ADU V. LASISI

• Pages: 255-257

ADU V. LASISI



255

ADU V. LASISI

5

JOSEPH ADU

V

10 LAMINA LASISI

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 81/1970

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.

15



MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

9th October, 1970

Criminal Law - Charge - Contempt of court - Where accused brought before a

Magistrate - Duty of Magistrate to proceed with trial - Criminal Code S.133(8).

20

Criminal Law - Contempt of court Refusal to obtain court order to quit land

- Defendant in no doubt about the land in dispute - Whether plan of land

necessary.

25

ISSUE:

1. Whether a contemnor who refuses to obey a court order to quit the land in

dispute can plead that the identity of the land was not sufficiently clear.

FACTS:

This was a case of contempt of court. The defendant was brought to court

30



under a criminal summons signed by a Magistrate stating that the land in dispute

was adjudicated upon in the High Court and adjudged the land of the present com-

plainant and his people. A warrant of possession had been issued against the de-

fendant and the defendant was subsequently convicted in the High Court for

contempt when he refused to quit ihe land. After the warrant of possession, the

35



defendant took possession of the land. The defendant was convicted.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the defendant claimed that the identity of the

land concerned was not proved.

HELD:

1.

Once a man is brought before a Magistrate on a charge, since the man's

40



attendance has been secured and he is present in court, the Magistrate has a

duty to proceed with the trial, subject to any point of law which may be raised

and which the trial Magistrate must deal with.

In this case the defendant himself admitted in his affidavit and before the trial

Magistrate that he was served with a summons; that was the end of the matter

45



and the Magistrate was competent to try him.

2.

On the evidence in this case, there was no time the defendant was in doubt

about the land in dispute. Throughout the proceedings it was abundantly clear

the land which parties were litigating on. Therefore, the Supreme Court was

unable to agree with the views of the Chief Justice that the land in dispute was

50



not sufficiently identified or that a plan of the land was necessary.

Chief Williams (with him, Oluwole)

for the Appellant.

Ogunyomi-Ashimi

for the Respondent.