OLAWOYIN V. A.G. NORTHERN NIGERIA

• Pages: 165-170

NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

09611 N.S.C.C.



165

the appeal in this Court occupied between six and seven hours, and I would award

total costs assessed at fifty guineas. The respondents jointly and severally, should

be liable personally for the costs awarded.

TAYLOR, F.J.

I concur.

5



BAIRAMIAN, F.J. I

concur.

OLAWOYIN V. A.G. NORTHERN NIGERIA

10

J.S. OLAWOYIN

V

15 A-G., NORTHERN REGION

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 290/1960

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

ADEMOLA,



C.J.F.

BRETT,



F.J.

20



UNSWORTH,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

8th June, 1961.

25



Constitutional Law - Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council, 1954, Sixth Schedule

Ss. 7 to 9 - Fundamental Human Rights - Northern Region, Children and

Young Persons Law,- 1958. PART V111.

- Practice and Procedure - Action for Declaration - Panics - Sufficiency of

interest - Northern Region High Court Law, 1955, s.11 - Supreme Court (Civil

30



Procedure) Rules.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to make a declaratory judgment in a

case relating to Fundamental Human Rights.

35



2. Whether a person who is not in imminent danger of coming into conflict with a

law has sufficient interest to sustain a claim that the law is unconstitutional.

FACTS:

Part V111 of the Northern Region,

Children and Young Persons Law,

1958 (N.R.

No. 28 of 1958) prohibits political activities by juveniles and prescribes penalties

40



on juveniles and others who are parties to certain specified offences.

The Appellant, Olawoyin, brought these proceedings for a Declaration that that

part of the Law was unconstitutional in that it contravened the provisions of the

Constitution of 1954 (Sixth Schedule, sections 7, 8 and 9) protecting fundamental

human rights, relating to private and family life, freedom of conscience and free-

45



dom of expression.

By consent, pleadings were dispensed with; but it was stated, in the Trial Court,

on behalf of the Appellant, that his evidence would be that he was the father of

children who he wished to educate politically, and because of that wish there was

a danger of his rights being infringed if the Law were enforced; even though no

50



action of any kind had been taken against him under the law.

The High Court dismissed the case upon the ground that no right of the Appel-

lant's was alleged to have been infringed and that it would be contrary to principle

to make a Declaration in

vacuo.