also ensure a speedy
dispensation of justice. The CCA is not an exception. The continuous
existence of the Court will further guaranty the preservation, protection
and development of customary law which governs the lives of about
80% of Nigerians.30 The potency and efficacy of customary law in the
maintenance of social order was noted even by the colonialists who
respected, utilized and ensure its preservation. It is indisputable that the

29 st
(Unreported) delivered on 21 January, 2020
30
Hon. Justice Joseph Otabor Olubor, “Customary Laws, Practice and Procedure in the
Area/Customary Court, and the Customary Court of Appeal” <https://edojudiciary.gov.ng/wp-
content/uploads/2016/10/Customary-Laws-Practice-And-Procedure-In-The-Area-Customary-Court-
And-The-Customary-Court-Of-Appeal.pdf>

13

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4226929

continuous presence of the CCA will enhance access to justice by
litigants who are aggrieved with the decision of a Customary Court.
Besides, the potential of the Court to smoothen the administration of
civil justice cannot be overemphasized as cases on appeal will be more
timeously determined rather than being stacked alongside the numerous
cases entertained by the High Court in its original and appellate
jurisdictions.

14

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4226929