MABINUORI AND ORS. V. OGUNLOYE

• Pages: 13-15

MABINUORI AND ORS. V. OGUNLOYE



13

MABINUORI AND ORS. V. OGUNLOYE

5

KARIMU MABINUORI AND OTHERS

V

10 SAMUEL ONTI OGUNLOYE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.

15



LEWIS,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

6th February, 1970.

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 202/1967

Practice and Procedure - Constitutional law - Application for registration of freehold

20





owner of premises - Objection - Appeal - S.98(6) of Registration of Titles

Act - If applicable of right or leave need be obtained.

ISSUE:

1.

Whether the provisions of s.98(6) of the Registration of Titles Act give

ipso facto

25



a right of appeal to the Supreme Court.

FACTS:

An appeal was made to the High Court from a determination of the Registrar

of Titles after an objection that the Applicant before him was not entitled to regis-

tration as the freehold owner oi certain premises. The appeal was allowed and

30





the Registrar ordered to register the title. Against that decision the objectors be-

fore the Registrar of Titles, app9aled to the Supreme Court but the Respondent

(the original applicant) took a preliminary objection that the appeal was not proper-

ly before this court and that this court had no jurisdiction to determine the appeal.

HELD:

35





1. It would be wrong to read into s.98(6) of the Registration of Titles Act words

that are not there. The Act makes specific provisions for appeal to the Supreme

Court. The words should be given their natural meaning which must be that

appeal is of right. To read in a requirement for leave would be to put a possible

fetter on the right of appeal and when power is given by the constitution to make

40





provision by legislation for cases other than those already provided for in the

constitution, where appeal may be made to the Supreme Court, that provision

so made will be of right under s. 117(2) of the constitution of the Federation

unless the contrary is specifically provided for in the legislation concerned.

2.

It is not necessary for the legislation to state specifically that the appeal shall

45





be as of right, because a provision enabling an appeal to be brought should

be read as being "as of right" unless the contrary is stated, as the granting of

the right of appeal where it would riot otherwise exist implies of itself that it shall

be exercised without further fetter unless the legislation states to the contrary.

3.

There was therefore no need to obtain leave to appeal here as it lay of right.

50

Agusto

(with him,

Ogonsiji)

for i he Appellant.

Awopeju

for the Respondent.