DABIRI & ORS V. GBAJUMO

• Pages: 114-120

114



DABIRI & ORS V. GBAJUMO.

of the Federation. This does not in any way relieve the Court of the duty to judge

for itself, but it is among the matters to be taken into consideration.

I support the judgment proposed.

UNSWORTH, F.J. I

agree with the views that have already been expressed. The

law relating to sedition in a democratic society is designed to secure the safety of

the State and public order, and I do not think that the law in Nigeria, in so far as it

relates to the matters under consideration in this reference, goes further than is

reasonably justifiable for this purpose. In this respect there is nothing I can usefully

add to what has already been said.

The extent to which prosecutions for sedition are brought is a matter for the Di-

rector of Public Prosecution, without whose consent under subsection (2) of sec-

tion 52 of the Criminal Code no prosecution for sedition can be instituted. The

tenure of office of this official is secured by section 145 of the Constitution of the

Federation of Nigeria, and subsection (6) of section 97 of that Constitution pro-

vides that in the exercise of his powers the Director shall not be subject to the di-

rection or control of any other person or authority.

Answer to Question (1): No

Answer to Question (2): No

DABIRI & ORS V. GBAJUMO.

MOMO DABIRI AND OTHERS

V

CHIEF A.B. GBAJUMO

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

ADEMOLA,



F.J.F.

UNSWORTH,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

1st May, 1961.

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 16

2

/

1

960

Customary Law- Yoruba Native Law and Custom - Occupation of Lands -

Partition by occupiers.

Practice and Procedure- Statement of Claim - Claim of title to and for possession

of lands - Forfeiture not expressly claimed, but indicated as a ground for

possession.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether absence of the word ''Forfeiture" from a claim in land law is fatal, where

the Statement of Claim makes it clear that possession is claimed.

2.

Whether slaves and their descendants have an interest in property given them

by their overlord for their use.

FACTS:

In an earlier action, one of the present defendants sued some of the other de-

fendants and others for a partition of two adjoining properties, namely 20 Bridge

Street and 132 Great Bridge Street, Lagos, which meet back to back and between

which there was no partition; the present plaintiff applied to be joined as a party