Introduction
On 16.05.2025, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in an appeal by Chief Solomon Owoniyi. The dispute concerned the Obaro of Kabba stool.
The High Court of Kogi State had dismissed the suit as statute-barred. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Ogunwumiju, J.S.C. then delivered a unanimous judgment dismissing the appeal and confirming that the action was not statute-barred.
One concurring opinion drew particular attention. Abiru, J.S.C. rebuked the trial court in unusually direct terms, describing its conduct as judicial rascality.
Factual matrix
The 1st to 4th Respondents sued on 17.09.2018 at the High Court of Kogi State. They challenged the appointment, approval and recognition of the Appellant as the Obaro of Kabba.
The 5th Respondent had approved that appointment by a letter dated 19.07.2018. The approval rested on the Obaro of Kabba (Filling of Chieftaincy Vacancy, Declaration of Indigenes of Kabba/Owe Land, Guidelines for the Rotation of Ololu Titles and Other Miscellaneous Provisions) Edict No. 12 of Kogi State, 1995.
The Appellant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on two grounds. First, he argued the suit was premature because the Claimants had not exhausted domestic remedies under section 6(1) of the Chiefs (Appointment, Deposition and Establishment of Traditional Councils) Law of Kogi State, 2006. Second, he argued the action was statute-barred under section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Law and section 18 of the Limitation Law, both as applicable in Kogi State.
The Claimants answered that the Edict lay in abeyance. On their case, it mattered only once the 5th Respondent began the steps leading to the appointment. Nothing therefore estopped them from challenging it.
The trial court upheld the second ground and dismissed the suit. It held that the cause of action arose in 1995, when the Edict was promulgated, rather than in 2018.
The Respondents appealed and the Appellant cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, held the action was not statute-barred, and dismissed the cross-appeal. The Appellant then went to the Supreme Court.
Issues for determination
The Court considered three questions.
- Whether the lower court was wrong to hold that the suit was not statute-barred.
- Whether the Respondents complied with section 6(1) of the Chiefs Law before filing.
- Whether the Respondents had the locus standi to bring the action.
This review focuses on the first question.
The judgment of the Supreme Court
The Court held that the cause of action crystallised in 2018. That is when the 5th Respondent appointed the Appellant under the Edict.
The reasoning turns on when a law bites. The Edict dates from 1995, yet it lay dormant. It became relevant only in 2018, once the stool fell vacant and someone invoked the Edict to fill it. At that moment the Respondents suffered a definite injury, and a complete cause of action arose.
The Court restated the settled principle. Time under a limitation statute starts to run only when a cause of action arises. Relying on Esuwoye v. Bosere & Ors. [2017] 1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 256, it confirmed that a chieftaincy law or declaration creates no actionable wrong until someone invokes it to fill a vacancy affecting the claimant’s rights.
The trial court had therefore erred. Its view that time ran from 1995 contradicted binding authority it was obliged to follow. The appointment came on 19.07.2018 and the suit followed on 17.09.2018, roughly two months later. The action was not statute-barred.
A concurring opinion on judicial rascality
Abiru, J.S.C. went further. He criticised both the trial judge and counsel for the appellant for disregarding binding precedent.
In his view, the whole limitation controversy was avoidable. It would not have arisen had the judge and counsel read, understood, or dealt honestly with Ikine v. Edjerode [2001] 18 NWLR (Pt. 745) 446 and Esuwoye v. Bosere & Ors.
Esuwoye turned on facts materially identical to this case. There the Court held that a cause of action in a chieftaincy matter accrues only when the relevant declaration is invoked to fill a vacancy. Counsel cited both authorities to the trial court, which ignored and discountenanced them for what His Lordship called very flimsy reasons.
He described this as a clear case of judicial impertinence and judicial rascality. The failure, likely abetted by counsel’s selfish and self-centred reasons, wasted seven years of judicial time on a point long settled.
His Lordship then restated the rule. Decisions of the Supreme Court bind every court, including the Supreme Court itself. He warned that similar intransigence may attract sanctions in future, dismissed the appeal as wholly devoid of merit, and affirmed the Court of Appeal.
Commentary on the decision
The decision reaffirms the Court’s commitment to judicial precedent as a pillar of the justice system. Fidelity to precedent keeps decisions predictable and coherent, which sustains public confidence in the rule of law. By censuring the trial court, the Supreme Court of Nigeria made clear that the judicial hierarchy binds rather than advises.
The reasoning rests on firm ground. Esuwoye already held that a cause of action accrues when the Edict is invoked, not when it is made. That position sits consistently with Ikine v. Edjerode, and it bound the trial court.
The judgment also echoes Oni v. Governor, Ekiti State [2019] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1664) 1 and Dahiru v. A.P.C. [2017] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1555) 218. Both confirm that stare decisis allows no discretion. Certainty and consistency are the essence of precedent, and a deliberate departure erodes the judiciary’s credibility.
One element goes beyond admonition. The warning signals that persistent defiance by a trial court or by counsel may attract disciplinary sanction. Read that way, the judgment serves as both a reaffirmation of judicial discipline and a caution against judicial rascality on the bench and at the bar.
Our Disputes 2025 Wrap-Up and 2026 Outlook reviews the other decisions that shaped the year.
To discuss how this decision affects a matter you are running, please contact our disputes team.