UWAIFO V. A-G. BENDEL STATE & ORS.
| Pages | 221-279 |
UWAIFO V. A-G., BENDEL STATE & ORS.
221
I cannot see that if no exceptional circumstance had been shown justifying ex-
tension of time to file brief resulting in the refusal of the application thereto, that
ruling should now be circumvented by a grant of leave for the respondent to ad-
duce oral argument, in lieu of Brief, under Order 9 rule 6(5) of the Supreme Court
5
Rules.
Accordingly, this appeal muM be, and is hereby dismissed, under Order 9 rule
7 of the Supreme Court Rules with costs as contained in the order of the Chief Jus-
tice.
Application Granted; Appeal
10
Dismissed.
15
UWAIFO V. A-G., BENDEL STATE & ORS.
F.S. UWAIFO
APPELLANT
V
20
1. A-G. BENDEL STATE
2.
MR. JUSTICE A.N. MAID01
-
1
3.
MR. A. RONE ORUGBOH
RESPONDENTS
4.
CHIEF O.M. ULOHO
5.
MR. SURU AKELE
25
SUIT NO. SC 95/1981
SUPREME COURT OF
NIGERIA
SOWEMIMO,
J.S.C.
IRIKEFE,
J.S.C.
IDIGBE,
J.S.C.
30
OBASEKI,
J.S.C.
ESO,
J.S.C.
NNAMANI,
J.S.C.
UWAIS,
J.S.C.
16th July, 1982
35
Constitutional Law - Judicial Powers - Limitation under S.6(6) (d) of 1979
Constitution - Action instituted by retired public officer challenging validity of
forfeiture of his assets during Military Regime by Public Officers and Other
Persons (Forfeiture of Assets) (No. 2) Edict, 1977.
40
ISSUES:
1.
Whether the Courts are competent under the 1979 Constitution to entertain
actions which inquire into the validity of Decrees and Edicts in force before the
coming into operation of the Constitution and which ousted such competence
45
- in the instant case - the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree 1976 and
the Tribunals or Inquiries (Validation etc.) Decree, 1977.
2.
When will a court look for some other posssible meaning of words used in a
statute?
3.
Whether a person who has retired from the public service is still a public officer
50
within the meaning of Section 13(1)(a) of the Investigation of Assests (Public
Officers and other persons) Act No. 37 of 1968 and Section 7 of the Public
Officers (Special Provisions) Act No.10 of 1976.
222
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1982] N.S.C.C.
FACTS
The appellant was being investigated by the Maidoh Assets Verification Panel
appointed under the Public Officers (Special Provision) Decree, 1976, and the
period covered by the investigation was 1st January, 1966 to 30th September 1975.
The said decree had specifically ousted the competence of the court to inquire
5
into its validity or the validity of any act done by it. In October, 1979, the appellant
brought an action in the High Court of Bendel State claiming, inter alia, a decla-
ration that the Panel exceeded its jurisdiction as per terms of reference and that
it did not apply the rules of law and natural justice in considering his case and the
recommendation of the Panel were null and void. The High Court in dismissing
10
the action, held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and further that the
appellant's claim was totally misconceived. On appeal, the Federal Court of Ap-
peal in affirming the judgment of the lower court stated that the right of the parties
must be considered in the light of the provision of the law as it was when the cause
of action arose, even though the 1979 Constitution clearly came into force before
15
the suit was instituted and concluded in the lower court.
The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court contending inter alia that by vir-
tue of the provisions of the 1979 Constitution, the Bendel High Court ought to have
entertained the suit. The main point upon which the appeal turned was the effect
of section 6 of the 1979 Constitution, especially of section 6(6)(d) on the present
20
circumstances.
HELD
1.
None of the Decrees or Edicts under consideration have been repealed.
Decree No. 10 of 1976 is existing law and cannot be contradictory to any other
repealed Decrees since this action was filed in October 1979. The effect of the
25
forfeiture of the appellants' properties, having regard to the existing laws, viz,
Decree No. 10 of 1976, Edict No. 10 of 1977 and Decree No. 18 of 1977 and
section 6(6)(d) of the Constitution; is that the forfeiture is valid.
Section 6(6)(d) of the 1979 Constitution reads:
30
'(6)
The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions
of this section -
(d) shall not, as from the date when this section comes into force, extend
to any action or proceedings relating to any existing law made on or
35
after 18th January, 1966 for determining any issue or question as to
the competence of any authority or person to make any such law."
2.
