Whether a Condition Precedent to Instituting an Action Constitutes Bar to Access to Court

On December 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Abuja heard a case involving the appointment of the new Alara of Aramoko in Ekiti State. The dispute arose after the death of Oba Oluwole Amele, with the Arakele/Arosoye Ruling House submitting a list of 12 candidates to the kingmakers for selection. After a close vote, the 1st Respondent was elected by the kingmakers on August 10, 2009. The Ekiti State Government approved the appointment on August 19, 2009, and the Appellant filed a lawsuit against the decision.

The Appellant argued that he did not need to pay the mandatory N25,000 security for costs before initiating the legal action, citing previous Supreme Court rulings NKUMA v ODILI (2006) and UZOUKWU v EZEONU II (1991). He contended that his challenge was against the election process and not the appointment, and that non-compliance with the security requirement was merely a procedural issue that could be remedied through an order for payment.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents, however, maintained that the kingmakers' selection process culminated in the appointment of the new Alara, and that the State Government's approval constituted the final stage of the appointment. They argued that the Appellant's failure to pay the security for costs violated a condition precedent to the court's jurisdiction, as outlined in Sections 11(B) 1 of the Chiefs Law of Ekiti State, and supported by rulings such as MADUKOLU v NKEMDILIM (1962).

The Respondents rejected the Appellant's argument that the court should have simply ordered payment of the security and not struck out the suit.

The Supreme Court ultimately determined that the lower courts were correct in dismissing the Appellant's action, as his failure to satisfy the condition precedent of paying the mandatory security for costs deprived the court of jurisdiction.