The Court of Appeal in Abuja has restrained the enforcement of its January 10 judgment that upheld the Kano State Government’s repeal of the 2019 Emirate Council Law, pending the determination of an appeal at the Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeal in Kano set aside the June 20 order by Justice Abubakar Liman of the Federal High Court, Kano, nullifying the steps/actions taken by the Kano State Government pursuant to the Kano State Emirate Council (Repeal) Law 2024, including the appointment of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi as the 16th Emir of Kano.
The Court of Appeal, Kano, which sat in Abuja, held that the order nullifying the steps taken by the Kano State Government under the 2024 Emirates Council Law was made by Justice Liman without jurisdiction.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Kano State Government appealed to the Supreme Court and subsequently filed an injunction at the Court of Appeal urging the court to stay execution of the judgement pending determination of the appeal at the apex court.
Ruling on the injunction on Friday by a three-member panel of justices led by Justice Okon Abang in two suits marked CA/KN/27M/2025 and CA/KN/28M/2025, filed by Alhaji Aminu Babba Dan.
The appeal was brought against the Kano State Government, the Speaker of the House of Assembly, the Inspector General of Police, the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps, and other security agencies.
Aminu Baba Dan (Sarkin Dawaki Babba), through its application filed on February 6, 2025, sought an order restraining the respondents from enforcing the appellate court’s judgment while an appeal was pending at the Supreme Court.
The grounds for the application were that the applicant initially instituted the suit in Kano to protect his fundamental rights, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit, and there was a need to restrain the respondents from executing the judgment.
Additionally, the applicant argued that the Kano State Emirate Council (Repeal) Law 2024, which was passed by the state legislature and assented to by the governor, legally led to the dissolution of the newly created emirates and the reinstatement of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi as the 16th Emir of Kano.
In a unanimous ruling, the three-member panel of Justices led by Abang held that the application was meritorious and deserving of the court’s discretion in the interest of justice.
“The law is settled. The court is enjoined to exercise its discretion judiciously and in the interest of justice,” he said.
He held that the mandatory injunction is “ordered that shall maintain the status quo ante bellum as well as the sheriff of this court and trial court as was the position before the trial court in its delivered on 13/6/2024 in the suit no. FHC/KN/CS/182/2024.”
Justice Abang, in granting the injunction, emphasised that the applicant’s process was competent and had met all the necessary legal conditions required to obtain the relief sought.
He noted that a valid appeal was already pending before the Supreme Court, reinforcing the need to preserve the subject matter of the litigation. Additionally, the Appeal Court acknowledged the applicant’s legal right to protection, considering that he had served as Emir for five years before his removal.
“In my view, I hold that the balance of convenience lies in his favour. It is deserving to protect him pending the determination of the Supreme Court,” Abang ruled.
The court restrained the respondents from enforcing the January 10 judgment that nullified the Kano State Government’s dissolution of the emirates. It also granted an order, maintaining the status quo until the Supreme Court renders a final decision.
The applicant was directed to file an undertaking within 14 days in court to indemnify the respondents in damages if the order was not to have been made.
The appellate court’s January 10 judgment overturned an earlier ruling by the Federal High Court in Kano, which nullified the Kano State Emirate Council (Repeal) Law 2024. This law reversed the creation of five new emirates and reinstated Sanusi Lamido Sanusi as Emir of Kano.
The Court of Appeal, in setting aside the Federal High Court’s decision, ruled that the lower court lacked jurisdiction over chieftaincy matters, which fall within the exclusive domain of the state high courts.
