By Godfree Matthew Esq

ABSTRACT

The emergence of the Plateau State Multi- Door Court House Law, 2017 was welcomed as promising steps towards advancing alternative dispute resolutions. However, the law was found to be wanting on certain legal issues. Thus, this article was committed to addressing some of these legal issues with the view of providing better ways to improve the content of the said law. It was this background that inspired the authorship of this article. Therefore, the aim of this work was to point out some of these salient omissions in the law so as to bolster the potency of the multi-door courthouse as alternative dispute resolutions.  In the course of this work it was established that the rules did not take into cognizance the validity of customary arbitration applicable to the ethnic groups within Plateau State. In order words no recognition was given to customary arbitration under this law. Also it was further discovered that certain provisions of the law conflict with federal legislations. In light of these omissions, the work recommended the inclusion of customary arbitration in the ADR in the proceedings of the multi-door courthouse. It also recommended that statute of limitation should not include the days spent in the course of ADR. In the course of this work, the writer deployed the use of statutes, textbooks, courts’ rules, case law and journals.

 INTRODUCTION

The primary aim of this work is to point out what the writer considers salient omissions in the Plateau State Multi-Door Court House, Law of 2017 (subsequently refers to as PMDC Law, 2017) with the view of suggesting better ways of improving its contents. In doing so, the work is split into four structures. In the first part the writer discusses some basic concepts of Multi-door Courthouse. The second part will examines the content of the PMDC Law, 2017 as well the principles of Alternative Dispute Resolution (subsequently refers to as ADR) applicable therein. The third part of the work is the fulcrum of this work. In this part the writer will point out the grey areas of omission and commission and how they offend certain legal principles. The fourth part of the work concludes by suggesting steps that will be taken to address these flaws inherent in the law. It is the aspiration of the writer that the recommendations made in this work would be accommodated in the further review of PMDC Law, 2017.

CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF MULTI- DOOR COURTHOUSE

In this aspect of the work, the reader’s mind will be addressed on the definitions, means of approaching multi door court house, importance and evolution of Multi-door Courthouse law in Nigeria.

Definitions

The Multi-door Courthouse is a court-connected programme that provides a variety of alternative dispute resolutions procedures.[1] By this it means that it is a process that is operated under the rules and supervision of court. It is a procedure that is meant to compliment the available resources for access to justice. It is called a ‘multi-door’ because it opens the parties to other doors/options of dispute resolutions like arbitration, mediation and conciliation; apart from the traditional ‘mono-door’ (litigation).[2] Thus, the Multi Door Court House provides litigants and their counsel the variety of options that they will choose in order to ensure timely dispensation of justice and economy of resources.

Means of Approaching Multi Door Court House

There are two main ways by which parties or their counsel can approach the multi-door court house.[3] These two ways are (a) Court referral system, and (b) by direct approach of the parties submitting themselves to the Multi Door Court House.[4]

By the court referral system, the parties are advised by the courts to choose any of the available options of the ADR – arbitration, conciliation, mediation and negotiation to settle their differences amicable.[5]  In this case, a judge may recommend any of the ADR options he deems appropriate for the cases of the parties. When that case is settled either by any of the ADR options, the case will be referred back to the judge who will enter terms of settlement to be binding on the parties.

In the direct approach, the parties personally or through their proxies come to court and express their intentions to embark on the use of Multi Door Court House in dispute resolution. Because it is the parties that brought themselves before the court, this approach is also known as “walk-in cases.”[6] Also in this approach, once such matters are peacefully settled, it will be referred to judges who will enter “terms of settlement.” The terms of settlement will have a legal weight that is capable of enforcement by courts and parties to it are precluded from breaching it terms.

Benchmark of Multi Door Court House

It is of further importance to note that for multi door court house to be effective certain benchmark must be complied with. These benchmarks which are necessary include sound financial resources, human resources, judicial and bar supports, and suitability of ADR. [7]

Financial support is necessary because the multi door court house is meant to reduce the cost of litigation. By doing so the institution must make some sacrifice to ensure that the interests of parties are protected. Human resources are equally important because the quality of the staffs manning the institution is instrumental to the success of that organization. By this there is the need for the capacity building in terms of training and constant retraining of the staffs of the Multi-Door Court House.

Again, the stake holders in the theatre of multi-door courthouse have a role to play in promoting its goals. Their pertinent role is to ensure that they support the Multi-Door Court House by abiding with their professional duties and promote peaceful settlement in court. They should also make their parties to build confidence in the management of the Multi-Door Court House. In similar vein, the lawyers and the court should be able to detect which aspects of ADR will be suitable to their jurisdictions and the parties involved. They should also be able to recommend or adapt the types of ADR that will suit the peculiarity of their jurisdiction and will be practicable in enforcement.

Importance of Multi Door Court House

The multi door court house provides a lot of justification on why people should resort to it. The first reason is that it reduces the stress and time wasting associated with litigation. This is because it is less formal in its proceedings unlike litigation. In similar way, it addresses parties’ interest within a less possible time.[8]

Another importance is that it affords parties of the variety of options for them to decide how they want their dispute to be settled. By doing so it affords the parties the opportunity to have control over the course of their proceedings. Unlike litigation whereby the law dictates the mandatory jurisdiction for the parties, in multi door court house, it is the parties that elect to choose their ‘procedural jurisdiction’ (any means of ADR that is available under the Multi Door Court House).

Resort to multi door court house is helpful in decongesting the case loads in the courts. By referring the matter to the judges of the Multi Door Court House, the court is gradually reducing the case load before it. Thus, matters which are likely to be settled via peaceful means cannot be reflected in the courts’ cause list. This in turn may help the court to have a lot of returns to the National Judicial Commission.

Moreover, the outcome of the proceedings of the Multi Door Court House is termed as judgment of court. It is as equal as the judgments delivered in the course of litigation. It is binding on the parties and it will act as res judicata. Thus, by this outcome, the parties will be assured that the justice of their case is met.

Evolution of Multi Door Court House in Nigeria

The root of modern multi-door courthouse can be traced to the work of Professor E.A Sanders in 1971. He proposed that the justice system should be able to provide alternative options for the disputing parties to settle their differences apart from sticking to litigation.[9] As such, he asserted the justice system can explore the options of mediation, arbitration, conciliation and ombudspeople.[10] His ideas of Multi-door Courthouse gained the favour of American jurist and from then on it influenced global jurisprudence on effective justice delivery.

In Nigeria, the Multi Door Court House was first adopted by Lagos State on the 11TH June, 2002, thus making Lagos State to be the first state in Africa and Nigeria to embrace this procedure.[11] It was established via partnership with United States Embassy (D&G Program) and Negotiation and Conflict Management Group (NCMG).[12] After that, Lagos State became floodgate of inspiration for other states in Nigeria to have their Multi Door Court House.

One year after Lagos adopted the Multi-door Courthouse system, Abuja also adopted its “Multi Door Court House Mediation Arbitration Law, 2003”.[13] It seeks to provide timely access to justice, developed the concepts of managerial judges, utilization of retired judges and proffering other means of ADR in dispute settlement.[14]

After Lagos and Abuja other states follow. For example, Borno State has its Settlement Corridor, Kano State, Akure State, Adamawa State, Edo State and others have their own Multi-door Courts House. And many are on the on the ways.

The Plateau State government in 2017 enacted its PMDC Law. The law seeks to provide access to justice by providing ADR to alternate litigation, minimized citizen’s frustration with the protracted outcome of litigation and to promote the use of ADR in justice delivery sector.

The aims and objectives of the PMDC Law, 2017, stated in preceding paragraphs are further complimented by much richer provisions of the law. Some of these provisions dealt with the functions of the said law will be examined at the subsequent paragraphs. Examining such richer provisions will usher the reader to the next part of this work.

