Jurisdiction Over Non-Muslim Personal Law Disputes in Northern Nigeria: Can the State High Court be a Forum Necessitatis?

The right to a fair trial is one of the fundamental rights enshrined in the 1999 Constitution. This right presupposes the existence of an impartial judicial body through which litigants can ventilate their grievances. To guarantee access to court and the right to a fair trial, the Constitution establishes a court system for all civil claims. The cultural and religious plurality of the Nigerian state requires the creation of different courts for certain subject matters. This gives way for a potential conflict of jurisdiction. One of such conflicts is seen in the choice of court for questions bordering on personal law. While some legal commentators have considered this issue broadly, there is an aspect that is yet to be addressed. This aspect concerns the appropriate court for customary law questions in states that have refused to establish Customary Courts and a Customary Court of Appeal. The focus of this paper, therefore, is to examine the conundrum arising from the delineation of jurisdictional powers between a State High Court and a Customary Court of Appeal as it affects states that have no customary courts. The paper finds that existing precedents- Supreme Court and Court of Appeal- failed to take cognizance of this practical legal problem thereby creating a problem of access to justice. It argues that a State High Court, as a court of residual jurisdiction and as a forum of necessity, is an appropriate venue for customary personal law disputes in the northern states where customary courts are non-existent.