BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Kure vs. K.S.L.G.S.C.
  • 173
  • 2003-09-22
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Kure vs. K.S.L.G.S.C.

PETER BABALE KURE

V

THE KADUNA STATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMISSION & 3 ORS.

COURT OF APPEAL

( KADUNA DIVISION )

ISA AYO SALAMI, JCA ( Presided )

MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JCA

VICTOR A. OYELEYE OMAGE, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )

CA/K/246/96

WEDNESDAY, 22ND MAY, 2003

EVIDENCE - Assertion by a party - Duty on party to prove - Section 135 Evidence Act

STATUTE - Interpretation of statutes - Where clear and unambiguous How interpreted

STATUTE - Interpretation of statutes - ‘Subject to approval’ where contained in a statute - How interpreted

STATUTE - Interpretation of statutes - ‘Subject to’ - 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 - ‘Approval’ within the context of the Kaduna State Local Government Emirate and Traditional Amendment Instrument 1983/84 - meaning of

WORDS AND PHRASES - Subject to - Meaning of

Issue:

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.

Facts:

The 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 plaintiff’s case. Dissatisfied with the judgment, plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal