* Five decisions of devout Muslim jurist that shape Nigeria’s court proceedings
The Honourable Justice Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, CFR, the most senior justice of the Supreme Court, is set to be sworn in as Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), following the retirement of the current CJN on August 22nd, 2024.
The swearing-in ceremony is billed to take place on August 23, 2024, at the State House Council Chambers.
She will be the second female CJN in Nigeria’s history, succeeding Hon. Justice Mariam Aloma Mukhtar, GCON, who served from July 2012 to November 2014.
66 year old Justice Kekere-Ekun is expected to serve till May, 2028, when she attains the mandatory retirement age of 70.
She will also become the Chairman of the National Judicial Council (NJC), which oversees the appointment, promotion, and discipline of Judicial Officers in Nigeria.
Born on May 7, 1958, Justice Kekere-Ekun obtained her LL.B from the University of Lagos in 1980 and an LL.M from the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1983.
She was called to the Nigerian Bar in July 1981. After several years in private practice, she was appointed as a Senior Magistrate II in Lagos State in 1989.
Subsequently, she was made a High Court Judge in 1996. She served as the Chairman of the Robbery and Firearms Tribunal, Zone II, Ikeja, Lagos from 1996 to 1999.
She was elevated to the Court of Appeal in 2004, and appointed as a Justice of the Supreme Court in July, 2013.
1. Apex court judgement on Hijab
In a case between Lagos State Government and Ors V. Asiyat AbdulKareem, Muslim Students Society of Nigeria, MSSN Lagos, with suit number SC/910/16, was among the panel of Supreme Court Judges that granted the use of hijab by female Muslim students in Lagos State Government-owned schools in 2022. She held that the ban on hijab was discriminatory against Muslim students in Lagos State in the 80-page lead judgment.
2. It’s a nullity for a Court to preside over matters it lacks jurisdiction
“The settled position of the law is that the issue of jurisdiction, being so fundamental to the court’s power to adjudicate, can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even before this court. It can be raised orally. It can also be raised suo motu by the court. This is because, no matter how well the proceedings are conducted or how erudite the judgment arising therefrom, it all amounts to a nullity where the court lacks jurisdiction,” Kekere-Ekun, held in the case of Buremoh versus Akande [2017].
3. Courts can quash their own judgments
Kekere-Ekun held in a matter brought by Citec Intl Estate Ltd that the most obvious condition for setting aside a judgment is fraud when the judgment is obtained by fraudulent representation to the court.
In the case of Citec Intl Estate Ltd and another against Josiah Oluwile Francis and another, Justice Kekere-Ekun states the exceptions as follows:
“The Supreme Court and any other superior court of record possess inherent power to set aside their judgments in appropriate cases, including when the judgment is obtained by fraud or deceit when the court was misled into giving judgment under the mistaken belief that the parties had consented to it, or where the judgment was given in the absence of jurisdiction.”
4. The burden of proof rests on the claimant
In a 2018 case, Kekere-Ekun held that where a claimant seeks declaratory reliefs, the burden is on him or her to prove entitlement to those reliefs on the strength of their own case.
“A declaratory relief will not be granted, even on an admission. The claimant is also not entitled to rely on the weakness of the defense, if any. It has been held that the rationale for this position of the law is that a claim for declaratory rights calls for the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers in favour of the claimant. He must therefore place sufficient material before the Court to enable it to exercise such discretion in his favour,” she said.
5. Affected parties can sue
In a 2019 case between the Centre for Oil Pollution Watch and NNPC, Kekere-Ekun held that a party directly affected by development can approach the court for redress.
In that case, she held that the appellant, by its pleadings, had shown that some of its members and the general public were affected by the destruction of marine life, water, streams/rivers occasioned by the alleged negligence of the defendant.
“I am satisfied that it has shown sufficient interest in the subject matter of the suit to clothe it with the necessary standing to sue. It is for these and the more elaborate reasons ably advanced in the lead judgment that I would allow this appeal,” she stated in a concurring judgment.
Sources: ThisDay and Nairametrics