Amb Shuaibu Bashir Mukaddam, a legal analyst, raised concerns over the judgment of the federal high court on the emirship tussle in Kano which he called a judgment “shrouded in uncertainty”.
Speaking in an interview with one of the reporters of Grassroots Africa on 25th June 2024. Shuaibu said the Supreme court had countlessly ruled that federal high courts cannot entertain chieftaincy matters and described the judgment as a judgment that raises more questions than answers.

On Thursday, the federal high court in Kano nullified the decisions of Abba Yusuf, governor of Kano, taken on May 23, 2024.

Muhammed Liman, the presiding judge, held that the defendants were aware of an interim order previously granted by the court but ignored it and implemented the Kano Emirates Council Law 2024.
The judge, however, ruled that his order did not affect the validity of the emirate law passed by the state house of assembly.

On May 23, the Kano governor announced the reinstatement of Muhammadu Sanusi as Emir of Kano.
The governor also ordered the dethronement of Aminu Bayero as Emir of Kano.

LIMITATION OF THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS:
Speaking during the interview, he said the supreme court had issued several judgments limiting the powers of the federal court on traditional institutions. He further averred that the judgments of the supreme court are binding on all authorities in the country.

Shuaibu said the apex court had ruled that being a chief is not a fundamental right and issues of chieftaincy should not be entertained by a federal high court. He made reference to similar statements said by learned silk Femi Falana SAN in an interview with Arise TV reported by The Cable NG.
(https://www.thecable.ng/falana-court-order-on-kano-emirship-tussle-confusing-judge-ignored-scourt-rulings/amp/)

He also expressed bewilderment at the recent court ruling, describing the judge’s decisions as contradictory and perplexing. The judge’s assumption of jurisdiction over one aspect of the case while refusing to address the core issue – the legitimacy of the Kano emirates law – has created confusion. He also questions the logic of nullifying actions taken under a law without examining the law’s validity. Also the core issue of his speech was that there was no order violated as the parties were not served by the other and that the requirements for the publication on media which the court is capitalizing on wasn’t properly met with.

“The judgement is shrouded in uncertainty” Shuaibu Mukaddam said.
“I am compelled to express my concerns over the recent judgment of the federal high court on the emirship tussle in Kano, which I believe is a judgment ‘shrouded in uncertainty’. It’s something we’re all aware of that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that federal high courts lack the jurisdiction to entertain chieftaincy matters. And the decisions of the supreme court are binding on all courts in the nation consequently no discretion was given to courts but to follow.

The federal high court in Kano’s decision to nullify the decisions of Governor Abba Yusuf, taken on May 23, 2024, is perplexing. The presiding judge, Muhammed Liman, acknowledged the interim order previously granted by the court but failed to address the core issue – the legitimacy of the Kano Emirates Council Law 2024.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that chieftaincy matters are outside the purview of federal courts. Issues of chieftaincy are not fundamental rights, and federal high courts should not entertain them. As said by learned silk Femi Falana SAN in an interview with Arise TV reported by The Cable NG (https://www.thecable.ng/falana-court-order-on-kano-emirship-tussle-confusing-judge-ignored-scourt-rulings/amp/)

I’m also bewildered at the recent court ruling, the judge’s decisions is contradictory and perplexing. The judge’s assumption of jurisdiction over one aspect of the case while refusing to address the core issue – the legitimacy of the Kano emirates law – has created confusion. What’s the logic of nullifying actions taken under a law without examining the law’s validity?” He said.
NO COURT ORDER WAS VIOLATED:
He went further to say “The most important of what I want to point out is that neither Sanusi nor the Kano state governor disobeyed any court order and that the court’s decision was based on a flawed assumption that the parties were aware of the order due to social media reports. See (https://tribuneonlineng.com/emirate-tussle-falana-faults-recent-court-orders-in-kano/)

What the court did say is that the order made by him, on the 24th of May, which according to him was served on the 1st and 4th defendant, i.e. the governor and the attorney general on the 27th of May, they were deemed to have had knowledge of the order because the order was reported on social media.
Sanusi or the Governor did not disobey any order, so if the order affected them, it ought to have been put on notice.
In Regt Trustees PCN V Etim (2017) 13 NWLR P 1581 (1) SC when speaking on Importance of service of court process on a party held that:
“Service of process of court in a trial, is what the spinal cord is to a human being”. (P. 31, paras. C)
It’s an undisputed fact that there was no proper service in the case which raises concerns on what’s the effect of failure to serve court process where service is required –
Failure to serve a process where service of a process is required renders null and void any order made against the party who should have been served with the process. No court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit in which process are not served or properly served. Service of process on parties so as to enable them appear to prosecute and defend the case respectively, and also ensure their due appearance and those of their respective counsel in court, are foundational conditions to be seen to have been fulfilled before a court can have competence and exercise jurisdiction over a case. This was given judicial echo in Integrated Builders v. Domaq Ventures (Nig.) Ltd. (2005)2 NWLR (Pt.909) 97; Otonaimere v. Akporehe (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt.894) 591; Ngige v. Achukwu (2005)2 NWLR (Pt.909) 123 referred to.] (P.109, paras. D-E)

What’s the position of the law on how to notify parties the pendency of suit the best notification to parties in respect of any litigation is one communicated personally to the individuals concerned. See the case of Ononye V Chukwuma (2005) 17 NWLR Pt (953) 92.

It’s clear that the parties haven’t been properly served with the exparte order as acknowledged by the court, the question now is does the news of the order in media suffices the condition for service the answer is a straight NO service via media or any other online platform is referred in law as substituted service and it’s only effected when personal service has been attempted but failed has personal service been attempted here the answer is NO because as at the time the order was published online service was not attempted it’s clear from how service was effected on the 27th this undermines the judicial process as a fundamental aspect of the trial which suppose to come first was skipped for the second. Before a substituted service can be effected there must be an application for that and certain procedures must be followed. This was distilled out in the case of Ononye V Chukwuma 2005 17 NWLR Pt (953) 92 where the court held that:
Where it is necessary to adopt substituted service, the plaintiff makes an application to the court by ex parte motion. The affidavit in support should state the grounds on which the application is based as well as the form of substituted service, which is proposed. The abortive efforts made for personal service should be deposed to. If the reason for the application is evasion of service by the defendant, a mere statement to that effect is not enough.

The grounds for the statement must be given. So also are the reasons for the form of substituted service proposed. Other material averments are the date of the issue of the writ, how long it has remained unserved; whether the defendant is normally within the jurisdiction and was within it at the date of issue. If he is outside the jurisdiction, then when he left it and why, if know. In the instant case, the respondent did not apply to the trial court for an order of substituted service. The trial court did not make any order for substituted service when the writ of summons was issued on the 28th of April, 1999. It was not until the 23rd of July, 1999, that the trial court granted the respondent’s application for substituted service nearly three months after the writ of summons was issued. (P.116, paras. C-F)
Sadly none of the aforementioned was done I hereby hold that there was no court order violated because the order lacks legal enforceability due to the lack of proper service which touches on the fundamental issue in the suit” Said Mukaddam.