From Umar Dankano, Yola.
The lingering legal battle over the constitutional legitimacy of the newly created Fufore Emirate is taking a new twist with the latest action of the respondent/defendant and Emir Alhaji Muhammadu Sani Ribadu lodging an appeal at the Court of Appeal Yola even before ruling of High court (4) over jurisdictional objection raised by the sixth respondent in the case.
Recall that immediately after the creation of the Emirate by Governor Ahmadu Umaru Fintiri few months back, a litigation was initiated by Alhaji Musa Halilu Ahmed (Dujima Adamawa), Alhaji Mustapha Dahiru Mustapha (Yerima Adamawa), and Alhaji Mustapha Ahmadu (Sarki Noma Adamawa).
They had petitioned before a state high court praying for to nullification of the Fufore Emirate arguing that its creation by Governor Ahmadu Umaru Fintiri was contrary to cultural traditions and lacked due process.
Consequently, the Emir prayed in his appeal for Court of Appeal to overturn the trial court’s ruling delivered on April 10, 2025, and compel Justice Musa Usman to address and decide the sixth respondent’s preliminary objection before continuing with the case.
The situation, observers and analysts in the state are viewing as fear and uncertainty gripping the Emir over sustainability or otherwise of his throne.
Ot was gathered that in a notice of appeal dated April 15, 2025, HRH Alhaji Ribadu expressed strong dissatisfaction with the decision of Hon. Justice Musa Usman of the Adamawa State High Court.
The Emir is particularly aggrieved that the judge suspended his ruling on the objection which questioned the court’s jurisdiction based on alleged non-compliance with Section 73 of the Adamawa State Limitation of Actions Law, 2018.
The Emir argued that the trial judge erred in law by proceeding with the substantive case without first addressing the jurisdictional challenge.
According to him, this omission represents a breach of his constitutional right to a fair hearing.
He further contended that the judge’s failure to provide a reasoned ruling on the objection prior to delivering the final judgment compromised the legal process and amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
The central argument of the appeal rests on the claim that jurisdictional issues, particularly those arising from the requirement of pre-action notice under Section 73, are fundamental to the proceedings and must be addressed promptly.
The Emir emphasized that it is a well-established legal principle that courts must determine their jurisdiction before entertaining the substantive aspects of any case, especially one initiated by a writ of summons, as was done in this matter.
Supporting his position, the Emir stated that the Attorney General, acting as the sixth respondent, had raised a valid preliminary objection challenging the competence of the suit.
This objection was based on the alleged failure of the plaintiffs to comply with mandatory procedural requirements before instituting legal action. According to the Emir, this objection should have been heard and decided upon immediately, not deferred.
He noted that the only constitutional exception allowing the deferral of a ruling on a jurisdictional objection exists under the Fourth Alteration to Section 285(8) of the 1999 Constitution, which specifically applies to election tribunals—not civil courts like the Adamawa High Court.
