UKAEGBU V. A-G. IMO STATE

• Pages: 160-178

UKAEGBU V. A-G. IMO STATE



160

participes criminis.

It is enough if the common intention can be gathered from the

circumstances of the case as disclosed by evidence.

Again, emphasis must be laid upon the fact that it is not a legal requirement that

the intention of the different participants to the offence should always be formed

5



contemporaneously. Like in the instant case on appeal, the early perpetrators may

have been the first batch to form the intention. Those who later joined, on hear-

ing the alarm, obviously formed theirs on joining and therefore subsequent to that

of the early perpetrators, and so on, until the crowd reached the resultant number.

In those circumstances it appears to me that there is no difference, in the legal re-

10



suit, made by the fact that the intention of the later arrivals was formed subsequent

to that of the early perpetrators, and if death resulted, they would be as much guilty

of the offence as those early participants.

This is merely in amplification of those reasons for judgment given by Bello,

J.S.C., with which I have already signified my agreement.

15

UWAIS, J.S.C.:

I have read in draft the reasons for judgment given by my

learned brother Bello, J.S.C. It was for the same reasons that I dismissed the

appeals of both the appellants on 17th February, 1983. I have nothing to add.

Appeal dismissed.

UKAEGBU V. A-G. IMO STATE

DR. BASIL UKAEGBU



APPELLANT

V

A-G., IMO STATE



RESPONDENT

30





SUIT NO. SC 83/1982

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

FATAL-WILLIAMS, C.J.N.

IRIKEFE,



J.S.C.

BELLO,



J.S.C.

35



IDIGBE,



J.S.C.

ESO,



J.S.C.

NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

30th March, 1983

40

Constitutional Law - Establishment of Educational institution by defendant for

purposes of a university challenged by Imo state Attorney-General - Right

under S.36 of 1979 Constitution to establish institution for dissemination of

information, ideas and opinions.

45

ISSUES:

1.

Is it correct to construe item L of the concurrent legislative list contained in the

Constitution of the Federation 1979 as implying that no private agency or

individual can establish a University except by invoking the legislative powers

50



of the National or State Assembly to establish the same?

2.

Has a private individual or Agency the right to establish a University or

Secondary or Post Primary institution by reasons of the provisions of S.16 and

S.36 of the 1979 constitution?

20

25

161



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1983] N.S.C.C.

3.

Is S.5 of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board Act void for

inconsistency with S.36 and S.41 of the 1979 Constitution?

4.

Are S.34 and S.35 of the Education Law of Imo State (No.10 of 1980) void for

inconsistency with S.36 and S.41 of the 1979 Constitution?

FACTS:



5

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was prior to the institution of this pro-

ceedings working towards establishing a private University named the Imo Tech-

nical University. The plaintiff brought an action challenging the right of the

defendant under S.36 of the 1979 Constitution to establish such an institution. The

High Court found in favour of the plaintiff. The appellant appealed to the Court of



10

Appeal which referred the above questions to the Supreme Court.

HELD:

1.

Item 1 of the concurrent legislative list of the 1979 Constitution enables a private

agency or individual to establish a University without invoking the legislative

powers of the National or State Assembly to establish the same.



15

2.

Subject to some qualifications, under S.16 and S.36 of the 1979 Constitution,

a private individual or agency has the right to establish a University or post

primary institution.

3.

S.5 of the Jcint Admissions and Matriculations Board Act is not void for

inconsistency with S.36 and S.41 of the 1979 Constitution.



20

4.

S.34 and S.35 of the Education Law of Imo State (No.10 of 1980) is not void

for inconsistency with S.36 and S.41 of the 1979 Constitution.

CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

1.

Archbishop Okogie v. Attorney-General for Lagos State

(1981) 2 N.C.L.R.



25

337.

2.

Senator Adesanya v. President Federal Republic of Nigeria

(1981) 2

N.C.L.R. 358.

3.

Attorney-General for the province of Ontario v. Attorney-General for the

Dominion of Canada

(1912) A.C. 571.



30

4.

A.1.B.E. Association v. National Industrial Tribunal

(1962) A.I.R. (Supreme

Court) 171.

5.

Staub v. Baxley 2

U.S. L-ed (2nd Series) 302 at 310.

6.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham

22 U.S. L-ed (2nd Series) 162 at 167.

7

Nafiu Rabiu v. The State

(1981) 2 N.C.L.R. 293.



35

Chief F.R.A. Williams, S.A.N.

(with him

L. Williams

and

O.K. Aderinokun Mrs)

for

the Appellant.

Chief G.U. Osuji, A-G. Imo State

(with him

S.O. Ekpe S.G., Imo State

and V.O.

Okpaleke, S.S.C. Imo State)

for the Respondent.



40

IDIGBE, J.S.C.:

(Delivering the Judgment of the Court): This matter comes

before this Court as a reference by the Federal Court of Appeal (Mamman Nasir

P.. Phil-Ebosie, Aseme, Alfa Belgore and Olatawura JJ.C.A.) holden at Enugu

hereinafter referred to simply as ''the Court of Appeal" under section 259(3) of the



45

1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (hereafter referred to simply

as "the 1979 Constitution") whereby this Court is asked to give its opinion on the

following questions:

"1. Is it correct to construe Item L of the Concurrent Legislative List contained



50

in the Constitution of the Federation as implying that no private agency or

individual can establish a University except by invoking the legislative

powers of the National or State Assembly (sic) to establish the same?