LAYANJU V. ARAOYE

• Pages: 68-71

68



LAYANJU V. ARAOYE

LAYANJU V. ARAOYE

5

LAYANJU

V

EMMANUEL ARAOYE

FEDERAL SUPREME

COURT.

BRETT,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

21st March, 1961.

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 173/1960

10

15

Administrative Law - Mandamus - Order and act done thereunder - Order made

without jurisdiction - Order set aside - Act done left undisturbed.

Legislation- Laws of Western Region - Appointment and Recognition of Chiefs

Law 1954 - Chiefs Law 1957 - Federal Supreme Court (Appeal) Ordinance

s.4.

ISSUES:

1.

What preconditions must exist before a writ of

mandamus

can issue against a

person?

2.

Whether where a writ of

mandamus

is set aside on appeal on the ground that it

was grantec without jurisdiction, any act done in compliance with the writ must

also be set aside.



30

FACTS:

The present appellant had successfully appealed to this Court to have set aside

the decision of the High Court of the Western Region making absolute a rule

nisi

for a writ of

mandamus

to compel the Are of Ire to give his approval to the ap-

pointment of the respondent as the Esa of Ire according to native law and custom.



35

The writ was set aside and the rule

nisi

was ordered to be discharged as having

been granted without jurisdiction contrary to the Appointment and Recognition of

Chiefs Law, 1954, and the Chiefs Law of 1957. It was pointed out in the judgment

setting aside the writ that the success of the appeal would have no immediate ef-

fect on the status of the parties and that the argument of counsel to the appellant



40

that the success of the appeal would automatically entitle his client to resume the

office of Esa was not upheld. The Court was of the view that the respondent would

continue to occupy the office of Esa as if the Are had recognised him without the

compulsion of the writ of

mandamus

as it appeared that the Are was intact willing

to do so and that if the appellant wished to regain the office he had to have such



45

steps as were open to him to have the respondent removed from office.

The appellant applied to the High Court by motion on notice seeking to have

the approval given by the Are to the appointment of the respondent in accordance

with the writ of

mandamus

set aside or rescinded. The motion was denied. He

appealed on the ground that his motion in the High Court sought to enforce the



50

Federal Supreme Court's judgment - setting aside the writ under Section 4 of the

Appeals Ordinance. He argued also that what the Federal Supreme Court added

to its judgment was no more than an

obiter dictum,

or in the alternative that the de-

cision it contains was made

per incuriarn.

20

25