BOYO V. STATE

• Pages: 268-270

268



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1970] N.S.C.C.

BOYO V. STATE

5

G.M. BOYO



APPELLANT

V

THE STATE



RESPONDENT



10

SUIT NO. SC 117/1970

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.

SOWEMIMO,



J.S.C.



15

6th November, 1970

Practice and Procedure - Contempt of court - Application for leave to serve

notice of motion on Appellant to show cause why he should not be committed

for contempt of court - Duty of court to satisfy itself that conditions precedent



20

to making application fulfilled - Order 52 r.2 of the Supreme Court Rules.

ISSUE:

1. What are the conditions precedent for granting an application under Order 52

Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules.



25

FACTS:

This was an appeal against the ruling of a High Court in a motion

ex parte

granting leave to the Ag. D.P.P. to serve notice of motion upon the Appellant to

show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of court. The applica-

tion was made under order 52. rule 2. Argument of causes for the Appellant was



30

that the material contents of the affidavit which purported to support the four com-

plaints of contempt were absolutely hearsay, being dependent on annexures to the

affidavit. These annexures were copies of affidavits purported to have been sworn

by certain individuals. The appellant was aggrieved. He appealed to the Supreme

Court.



35

HELD:

1 The court in granting leave under Order 52 Rule 2 must satisfy itself that the

application contains the following particulars:

(a)

That the application is supported by a statement setting out the name and

description of the Applicant.



40

(b)

The name, description and address of the person sought to be committed.

(c)

The grounds on which his committal is sought; and

(d)

An affidavit filed before the application was made to the court for leave ver-

ifying the facts relied on to support the grounds on (c) above.

2. In this case, it was clear that the trial Judge did not give consideration to the



45

observance and compliance of these pre- conditions. Since the order

purported to be made under 0.52 r.2 was made without the trial Judge first

satisfying himself that all conditions precedent to making the application had

been fulfilled, the order made by him must be set aside.

3. It was evident that all the annexures which the trial Judge had made reference



50

to were not affidavits sworn to by the different individuals mentioned with the

purpose of verifying the grounds on which application was made, and when

the annexures were read along with the only affidavit sworn to by the Ag. D.P.P.