The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal in the landmark case Ogbuji v. Amadi (2022) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1822) 99, SC, affirming that the Court of Appeal correctly declined jurisdiction in a dispute arising from a customary land matter in Imo State.
The dispute originated when the respondent and his co-plaintiff, acting in a representative capacity, filed a suit at the Customary Court of Imo State, Ohoba, Ohaji District, seeking a declaration of customary right of occupancy over a parcel of land known as Okwu Olummiri, located in Umuisiji Umuobeke Obile, Ohaji/Egbema Local Government Area. They also sought general damages for trespass and an injunction.
The trial court held that the land was communal and jointly owned by all parties involved. Dissatisfied, the respondent appealed to the Customary Court of Appeal of Imo State, which overturned the trial court’s judgment, granting the declaration and injunction sought.
The appellants then appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing, among other points, that the Customary Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction. During the proceedings, the Court of Appeal raised, suo motu, questions about its own jurisdiction under Section 245(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). After hearing arguments, the Court of Appeal declared the appeal incompetent and struck it out, without addressing the merits.
The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction is fundamental, describing it as the “lifeline” of adjudication, noting that without it, all actions, regardless of their merits, are null and void.
The Court emphasised that appeals from a Customary Court of Appeal to the Court of Appeal are limited to questions of Customary Law or matters expressly prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly. In this case, none of the appellants’ grounds of appeal raised a question of Customary Law.
The Supreme Court further clarified that a defective or incompetent notice of appeal cannot be cured by amendment, and that the amended notice in this case could not confer jurisdiction that did not exist.
The Court defined Customary Law as relating to the customs, practices, and traditions of a specific community, enforceable by long-standing usage and recognised sanctions.
The Court stressed that appeals from Customary Courts must involve disputes regarding the application or interpretation of Customary Law, and that complaints purely on factual evaluation, procedural issues, or general dissatisfaction with a lower court’s judgment do not qualify.
Justice Peter-Odili, Kekere-Ekun, and Eko emphasised that the Court of Appeal acted correctly in striking out the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Any observations made by the Court of Appeal beyond this were without legal effect, reinforcing the principle that “quees ito cadit” where there is no jurisdiction, all else falls.
The ruling underscores the strict constitutional limits on appellate jurisdiction over customary law matters in Nigeria. It clarifies that the Court of Appeal cannot entertain civil appeals from a State Customary Court of Appeal unless the matter directly involves a question of Customary Law or other issues explicitly allowed by legislation.
The appellants were represented by Kelechi Obi Esq., with L. C. Ekene Okwunma Esq., while the respondent was represented by K. M. Onyeama Esq.
Reported and edited by: GODSPOWER EROGA, ESQ., February 14, 2026
