The Supreme Court decision in Golok v. Diyalpwan (1990) is a leading authority on appellate jurisdiction involving customary law under the 1979 Constitution. The case clarifies the scope of appeals from the Customary Court of Appeal to the Court of Appeal and, most importantly, distinguishes between grounds of law, fact, and customary law in appellate proceedings.
Facts of the Case GOLOK v. DIYALPWAN (1990)
The plaintiff (respondent), Mambok Diyalpwan, instituted an action in the Area Court, Grade I, Ron/Kulere sitting at Bokkos in Plateau State against the defendant (appellant), Babang Golok, seeking recovery of a piece of farmland.
The plaintiff alleged that the land had been borrowed by the defendant about fifteen years earlier under customary arrangements.At the trial court, judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff.
Dissatisfied, the defendant appealed to the Customary Court of Appeal, Plateau State, which allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court’s decision on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove his case.
The plaintiff then appealed to the Court of Appeal. However, the defendant raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction under Section 224(1) of the 1979 Constitution, since the grounds of appeal did not involve questions of customary law.
The Court of Appeal struck out some grounds but retained others.
Dissatisfied, the defendant further appealed to the Supreme Court.
- Issues for Determination GOLOK v. DIYALPWAN (1990)
1.When does the Customary Court of Appeal have jurisdiction over appeals from Area Courts?
2.When does an appeal lie from the Customary Court of Appeal to the Court of Appeal?
3.Whether a ground of appeal alleging failure to prove a case is one of law, fact, or customary law.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part.It held that Ground 3 (complaining that the plaintiff failed to prove his case) was valid and raised a question of customary law.
However, Ground 4 was held to be an omnibus ground dealing with facts, not customary law, and was therefore incompetent.
The Court ordered that the appeal before the Court of Appeal should proceed on Ground 3 alone.
Ratio Decidendi Establish.
1.Jurisdiction of the Customary Court of Appeal
By virtue of Section 10 of the Plateau State Customary Court of Appeal Law, 1979, the Customary Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear appeals from Area Courts only where the matter involves questions of customary law.
2.Right of Appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Under Section 224(1) of the 1979 Constitution, there is only one right of appeal from the Customary Court of Appeal to the Court of Appeal, and this is restricted strictly to questions of customary law.There is no provision for appeal by leave in such cases.
3.Failure to Prove a Case as a Question of Law.
The Supreme Court held that proof of a case is a matter of law.Where such proof arises from customary transactions (e.g., borrowing of land), it becomes a question of customary law.
4.Omnibus Grounds of Appeal.
An omnibus ground (e.g., judgment against the weight of evidence) generally raises questions of fact, not customary law, and is therefore incompetent in appeals under Section 224(1).
Legal Principles Established
Appeals from the Customary Court of Appeal are narrow and restricted.Only questions of customary law can sustain an appeal as of right.
Grounds framed as “failure to prove a case” may qualify as questions of law, depending on context.
Courts must carefully distinguish between:Law,Fact & Customary law.
In summary,Golok v. Diyalpwan remains a foundational authority in Nigerian appellate jurisprudence, particularly in defining the limits of appellate jurisdiction in customary law matters. It underscores the constitutional intention to restrict appeals from Customary Courts to purely customary law issues, thereby preventing unnecessary prolongation of litigation.
A.G-OF BENDEL STATE v. A.G-FEDERATION & 18 Ors(1983) FULL SUMMARY
You can search for more cases on the search bar of the website