EXAMININATION OF THE DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE PLATEAU STATE MULTI DOOR COURT HOUSE LAW, 2017

In this part of the work, the writer will examine some salient aspects of the law that are connected to ADR. Provisions that deal with the aims and objective of the PMDC will be examined. Organizational and institutional structures connected with the management of the law will be examined. In the same way, some salient provisions of the law that addressed constitutional and statutory crises will be examined.

The legal personality of the Multi-door Courthouse is established in section 3 of the multi door court law. That section states that the multi door court law is a body corporate with perpetual succession with common seal. The law under section 3 states the nature of the multi door court house to be court connected with its headquarters in Jos, Plateau State. It also tagged the Plateau Multi-door Courthouse with the abbreviation PMDC. However, under section 3 the law allows the Chief Judge of the state to approve any suitable location apart from the town of Jos.

By the renditions of the above paragraphs, it is clear that the PMDC is a legal personality that can sue and be sued. The PMDC law also provides for the corporate headquarters of the PMDC to be in Jos, but the Chief Judge may design other places to be the headquarters. The location of the headquarters will be apposite for corporate and administrative transactions as well as service of court processes whenever the need arises.

Section 4 of the Acts provides for the objectives of the PMDC which include easy access to justice and easing the stress and rigours of litigation being experienced by the citizens. It also spelt out the role of PMDC as the focal point of ADR in Plateau State as well as the promotion of justice system through the instrumentality of ADR. By these objectives the law tries to mitigate the hardship that citizens encountered when resorting to litigation as means of dispute resolution. Thus, the law seeks to ameliorate this predicament by the establishment of the multi-door court house in Plateau State.

Section 5 of the law discusses the functions and powers of the PMDC. By this section, the prime functions of the PMDC is to ensure that the application of ADR in dispute resolution. Some of the dispute resolution items in section 5 include Mediation, Arbitration, Neutral Evaluation and other types. By section 5 of this law, the PMDC shall apply ADR once it is referred to it by the High Court of Plateau State, other courts in Plateau State, public institutions and other dispute resolution bodies. Also the PMDC can referred matters for dispute resolutions to private organizations, religious bodies and others institutions that are stakeholders in disputes resolution.

Again, section 5 mandates the PMDC to encourage parties to embrace the ADR in conflict resolutions. In order to ensure this mandate, it is the responsibility of the PMDC to assist and facilitate the conduct of dispute resolution in appropriate situation. In doing so it encourages members to come before the court and explore the doors of ADR available in the court.

Also, the section 5 provides for the secretarial duties of the PMDC. This is includes the duty to keep and maintain a data bank of qualified ADR practitioners. This is aimed at curbing intrusion by impostors and quacks who may likely practice ADR without proper qualification.

In order to ensure capacity efficiency of the stakeholders of ADR, the law enjoined the PMDC to encourage educational programmes for its members. Thus, section 5 (j) of the law states that the PMDC shall initiate and organize workshops, seminars, Training Programmes and undertake publications with regard to any findings or discoveries resulting from the practice of PMDC. This is meant to extend and exchange knowledge among the actors in the theatre of ADR. It is from this prism, that one will agree that this work is one of the typical instances contemplated by legislators when drafting this law. This is because this work discovers certain fundamental legal issues that are not contemplated by this law.

It is the exposition of these omissions that will aid the stakeholders in restructuring the current posture of PMDC Law, 2017 for maximum utilization as an agent of social engineering. These omissions and the legal issues arising therein are the central theme of discussion in the next part of this work.

SOME SALIENT LEGAL ISSUES THAT OUGHT TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE PLATEAU MULTI-DOOR COURTHOURSE LAW, 2017

The salient legal issues that were not addressed by the PMDC Law 2017, includes statute of limitation, absence of involvement of traditional institutions in ADR, lack of registration of customary arbitration matters, absence of ADR in criminal matters and the status  of counsel practitioners in ADR. These issues are discussed at the subsequent paragraphs.

The PMDC does not address the issue of statute of limitation in the course of legal proceedings institute under it. The law only provides for the time frame under which an action can be commenced against the PMDC and its proxies.[15] It does not consider the interest of parties on the effect of the time spent before the PMDC in the computation of time with respect to statute of limitation. This observation is pertinent considering the fact that it is settled in Nigerian law that the period spent in negotiation does not affect computation of time with regards to the statutes of limitation. This position is supported by the decision of the court. One of the issues raised by the court in this case of Local Government Service Commission, Ekiti State V Bamisaye[16] was whether negotiation between parties prevents time stipulated by statute from running. The court of Per Galinje, JCA (as he then was) held that:

Although the law does not prohibit parties to a dispute from engaging in negotiations for the purpose of settling their dispute, generally such a negotiation does not prevent or stop the period of limitation stipulated by statute from running. The law is that when in respect of a cause of action, the period of limitation begins to run, it is not broken and it does not cease to run merely because the parties engaged in negotiation. The best cause for a person whom a right of action has accrued is to institute an action against the other party so as to protect his interest.

The above decision is a fundamental legal principle that a time spent in ADR does not affect computation of time with regards to statute of limitation.  Another issue raised by the above dictum of the Court of Appeal (Ekiti Division), is that the parties can simultaneously filed a suit while resorting to ADR at the same time. From this decision of the Court of Appeal, the PMDC Law is posed with the following tasks for consideration:

  • Whether a proceeding in PMDC Law, 2017 is an exception to the computation of time with regards to statute of limitation under the Limitation Edict of Plateau State, 1988?
  • Whether simultaneously filling litigation before a conventional High Court and filing of ADR before Multi -door Courthouse amount to abuse of judicial process?

Another salient issue that needs to be included is the role of traditional institutions. Section 5(a) of the PMDC law refers to certain bodies that will apply multi door court proceedings to include religious bodies, private and public corporations, but omits traditional institutions. It does not even include them among the bodies it will collaborate with in promoting ADR as provided by section 6 of the PMDC law, 2017. The need for the inclusion of the traditional institutions in PMDC law is necessary because of three reasons. The first is the role of traditional institutions in resolutions of disputes that are related to the customs of Plateau citizens. The second reason is that the outcomes of traditional institutions are valid proceedings in the eyes of the law. Thirdly, customary arbitration has a sound foundation among some cultures of Plateau State.

The traditional institutions play vital role in settling certain issues like, inheritance, boundary disputes, intra-communal land disputes and others. These are some of the areas that the PMDC Law ought to have addressed. This is because some of the cases mentioned are sometimes successfully addressed by traditional institutions. Therefore, in order to strengthen the traditional institutions, the law ought to have accommodated them among bodies that ADR should refer to.

Sequel to the above, the Nigeria law recognized the outcome of dispute resolution by traditional institution. In fact, dispute resolution by traditional institutions is a recognized jurisprudence under Nigeria law. This is seen in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Benjamin v Kalio[17] where it was held that customary arbitration is legally binding on parties. In the same vein, section16 (1) of Evidence Act which categorized custom as part of law governing a set of circumstance if it can be judicially noticed or proved to exist by evidence. This further means that means that customs can be said to be judicially noticed when a court of law acted upon it in any legal proceedings. Where a court of law did not act on a custom, it must be proven to exist as fact recognized by members of certain communities.[18]

Another reason why the PMDC Law should have accommodated customary arbitration is that it some cultures in the state have codified it. An example of a codified customary institution is the Mwaghavwul Development Association, Constitution, 2008. The said Constitution provides for systematic and hierarchical procedures in dispute resolution regarding its members. Thus, section 31 of the Constitution provides for an organ known as Mwaghavwul Alternative Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as MADRP), which shall consist of 13 members including the Chairman, the Vice Chairman and 11 members representing the Mwaghavwul nations both home and abroad. The primary function of the MARDP is the amicable determination and resolution of disputes between MDA members, organizations, communities, etc. The MADRP can only exercise jurisdiction over the parties where they willfully submitted themselves before it

To further consolidate on the integrity and competence of the MADRP, the MDA constitutions provides for the qualification and appointment of the members of the panel. Section 31 (7) provides for the position of the chairman of the panel to be somebody who must be a retired judge not below the rank of a magistrate. In the absence of a retired magisterate, a retired Reverend shall be appointed a Chairman.  In order words, a retired Reverend will be an alternate chairman until a retired judge not below the rank of magistrate is available to chair over the panel of MADRP.

