Now Reading
Appeal Court Halts Enforcement of Ruling Reinstating Sanusi as Emir of Kano Pending Supreme Court Ruling

Appeal Court Halts Enforcement of Ruling Reinstating Sanusi as Emir of Kano Pending Supreme Court Ruling

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has temporarily halted the enforcement of its judgment, which upheld the Kano State Government’s repeal of the 2019 Emirate Council Law, pending the outcome of a Supreme Court review.

The ruling came after the Federal High Court in Kano had previously annulled the steps taken by the state government under the 2024 Kano State Emirate Council (Repeal) Law. This included the reinstatement of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi as the 16th Emir of Kano. The Court of Appeal ruled that the lower court’s decision, made by Justice Abubakar Liman, was outside its jurisdiction.

Dissatisfied with the Federal High Court’s ruling, the Kano State Government appealed to the Supreme Court, filing an injunction at the Court of Appeal to prevent the execution of the judgment. The Court of Appeal’s panel, led by Justice Okon Abang, granted the injunction, allowing the status quo to remain while the case is pending at the Supreme Court.

In its decision, the court emphasized that the applicant, Alhaji Aminu Babba Dan, had met the legal criteria to secure the injunction, noting that the appeal had a valid basis. The court also considered the legal right of the applicant, who had served as emir for five years before his removal, and acknowledged that the balance of convenience was in his favor.

See Also

The Court of Appeal further restrained the enforcement of the judgment that nullified the dissolution of the new emirates, ordering that the status quo be maintained until the Supreme Court makes its final ruling. The applicant was also required to file an indemnity bond within 14 days.

This injunction follows the earlier ruling in January, where the Court of Appeal overturned the Federal High Court’s decision, which had invalidated the Kano State Emirate Council (Repeal) Law. The appellate court asserted that the lower court had no jurisdiction over chieftaincy matters, which fall under the jurisdiction of state high courts.

View Comments (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

© Copyright 2025 All Rights Reserved | Designed by Renix Consulting

Scroll To Top