THE QUEEN V. TUKE

• Pages: 142-145

142



THE QUEEN V. TUKE.

plaintiff employer the burden of endeavouring to sever the buildings from the land

so as to apportion a sum which must be deemed to have been paid by the pur-

chaser in respect of these separate items.

Our attention was drawn to the cases of

Wigsell v. School for Indigent Blind

(1881, 8 Q.B. 357), and

James v. Hutton and J. Cook & Son Ltd.

(1950), 1 K.B.

9), which relate to the measure of damages for failure by a lessee to comply with

the provisions of a building covenant, hut, in my view, there is no analogy between

those case and that of a contractor who abandons work under a building contract

before completion.

In the circumstance mentioned above I would refer the case back to the learned

trial Judge for the assessment of damages in accordance with what I consider to

be the correct rules. In doing so I would add that I think the learned Judge would

be justified in taking into account the £250, as it is relevant for the purpose of as-

certaining the total sum which would have been payable to the contractor if he had

completed the work. If this amount is taken into consideration it could not then, of

course, form the subject of a separate action. The appellant is entitled to the costs

of this appeal, which I would assess at 36 guineas.

The costs in the High Court should be re-assessed by the learned trial Judge

at the further hearing.

ADEMOLA, C.J.F.: I

concur.

TAYLOR, F.J.: I

concur.

Appeal allowed on damages.

Case referred back for assessment

of damages.

THE QUEEN V. TUKE.

THE QUEEN



RESPONDENT

V

ALAYAU ASHAYU TUKE



APPELLANT

SUIT NO. FSC 71/1961

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

BRETT,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN



F.J.

2nd June, 1961.

Criminal Law - Interpretation of Statutes - Repeal of Criminal Statute - Offence

committed prior to Repeal - Prosecution after Repeal under Repealed Statute

- Interpretation Ordinance, Cap 89, s.14.

Legislation - Words and Phrases - "Pending" - N.R. Penal Code Law, 1959, s.3

- N.R. Criminal Procedure Code Law s.3.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether it is proper to prosecute an offence under a law which has been

repealed, even though the offence was committed before the repeal.

2.

Whether a law enacted while a matter was pending in the Magistrate Court, can

be applied to the matter.