Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1992

Principle(s): Where an act gives rise to either a civil or criminal action, then it is for the complainant to decide whether to institute his action in a civil court or proceed against him in a criminal court. If he decides to institute a civil action then in a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy only the chieftaincy tribunal can entertain it. So the High Court and Circuit Courts will not have jurisdiction if the complainant decides to institute civil proceedings.

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1995

Principle(s): Provisions in these two sections (section 57 of Act 459 and section 15(1) of Act 370) definitely oust the Jurisdiction of the High Court and the Court of Appeal in any action where the cause or matter affects chieftaincy as defined in section 117(1) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459,) and in section 66 of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370)

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1980

Principle(s): The High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. The High Court still has supervisory jurisdiction and can issue prerogative writs aimed at correcting some mischief in an inferior court or tribunal (say, if a lower court wrongly assumes jurisdiction to decide a chieftaincy matter, the High Court can quash that decision) in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1997-1998

Principle(s): 1. The head of a market association and other such groupings, despite being called chief, is not a chief within the constitutional and statutory definition of a chief. 2. A cause or matter affecting chieftaincy is not limited to only issues on the nomination, installation, enskinment, or enstoolment of a chief but extends to the constitutional relations under customary law between chiefs. 3. When there is a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy in an action, the High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain such an action.