The Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled that a condition precedent to filing a lawsuit, such as paying a mandatory security for costs, does not violate a plaintiff’s constitutional right of access to court. Failure to comply with such requirements can bar a case from proceeding.

Dispute over a traditional ruler’s appointment

The case involved the selection of a new Alara of Aramoko, a traditional ruler in Ekiti State, after the death of Oba Oluwole Amele. The Arakele/Arosoye Ruling House, next in line to produce the ruler, submitted 12 candidates to the kingmakers. After several unsuccessful attempts to reach a decision, the kingmakers elected Prince Adegoke Adeyemi by a vote of 7 to 6 on August 10, 2009.

The selection was forwarded to the Ekiti State Government on August 19, 2009, which approved the appointment and issued an Instrument of Appointment dated August 20, 2009. On August 24, 2009, Prince Olusegun Aderemi filed a lawsuit challenging the kingmakers’ decision and seeking to nullify their selection.

The respondents, including the newly appointed ruler and the state’s attorney-general, raised objections. A key argument was that Aderemi had not paid the N25,000 security for costs required under the Chiefs Law of Ekiti State before filing. The trial court struck out the case for lack of jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Related: Double Trouble: How Back-to-Back Hurricanes Affect Florida Claims

Interpretation of the appointment process

Aderemi argued his lawsuit targeted only the election process, not the final appointment, and thus exempted him from the security requirement. He cited past rulings, including Nkuma v Odili and Uzoukwu v Ezeonu II, to support his claim that the payment was a procedural formality. He also invoked constitutional provisions guaranteeing access to courts, contending they should override state laws.

The respondents countered that the kingmakers’ vote culminated in the appointment of the king, with the state’s approval constituting the final stage. They relied on the Chiefs Law of Ekiti State, particularly Sections 8, 10, and 11, to argue that the kingmakers’ role was integral to the appointment process. Since Aderemi’s suit challenged the appointment, they contended he was bound by the law’s security requirement.

The Supreme Court agreed with the respondents. The court held that the kingmakers’ exercise of their duties under the Chiefs Law necessarily led to the appointment of the king, and the state’s approval was the concluding step. The justices found that the law’s provisions were clear in describing the kingmakers’ role as part of the appointment process.

The interpretation aligned with the law’s long title, which helped clarify its intent. The justices rejected Aderemi’s argument that the security requirement was a minor procedural hurdle. Instead, they held it was a legal prerequisite that must be met before a court can hear a case. Failure to comply rendered the suit incompetent.

Related: Where to Find the Perfect Ethical Engagement Ring: A Retailer’s Guide

The court acknowledged that access to justice is a fundamental right but noted that states may set procedural rules for courts, provided those rules do not block litigants from filing claims. The security requirement, the justices said, was such a regulation—one that delayed but did not deny the right to sue.

The ruling shows that procedural requirements, like security deposits, can stop a case before it starts. Missing a single step can mean losing the chance to be heard.

The court also dismissed Aderemi’s argument that the trial court should have allowed him to pay the security later. Citing precedents like Biyu v Ibrahim and Idris v ANPP, the justices ruled that once a condition precedent is violated, the proper remedy is to strike out the suit.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions. The ruling confirms that courts cannot hear cases where litigants fail to meet mandatory prerequisites, even if those prerequisites appear minor. For Aderemi, the consequence was final: his challenge to the Alara’s appointment was dismissed.