AKANDE V. ARAOYE & ANOR.

• Pages: 167-171

AKANDE V. ARAOYE & ANOR.



167

5



AKANDE V. ARAOYE & ANOR.

SANNI AKANDE (substituted for

Salawu Oyelade, the Olufon of Ifori

10



for himself and on behalf of the

Ifon Community)



APPELLANT

V

1.

SANUSI ARAOYE (the Olobu of Ilobu)

2.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL,

15



WESTERN NIGERIA



RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 31/1967

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

BRETT,



J.S.C.

20



COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

21st June, 1968.

25



Practice and Procedure - Where decision given in contravention of the provisions

of chapter 3 of the Constitution of the Federation - Decision while not open

to question in the appellate jurisdiction of High Court, is of a kind that

makes it liable to be quashed by order of certiorari - LW Whether is open to

the Court to set it aside in an action commenced by writ of summons - Or

30



whether order of certiorari exclusive remedy - Constitution of the Federation

s. 32( 3), s.22( 1).

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a decision which was given in contravention of the provisions of

35



chapter 3 of the 1963 Constitution be questioned in the appellate jurisdiction of

the High Court.

2.

How effective is

certorari

as a means of enforcement of fundamental rights.

3.

Whether an order made in an action on a writ of summons is the appropriate

way of setting aside a decision that contravenes chapter 3 of the 1963

40



Constitution.

FACTS:

The plaintiff commenced a suit by writ of summons in the Western High Court,

claiming (1) a declaration that a judgment given in the defendant's favour under

the Inter Tribal Boundaries Settlements Law, was illegal, unconstitutional and/or

45



contrary to natural justice, (2) an order setting aside the said decision; (3) a dec-

laration of title; and (4) an injunction. The trial judge dismissed the first two heads

of claim and non-suited on the third and fourth heads. The plaintiff appealed to

the Supreme Court, where the court granted him the declaration sought under the

first head and upheld the judgment of non-suit on the third and fourth heads. The

50



plaintiff's counsel did not address the court at length on the correctness of the trial

judge's view that a decision given under the Inter-Tribal Boundaries Settlement

Law could only be set aside by an order for

certiorari.

As a result, the court set

aside the judgment of the High Court dismissing the second head of claim and

stayed the claim, with liberty to the plaintiff to apply for a further order. There-