BIKAWE V. OKITIKPI

• Pages: 29-32

BIKAWE V. OKITIKPI



29

Lord Parker cited

Ex. P. Bradlaugh,

(1878) 3 Q.B.D. 509 as the leading case

on the matter, where Mellor J., said:-

It is well established that the provision taking away the certiorari does not apply

5





where there was an absence of jurisdiction. The consequence of holding

otherwise would be that a metropolitan magistrate could make any order he

pleased without question. We are not concerned here with any section in our

local law which takes away

certiorari

similar to the particular sections in the

County Courts Acts with which the Queen's Bench Division was concerned.

10





Ours is a simple case of a Senior District Officer sitting as a court and hear-

ing an appeal without jurisdiction.

Mr. Araka also referred to

The Queen v. The Resident, Ogoja Province, ex parte

lhpah Onah of lgogobe

(1957), 2 F.S.C. 30 in which the Federal Supreme Court

15





held that if on the facts the Resident had acted beyond his jurisdiction in review-

ing a judgment out of time, the former Supreme Court (of which the High Courts

are the successors) had jurisdiction to entertain the application for an order nisi

to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue. (Acting beyond one's juris-

diction, or exceeding it, means the same as acting without jurisdiction).

20





It is clear that

certiorari

lies in the present case, and that it should issue. The

appeal is allowed, and it is ordered that the judgments of the Senior District Of-

ficer dated 18th February, 1955 and of the Governor of the Eastern Region dated

5th August, 1955, in the case of Uturu Native Court Civil Case No. 41/54, be

removed by

certiorari

into the High Court of that Region and quashed; and the ap-

25





pellant shall have his costs here and below, those here to be thirty-eight guineas

and those below to be taxed in the High Court.

UNSWORTI

-

I, F.J.:

I concur.

TAYLOR, F.J.:

I concur.

Appeal allowed: Certiorari

Ordered.

BIKAWE V. OKITIKPI

30

35

40

NIBILEMI BIKAWE

V

MILLER OKITIKPI

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

ADEMOLA,



C.J.F.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

45



BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

11th January, 1962.

Damages - Adultery - Quantum ,9f -

Judicial and judicious.

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO.FSC 48/1961

Discretion of court - mode of exercise

ISSUE:

1. Whether a condoning plaintiff can profit by way of damages, from the

adulterous excesses of a spouse.

50