OYELADE V. ARAOYE & ANOR

• Pages: 302-307

302



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1967] N.S.C.C.

OYELADE V. ARAOYE & ANOR



5

SALAWU OYELADE



APPELLANT

V

1.

SANUSI ARAOYE



RESPONDENT



10

2.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL, WESTERN

NIGERIA

SUIT NO. SC 31/1967

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.



15

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

22nd December, 1967

Administrative Law - Tribunals - Administrative Officer conducting enquiry under



20

Inter-Tribal Boundaries Settlement Law (fonnerly Ordinance) - Right of

independent and impartial hearing - Disqualification for bias.

Appeals to Supreme Court (Civil) - Setting aside unconstitutional decision -

What

procedure appropriate - Constitution of Federation 1963, section 22.



25

ISSUES:

1.

Whether the functions of an administrative officer conducting an enquiry under

the Inter-Tribunal Boundaries Settlement Law come within those covered by

section 22(1) of the 1963 constitution i.e., whether he is a judicial tribunal whose



30

decision is legal and constitutional.

2.

Where the facts show a real likelihood of bias, even if unconscious, can it be

held that the rights determined have not been determined by a tribunal

constituted in such a manner as to ensure its independence and impartiality?

FACTS:



35

In 1953, the people of Ilobu instituted proceedings in the Native Court asking

for a court order for a proper and permanent boundary between lfon and Ilobu.

The case went on successive appeals to the District Officer, the Resident and the

Governor. When the Governor wished for more information than that in the rec-

ord he deputised one E, an administrative officer to inspect the boundaries of the



40

land and submit a special report. He made use of the report in preparing his judg-

ment in which he pronounced in favour of a boundary closer to that put forward

by Ilobu than that put forward by Ifon.

The people of Ifon applied to the High Court for

certiorari

to quash the deci-

sion of the Governor and the subordinate court, and this the High Court did in



45

1957 on the ground that the claim was not one cognisable by the native court.

It was subsequently suggested that the matter could properly be dealt with under

the Inter-Tribal Boundaries Settlement Ordinance (later styled law), and following

this suggestion the divisional adviser wrote to the Permanent Secretary recom-

mending that E, the administrative officer, be appointed to conduct the inquiry.



50

On the face of the divisional adviser's letter he expected that the result of the

inquiry would be in favour of the Ilobus (as had been the Governors decision) and

thought the inquiry would be purely formai unless fresh evidence was adduced.

The letter was signed on the divisional officer's behalf by E. The Permanent Sec-