A lawyer, Muhammed Adam, who is popularly known as Foundational Nupe Lawyer on social media, has provided a detailed analysis of the conflicting court orders issued by the Federal High Court and the State High Court.
According to the lawyer, both the Federal High Court and the State High Court are courts of coordinate jurisdiction, meaning they hold the same level of authority and neither is superior to the other.
He said in situations where conflicting orders arose from such courts, both orders would remain valid until a superior court, such as the Court of Appeal, set one aside.
According to him, the crux of the matter lies in the jurisdiction over chieftaincy disputes.
He said, “The order issued by the Federal High Court is most likely to be set aside due to the lack of jurisdiction.
“Chieftaincy disputes fall within the jurisdiction of State High Courts, even when allegations of breaches of fundamental rights are involved.
“The Federal High Court, therefore, does not have the authority to adjudicate or issue orders in such matters.”
The lawyer cited the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Tukur v. Governor of Gongola State to buttress his point.
“In that case, a similar situation occurred where a fundamental right action related to chieftaincy was initiated in the Federal High Court.
“Both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal initially assumed jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court ultimately set aside their decisions, ruling that the Federal High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction,” he said.
The lawyer further explained that when a court lacks jurisdiction over the main case, it cannot assume jurisdiction to make any interim or interlocutory orders.