Also, Section 31 (7) (b) & (c) of MDA Constitution, the Vice Chairman of the Panel of MADRP must be nominated by Traditional Council of the Mwaghavwul people. He shall posses some modicum knowledge of the law. The appointments of members of the MADRP are the prerogative of the National Executive Committee after consultation with the Grand Patron of the MDA.

Moreover, the MDA Constitution further outlined a rule of procedures that will regulate the conduct of affairs of the MADRP. Section 56 of the MDA Constitution provides for the rule of procedures of the MADRP. It states the procedures of lodging complaints which must be by writing to the secretariat without any financial charges. The quorum of the panel must be seven including the Chairman. The decision taken shall be deemed to be amicable settlement which must be signed by the parties, the Chairman and the Secretary must be signed the agreed decision of the settlement. Legal representations are not necessary except if the parties agreed.

The use of technicalities is highly discouraged.[19] The Panel can assume jurisdiction on any other matters except in criminal and chieftaincy matters.[20] In the course of proceedings a party is not allowed to institute a case in court of law simultaneously, while the Panel is deliberating on his case. The only exception is where all parties agreed that such acts should be done.

Furthermore, the Gamai Union Development Organisation, 2018 (subsequently refers to as GUDO) offers beautiful insights on the roles of cultural associations in amicable settlements of dispute. The GUDO Constitution in section 16 (h) provides for a committee to be known as Documentation, Peace and Reconciliation Sub-Committee. This committee is enjoined to promote peaceful coexistence between its member and their neighbours.[21]

In line with the above, the Documentation, Peace and Reconciliation Sub-Committee are mandated to promote peaceful settlements of dispute in chieftaincy matters. The constitution states that the committee shall liaise with the traditional rulers to hold dialogue with conflicting parties on how to resolve issues connected to chieftaincy disputes among the Goemai nation. There are meant to be peacemakers in the resolutions of disputes among its people.

The Afizere Community is another cultural that promotes out of court settlement among its members. This act is deemed to be a specific responsibility of the Afizere Council of Elders whose pronouncements on settled disputes are deemed as binding on the people. Their power to do so is derived from the provision of Article 12(v) of the Afizere Cultural and Community Development Association (ACCDA) provides that the council of Elders shall:

Make pronouncements on any matter or dispute involving or affecting the Izere Nation or a section or sections thereof in line with the principle of fair hearing , and such pronouncements shall be binding on the community or parties involved.

The import of the above provision is that the council of Elders performed a quasi judicial function that is binding on the parties, once the parties voluntarily submitted themselves before the council of elders. The said groups and communities who elected to submit before the council of elders are supposed to be bound by the outcome of the said decision. Recently, the council of elders where able to settled the dispute regarding the election into the office of the Afizere Youth Association. Through the intervention of the Council of Elders, the matter which has been initiated in 2017 in court was peacefully settled by the elders. [22]

The above are some of the few examples of how traditional institutions promote amicable settlement of disputes. While it is objective to commend the efforts of the Mwaghavwul Development Association, Gamai Unity and Development Organisation and the Afizere Cultural and Community Development Association for including ADR in the constitutions of their cultural associations, it is the further view of this writer that other cultural association should emulate same. An interview conducted by this writer with the some stakeholders of other cultural associations, shows that many are yet to include ADR in their constitutions. [23] The course of the interview prods some of them to consider ADR in their cultural Associations.

Based on the above robust roles played by traditional societies in Plateau State, the PMDC Law, 2017 ought to have included them among the stakeholders in the multi door proceedings. Doing so will also bolster the efficacy of customary arbitration in Plateau State.

Furthermore, the provision section 19 of the PMDC Law ought to have included Settlement Agreement realized from the proceedings of the customary arbitration. This is apposite considering the facts that customary arbitration is equally acceptable as binding in the eyes of the law.[24]  Doing so will further enhance the efficacy of our customary jurisprudence.

