Nasiru Yusuf Ibrahim

The Court of Appeal in Kano has set aside the June 20 order by Justice Abubakar Liman of the Federal High Court, Kano, nullifying the steps/actions taken by the Kano State Government pursuant to the Kano State Emirate Council (Repeal) Law 2024, including the appointment of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi as the 16th Emir of Kano.

KANO FOCUS reports that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, Kano, which sat in Abuja, held that the order nullifying the steps taken by the Kano State Government pursuant to the 2024 Emirates Council Law was made by Justice Liman without jurisdiction.

The appellate court found that the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by an aggrieved king maker – Alhaji Aminu Babba Dan Agundi – on which basis Justice Liman issued the June 20 order, was not only invalid, the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear it

The judgment was on an appeal by the Kano State House of Assembly and it’s Speaker marked: CA/KN/140/2024 against Agundi and others.

The appeal was against the the June 20 ruling by Justice Liman, nullifying every step taken by the state government and other respondents pursuant to the new law.

The Kano State House of Assembly enacted the Kano State Emirate Council (Repeal) Law 2024 on May 23 last year, which the state governor assented to on the same date. The law repealed the Kano State Emirates Council Law (2019).

Pursuant to the new law, the Kano State Government among others, sacked Aminu Ado Bayero as Kano Emir, reinstated Sanusi as Emir and reversed the creation of five new Emirates by the preceding administration of Umar Ganduje.

Aggrieved by the law, Agundi filed his fundamental rights enforcement suit on th same May 23, 2024, following which Justice Liman issued an order, directing parties to maintain status quo pending the determination of the suit ante the passage of the new Emirates Council law.

In his June 20 ruling, Justice Liman voided all the steps taken by the Kano State Government pursuant to the 2024 Emirate Council Law on the grounds that they were taken in violation of his earlier order made on May 23, 2024 directing parties, in Agundi’s fundamental rights suit, to maintain status quo ante.

In the lead judgment of the Court of Appeal, Justice Gabriel Kolawole, held the foundation upon which Justice Liman based

the June 20 annulment order was based on the wrong assumption that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to hear the substantive suit, which it actually did not have.

Justice Kolawole noted that matters concerning the validity of state laws and the regulation of traditional/chieftaincy institutions, which Agundi’s case was all about, do not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, rather they fall squarely within the jurisdiction of state High Court.

He added: “Having held that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction, it necessary follows that any order made by the trial court including the annulment of the steps and actions taken by the appellants and others on grounds of disobedience of the order of the lower court has become null and void.

“A court that lacks the jurisdiction to entertain a substantive matter also lacks the competence to make any order or grant any relief in respect of that matter.

“The annulment order made by the trial court, which is the subject of this appeal, is not sustainable because the said order was made by a court that lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the substantive suit.

“In view of the above, the order made by the Federal High Court, Kano judicial division by Justice A. M. Liman (now JCA) in suit number: FHC/KN/182/2024, which order was handed down on the 20th of June 2024 nullifying all step’s and actions taken by the appellants and others in pursuant of the Kano State Emirates Council (Repeal) Law 2024 is hereby nullified and accordingly, set aside,” Justice Kolawole said.

Justices Mohammed Mustapha and Abdu Dogo, who were also on the panel agreed with Justice Kolawole’s findings and some orders made, but disagreed with him on his order that the suit by Agundi, marked: FHC/KN/182/2024 be remitted back to the Chief Judge of the HIgh Court of Kano State to be heard on its merit.

Justices Mustapha and Dogo were of the view that remitting the case to the High Court of Kano for hearing was a waste of judicial time because the case itself was not initiated by due process of law in that it did not relates to any fundamental rights guaranteed under Chapter 4 of the Constitution or the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.

In an earlier judgment, Justice Kolawole faulted the June 13 ruling by Justice Liman in which he (Liman) held that his court has the jurisdiction to hear the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Agundi.

The appeal, marked: CA/KN/126/2924 was also filed by the Kano House of Assembly and the Speaker against the June 13, 2024 ruling by Justice Liman, assuming jurisdiction over Agundi’s suit.

Justice Kolawole noted that the reason given by the trial court to assume jurisdiction was fundamentally flawed.

He found that the claims brought before the trial court relate to chieftaincy issue and not the interpretation of the Kano Emirate laws, issues fall within the jurisdictional competence of the High Court of Kano State.

The judge said the Federal High Court could only examine the legitimacy of any law enacted by a State House of Assembly on grounds of constitutional inconsistency, that it is not consistent with the Constitution, which is the grund norm.

Justice Kolawole awarded a cost of N500,000 in favour of the appellants and against Agundi.

Justices Mustapha and Dogo agreed with the lead judgment, but also disagreed with Justice Kolawole’s order that the suit by Agundi, marked: FHC/KN/182/2024 be remitted back to the Chief Judge of the HIgh Court of Kano State to be heard on its merit.

They instead, issued an order striking out the suit.

In the judgment on the appeals by Aminu Ado Bayero, marked: CA/KN/200/2024 and CA/KN/200A/2024, the Court of Appeal found that the High Court of Kano State denied Bayero fair hearing in its hearing and determination of a case filed by the state government to enforce the new law.

In the lead judgment, Justice Mustapha held that the trial court did not only fail to issue hearing notice to the appellant (Bayero) after the withdrawal of his lawyer, it proceeded to strike out the court documents files by the appellant “on the nebulous grounds that they had been abandoned.

He proceeded to hold that the proceedings conducted on July 4, 2024 by Justice Amina Adamu Aliyu of the High Court of Kano State and the judgment delivered of the July 15 are a nullity for having breached the appellant’s right to fair hearing.

Justice Mustapha ordered that the case in respect of which the appeals were filed should be remitted back to the Chief Judge of the High Court of Kano State to be heard by another judge.