OLAWOYIN V. C 0 P

• Pages: 90-100

90



OLAWOYIN V. C.O.P.

There was no such reason for depriving the appellant of his costs in this mat-

ter. He is entitled to both his costs in the lower Court, which I assess at 40 guineas,

and in this Court, which I assess at 30 guineas.

Ademola, C.J.F.:

I concur.

Bairamian, F.J.:

I concur.

5

Appeal allowed.

OLAWOYIN V. C.O.P.

J.S.

OLAWOYIN



APPELLANT

V

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 73/1961

10

15

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

ADEMOLA,



C.J.F.

BRETT,



F.J.



20

UNSWORTH,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

6th April, 1961.

25

Constitutional Law - Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council 1954. Sections 142A

(13), 142B, 142C, 142D, 148 - Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council 1960,

Sections 1(3), 3(1), 4(1) Second Schedule, Constitution of the Federation, section

5(1), 108, Third Schedule, Constitution of Northern Nigeria, sections 49 to 52.

30

Courts- High Court, Northern Region, Native Courts Appellate Division - Composition

of Court - Northern Region High Court (Amendment) Law 1960 (NR. No.14

of 1960) - Northern Region High Court Law sections 2, 59B, 59C - Composition

of Court procedural and not preserved by S.38, Interpretation Act, 1889 (52

and 53 Vict. C.63, S.38).



35

Constitutional Law - Validity of S.59C Northern Region High Court Law under

Nigeria (constitution) Order in Council, 1960 - Partial invalidity - Revocation

of Constitution under which Law enacted - Effect of absence of similar

provision in new constitution - Inconsistency - Intempretation - Report of

40

Constitutional Conference inadmissible where no patent ambiguity - Reference

of constitutional issue to Supreme court - Questions referred, how to be framed.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a Law which provides for the sharing of functions of the High Court

45

and it's Judges with other persons is valid.

2.

Whether the Constitution of Northern Nigeria permits the sharing of the functions

of the High Court or it's Judges with other persons.

3.

Whether the power conferred by Section 142A(13) of the 1954 Constitution was

such as to be exercised once and for all.



50

4.

Whether s.59C of the Northern Region High Court Law creating the Native

Courts Appellate Division of the High Court inconsistent with the Constitution.

5.

Whether the court is entitled to refer to extraneous evidence in interpreting

a

constitutional instrument.