The obligations and rights of parties must be considered in the light of the law
at the time when the cause of action arose. It is clear from the facts of this case
40
that whatever cause of action the appellant may have had in 1977, it was clear
that as the law stood then he could not enforce any rights he may had in any
court of law. If the jurisdiction of the Courts was ousted when the appellants'
cause of action arose, then that jurisdiction which was then ousted cannot now
be assumed merely because the appellant chose to institute his suit after 1st
45
October, 1979.
3.
Even though sections 6(3) and 2(2) of Decree No. 10 of 1976 and No. 18 of
1977 are inconsistent with and repugnant to section 4(8) of the Constitution and
must be taken to be impliedly repealed, the effect of the provisions in sustained
by section 6(1)(b)(c) and (e) of the Interpretation Act of 1964 - i.e. their implied
50
repeal does not affect their previous operation or any thing duly done or
suffered under them, nor affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability
incurred under the enactment, or affect any investigation, legal proceeding or
remedy, etc.
UWAIFO
V. A-G.,
BENDEL STATE &
ORS.
223
4.
In order to determine the meaning of any expression or phrase in an enactment
'the first question to ask always is what is the
natural
or
ordinary
meaning of
the words used therein in the context in the statute;" and it is only when the
ordinary meaning of those words leads to some result which cannot reasonably
5
be supposed to have been the intention of the legislature that it becomes proper
to look for some other possible meaning of the words concerned.
5.
That a person is a public officer if he comes within the meaning of Section
13(1)(a) of the Investigation of Assets (Public Officers and other persons) Act
No. 37 of 1968 and Section 7 of the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Act
10
No. 10 of 1976. As these sections refer to a person who holds or
has held
any
office in any of the public services of Nigeria then the above provisions clearly
refer to and include retired public officers.
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:
15
1.
Queen v. Overseers of Tonbridge
(1884) 13 Q.B.D. 339 at 342.
2.
Western Bank Ltd. v. Schindler
(1977) Ch. D 1 at 13f to 14a.
3.
Luke v. Inland Revenue Commissioners
(1963) A.C. 557 at 577.
4.
Priner v. Everett
(1969) 3 All E.R. 257.
5.
Chandler v. Director of Public Prosecutions
(1964) A.C. 763 at 789.
20
6.
Stephens v. Cuckfield Rural District Council
(1960) 2 Q.B. 373 at 383.
7.
Prine v. Slatter
(1883) 11 Q.B. 120.
8.
The India
(1865) 12 L.T. (New Series) at 316.
9.
Surtees v. Ellison
9 B. & C. 750 at 752.
10.Kay v.
Goodwin
(1830) 6 Binbg 576 at 582.
25
11.Lemm v. Mitchell
12.Rimini v. Van Praagh
(1872) B L.R.Q.B. 1.
13.
Barnes v. Eddleston
(1876) L.R. 1 Ex. 106.
14.
Postlethwaite v. Kratz
(1943) 19 T.L.R. 248.
15.Mitchell v. Clarke
110 U.S. 633 also 28 L. ed. 279.
30
16.Swayne and Hoyt v. U.S.
300 U.S. 297 also 81 L.ed 659.
17.Lakanmi v. A-G. for Western Nigeria
(1971) 1 U.I.L.R. 201 at 220.
18. Liyanage v. The Queen
(1967) A.C. 259 r 290 and 291.
19.Nafiu Rabiu v. The State
(1980) 8-11 S.C. 130 at 195.
20.
University of lbadan v. Adamolekun
(1967) 1 All N.L.R. 213 AT 224.
35
21.
United States v. Lovett
328 U.S. 303 at 322 also 90 L.ed 1252 at 1263.
22.Kariapper v. Wijensinha
(1967) 3 All E.R. at 489
F -
G.
23.Abbot v. Minister of Lands
24.Reynolds v. Attorney-General of Nova Scotia
25.Butler v. Attorney-General (Victoria)
106 C.L.R. 268. at 275 and 276.
40
26. Eruku v. Military Governor of Mid-Western State of Nigeria
(1974) 1 All
N.L.R. 163 - 175.
Chief F.R.A. Williams S.A.N.
(with him
S.A. Asemota, J.I. Popoola and P. Umeadi)
for the Appellant.
45
E.O. Azomani, Legal Adviser, Bendel State
for the Respondents.
SOWEMIMO, J.S.C.
(Delivering the Judgment of the Court): This case, which
is an appeal to this Court, started in the Bendel State High Court as suit No. B/264/79
and the writ of summons was issued out on the 2nd of October, 1979. The summons
50
read thus:
'The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is for -
To continue reading
Request your trial