The PMDC also needs to introduce some peculiar innovations in its provisions. One of the areas is the need to contemplate certain instances of ADR in criminal proceedings. In Nigeria, settlement in criminal matters is statutorily recognized in some court. For example, section 17 of the Federal High Court Act,[25] provides that the court shall promote amicable settlement in both civil and criminal matters. In legal practice, there are certain criminal proceedings wherein parties may end up settling the issues without going through full litigations. This happened mostly in the proceedings of the lower courts- where offence that borders on criminal matters having civil elements are settled by the parties.

Another issue worthy of concern is the conflict of the provisions of the PMDC law with federal legislations. For example, the definition of a counsel as “a lawyer licensed to practice Law in Nigeria or elsewhere” is questionable. The right of choice of counsel of lawyer does not mean “a licensed person elsewhere” as held in the case of Awolowo V Sarki & Anor (1966) LPELR-25290 (SC).

Further import of the interpretation of counsel in section 2 of PMDC Law is that a foreign lawyer can practice and prepare documents relating to ADR processes in Plateau State. This will amount to contravention of section 2 (1) of and section 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, which states that only a person a person called to Nigerian bar and whose name has been in the register of the Supreme Court. Doing so will amount to contravention of the Legal Practitioners Act.

Sequel to the above, the PMDC ought to have stated for the qualification and accreditation processes of foreign counsel or the person ‘elsewhere’ shall possess before practicing  ADR in Plateau state. It ought to have stated a minimum of capacity building programmes that foreign counsel should undergo before practicing in Nigeria.

Also, the PMDC law mentions Arbitration as one of the doors of ADR available. While this is admirable, the law ought to have stated that in case of conflicts between the rules of arbitrations under PMDC and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,[26]the later shall prevail been a federal legislation.[27]

Lastly, the PMDC does not consider the roles of Negotiation and resort to welfare departments which deal with the issues of interest of children in matrimonial cases. The welfare department is doing well in practice and so ought to be considered as one of the bodies to collaborate and work with as provided by sections 5(a) and 6 of the PMDC Law, 2017.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In light of the above issues discussed, the writer recommends the need to exempt time spent in the proceedings of PMDC from limitation of time, the need to expressly include traditional or cultural associations among the stake holders of the PMDC, the need for cultural associations to include ADR in their constitutions, the need to include certain classes of criminal matters in ADR before the PMDC and the need to redefine who is a counsel in accordance with the Legal Practitioners Act.

The decision by the Court of Appeal (Ekiti Division) in the case of Local Government Service Commission, Ekiti State V Bamisaye (supra) clearly shows that times spent in proceedings before any ADR medium did not affected computation of time in limitation of action. This same position appears to be supported by the Limitation Edict of 1988, which did not provide for time spent in the conduct of ADR as an exception to limitation of time. Thus, the PMDC Law, 2017 should have been a perfect avenue to create that exception.

Some cultural institutions in Plateau State have robust ADR mechanisms in their constitutions. This is seen in some of the examples analysed in this work. Thus, the PMDC Law 2017, ought to expressly include traditional institutions as stakeholders the PMDC shall refer matters to under sections 5 and 6 of the PMDC Law, 2017. The need to include traditional institutions as stakeholders is because of their proximity to local people and their understanding of their culture.

Closely linked to the above is that the PMDC law, 2017 should make provisions for the registration of customary arbitration reached by cultural associations, once the parties have submitted themselves voluntarily. This will reduce congestion in the courts and also developed our customary jurisprudence.

On issue of ADR, it is the finding of this writer that there are some cultural associations, whose constitutions do not contemplate the use of ADR. Some of this constitutions may be undergoing amendments, it is the opinion of this writer that the MDA Constitution is a prototype with a sound procedure on ADR, that is worthy of emulation by other cultural associations.

