OMOREGIE V. D P P

• Pages: 107-110

OMOREGIE V. D.P.P.



107

ing house; consequently (the argument ran) it was not under, but outside the Chiefs

Law that the Governor- in-Council approved.

Learned counsel cited

R. v. Governor-in-Council,

W.R.,

ex parte Adejuwon

Odubote,

(1961) W.R.N.LR., 95 and no doubt wished the court to look at the pres-

5





ent case as being similar to that. But the chieftaincy there was said to be not one

to which Part II of the Law applied, which meant that there was no jurisdiction in

the case. One other reason given in that case was that no report had been sub-

mitted and considered under section 37 of the 1954 Law (relevant to that case)

which the learned Judge regarded as a condition precedent to approval.

Per con-

10





tra,

in the present case it is stated that the 1957 Law does apply to the chieftaincy

in question; and the second ground in the application for

certiorari

speaks of the

said "appointment" forwarded to the Governor-in-Council for approval; thus, the

present case differs from that.

It is only natural that, where certiorari lies within a limited field, as here, the case

15





for it will be presented in a guise which appears to bring it within that field; but the

courts must be careful to see that it does in truth lie within that field. On the test

that the facts alleged must be extrinsic to the adjudication impeached, where the

basis for certiorari is want of jurisdiction, the present application is outside that

limited field.

20



The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs to the respondents assessed at fif-

teen guineas.

Unsworth, F.J.

I concur.

Taylor, F.J.

I concur.

Appeal allowed

25

OMOREGIE V. D.P.P.

30

EBUN OMOREGIE



APPELLANT

V

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS



RESPONDENT

35





SUIT NO. FSC 260/1961

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

ADEMOLA,



C.J.F.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

40



12th March, 1962.

Criminal Law - Mens Rea - Criminal Code - Perjury - assignment of perjury

under the Criminal Procedure Au - Not to be based on equivocal evidence

- Testimony complained of must be material to question at issue in the

45



proceedings.

ISSUE:

1.

Whether mens rea is an essential element in proving perjury under Section 117

of the Criminal Code.

50

FACTS:

A foreign cement company brought action against the appellant for the price

of goods received by the appellant as agent of the company for which he should

have been personally liable.