- Kure vs. K.S.L.G.S.C.
- ₦ 200
Kure vs. K.S.L.G.S.C.
PETER BABALE KURE
THE KADUNA STATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMISSION & 3 ORS.
COURT OF APPEAL
( KADUNA DIVISION )
ISA AYO SALAMI, JCA (
MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JCA
VICTOR A. OYELEYE OMAGE, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
22ND MAY, 2003
EVIDENCE - Assertion by a party - Duty on party to prove - Section 135
STATUTE - Interpretation of statutes - Where clear and unambiguous How
STATUTE - Interpretation of statutes - â€˜Subject to approvalâ€™ where
contained in a statute - How interpreted
STATUTE - Interpretation of statutes - â€˜Subject toâ€™ - When used in a
statute - How construed
STATUTE - Section 8m of the Kaduna State Local Government Emirate and
Traditional Council Amendment Instrument 1983/84 - Import of
WORDS AND PHRASES - â€˜Approvalâ€™ within the context of the Kaduna State
Local Government Emirate and Traditional Amendment Instrument 1983/84 - meaning
AND PHRASES - Subject to - Meaning of
Whether the High Court was right
in holding that the 1st respondent and not the 3rd respondent has the power of
appointing a district head under section 8m of the Local Government Emirate and
Traditional Council Instrument of 1983 and that the 1st respondent can approve
a candidate not being the candidate appointed.
plaintiff/appellant sued the defendants/respondents at the High Court of Kaduna
State for a declaration that having been selected and/or recommended as the
district head of his local government by those entitled to select and/or
approve him, he is entitled to be approved by the 1st defendant and turbanned
and installed by the 2nd defendant as the district head.
According to the
appellant, an election took place between him and the 4th defendant for the
district headship in the presence of the members of the traditional council and
the Assistant D.P.O and S.S.S in which 8 village heads were present. Plaintiff alleged
that he won the election and was declared elected as a result of which his name
was forwarded to the Kpom Ham, who also recommended him for appointment to the
1st dependant for approval. Instead of appointing the plaintiff, the 1st
defendant appointed the 4th defendant as the district head.
At the end of the trial, the learned trial
Judge dismissed the plaintiffâ€™s case. Dissatisfied with the judgment, plaintiff
appealed to the Court of Appeal