Moreover, it is the opinion of this writer that certain classes of criminal matters should be included as subject matter of ADR before the PMDC. This includes minor criminal offences that are tortuous cum criminal matters like criminal trespass and others. While it is obvious that PMDC Law, 2017 does not state whether it has jurisdiction on criminal matters or not, it is the view of this writer that nothing stops it from doing so. This is because criminal matters are subjects to peaceful settlement.[28]

Lastly, the definition of counsel under section 2 of PMDC Law, 2017, which deals with the definition of ‘counsel’, should be revisited to address the reality of Nigeria’s jurisprudence. The use of the words ‘lawyer licensed to practice in Nigeria or elsewhere’ is capable of allowing foreign lawyers (who are not accredited to practice in Nigeria) and quacks to engage in ADR before PMDC. Or in the alternative, the PMDC Law, 2017, shall outlined criteria for any foreign practitioner to follow when he desires to practice ADR in Nigeria.

CONCLUSION

This work began with the basic concepts of Multi-door courthouse-wherein the meanings, reasons and evolution of ADR are examined. After that the work examines salient issues that are not captured in the PMDC Law, 2017. The work concludes by suggesting certain ways on how to address the omissions associated with the PMDC Law, 2017. It is the ultimate aim of this writer that this work shall be resourceful in the future readjustment of the content of the PMDC Law, 2017.

[1]1. .3rd Federal Integrity  Meeting For The Justice Sector” TEN years of justice sector reform in Nigeria: A 360 Degree Review” ,Ladi Kwali Hall, 2009 @ P.11

[2]2.Ibid

[3]3. These ways are not  rigid or static a state may decide to have more than the traditional 2 ways as they laws may determine.

[4]4.Ezeanya Ann Ugonna, ”The legal Framework of Multi-Door Court House in Nigeria and Juxtaposing the Rules of Professional Conduct and High Court”P.2@https://wwwacademia.edu/309855994/LEGAL-F<accesssed on July7 TH, 2020>

[5]5.Ibid

[6]6.Ibid

[7]7. Gladys Kessler and Linda J.Finkelstein, ”The Evolution of a Multi door Court  House’’ 37Cath. U. L. Rev. 557 (1988)@ Pp 585-589

[8].8. Ezeanya Ann Ugonna,Op Cit.P.3

[9]9.Ibid

[10]10.Ibid

[11] Oyeniyi Ajiboye, “The Concept of Multi-door Court House: Rethinking Frank  Sander’s Concept”@www.researchgate.net/publication/2683<accessed on 6th JULY, 2020>

[12]12.Ibid

13.Ibid

14.Ibid

[13]

[14]

[15]15.See Section 36 of The PMDC Law, 2017.

[16]16. (2016) 8 NWLR  pt. 1514. See also Local Government Service Commission, Ekiti State V Olamiju (2016) 8 NWLR pt. [email protected] Paras .D-F;H

[17]17.(2018) 15 NWLR  PT. [email protected] Paras-D

[18]18. Section 18 (1) of the Evidence Act (2011)

[19]19.Section 56 (1) (f) and 56 (2) of MDA, 2008

[20] Section 56 (3)

[21]21.Section.16.(h)  (i-vi) of the Constitution, 2018

[22]22. An interview with the Izang Aware Esq.,, a renowned legal practitioner and a prominent son of Afizere.

[23]23. Via a telephone and physical interviews with  about 10 persons who are stakeholders with their cultural association shows that some tribes have not  included or amended their constitutions to provide for ADR.  Attempts to get the constitution of other cultural association for analysis in the body of this work was not possible due to logistic hitches.  

[24]24.Ojibah V Ojibah (1991) LPELR-2374(SC)

[25]25..LFN,2004,CAP F.10

[26]26.1988 LFN, 2004 CAP A 11

[27]27.This is termed as doctrine of covering the field-which means that where a federal legislation legislates on a matter, on which the  state legislators did same and there is conflict the law created by the federal government will prevail. See the Mill. Governor Ondo State & Anor V Adewunmi (1988) LPELR-3188(SC)

[28]28.Section 17 of the Federal High Court Act. LFN, 2004