Nigeria Supreme Court: Condition Precedent Jurisdiction Requires Security for Costs

• Prince Olusegun Aderemi challenged the selection of Prince Adegoke Adeyemi as Alara of Aramoko, Ekiti State, in 2009.
• The trial court and Court of Appeal struck out Aderemi's suit for failing to pay a mandatory N25,000 security for costs, deeming it a jurisdictional defect.
• Aderemi appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the security for costs was a mere procedural irregularity and that constitutional provisions on access to justice supersede the Ekiti State Chiefs Law.
• The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on December 12, 2025, dismissing Prince Aderemi's appeal and upholding the enthronement of the late Oba Adegoke Olu-Adeyemi, affirming that failure to satisfy a mandatory condition precedent warrants striking out the action.

This case provides crucial guidance on the interplay between statutory conditions precedent for instituting an action and the constitutional right to access justice in Nigeria.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria recently considered a significant appeal concerning the jurisdictional implications of failing to meet statutory conditions precedent for instituting legal action. The case, involving Prince Olusegun Aderemi as the appellant against Prince Adegoke Adeyemi and others, originated from a chieftaincy dispute in Ekiti State following the demise of Oba Oluwole Amele, the Alara of Aramoko.

After Oba Amele's death, the Arakele/Arosoye Ruling House, next in line for the traditional stool, presented a list of twelve candidates to the kingmakers. Following a closely contested vote of seven to six, Prince Adegoke Adeyemi was elected by the kingmakers on August 10, 2009. This selection was subsequently forwarded to the Ekiti State Government on August 19, 2009, which then approved the appointment and issued an Instrument of Appointment dated August 20, 2009.

Just four days after the official appointment, on August 24, 2009, Prince Olusegun Aderemi initiated legal proceedings at the trial court. His suit challenged the process that led to Prince Adeyemi's emergence, seeking to nullify the kingmakers' decisions and compel a fresh selection. In response, the respondents filed various objections, including a motion to dismiss the suit due to the appellant's failure to pay a mandatory N25,000.00 security for costs, a requirement stipulated before commencing such an action.

The trial court upheld this objection, ruling that the appellant's non-compliance with this condition precedent to action in Nigeria deprived it of jurisdiction, leading to the striking out of the suit. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal, prompting Prince Aderemi to escalate the matter to the Nigerian Supreme Court. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts correctly affirmed the trial court's decision, considering both the Ekiti State Chiefs Law and the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Before the Supreme Court, Prince Aderemi contended that his action specifically targeted the election conducted by the kingmakers, not the subsequent appointment of the first respondent as the Alara of Aramoko. He argued that, by focusing on the election process, he was not obligated to pay the N25,000.00 security for costs as prescribed by the Ekiti State Chiefs Law. He cited precedents such as *NKUMA v ODILI* (2006) and *UZOUKWU v EZEONU II* (1991) to support his position.

Crucially, the appellant asserted that the failure to pay security for costs, as per Section 11(B) 1 of the Chiefs Law, could not result in a Nigerian Supreme Court ouster of jurisdiction. He maintained that Sections 6(6)(b), 36(1), and 272(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) establish constitutional supremacy over statute in Nigeria, thereby taking precedence over the Chiefs Law. Citing *BIYU v IBRAHIM* (2006) and *IDRIS v ANPP* (2008), he characterized the non-payment of security for costs as a mere procedural irregularity, capable of being remedied by a court order for payment, rather than a fatal jurisdictional defect warranting the striking out of the entire suit. Conversely, the first and second respondents argued that under Sections 8, 10, and 11 of the Ekiti State Chiefs Law, the kingmakers' selection process inherently culminates in the king's appointment, with the state government's approval marking the final stage of the appointment procedure.

This case provides crucial guidance on the interplay between statutory conditions precedent for instituting an action and the constitutional right to access justice in Nigeria. The arguments presented before the Supreme Court highlight a fundamental tension between procedural requirements, such as the Ekiti State Chiefs Law security for costs, and the broader principles of judicial access enshrined in the Constitution. The appellant's challenge directly questions whether a statutory provision can effectively create a Nigeria Supreme Court condition precedent jurisdiction that overrides constitutional guarantees.

For legal practitioners, this matter underscores the importance of carefully evaluating whether non-compliance with procedural requirements constitutes a fatal jurisdictional defect or a curable irregularity. The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on December 12, 2025, dismissing Prince Aderemi's appeal and upholding the enthronement of the late Oba Adegoke Olu-Adeyemi. The Court ruled that the appeal lacked merit and affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, stating that once a party fails to satisfy a mandatory condition precedent, the proper order is to strike out the action, and there was no constitutional breach. This pronouncement significantly informs litigation strategy and advice on challenging or defending suits, particularly in chieftaincy matters, by clarifying the boundaries of statutory power versus constitutional rights in determining a court's jurisdiction.

This Supreme Court decision provides crucial guidance on the interplay between statutory conditions precedent for instituting an action and the constitutional right to access justice in Nigeria. Lawyers must carefully evaluate whether non-compliance with procedural requirements, like security for costs, constitutes a fatal jurisdictional defect or a curable irregularity, informing their litigation strategy and advice on challenging or defending suits.

Source: Original reporting via Supreme Court of Nigeria