AKISATAN (APENA OF IPORO) & OTHERS V. AKINWANDE THOMAS & OTHERS (PC)

POLICY AND PRACTICE LAW REPORTS, 2PLR

Search

Search

–

AKISATAN (APENA OF IPORO) & OTHERS

V.

AKINWANDE THOMAS & OTHERS

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL

28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1950

LEX (1950) – XII WACA 90 – 92

OTHER CITATION(S)

2PLR/1950/6 (P. C.)

(1950) XII WACA PP. 90 – 92

–

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:

LORD GREENE,

LORD SIMONDS AND

LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON

–

BETWEEN:

AKISATAN (APENA OF IPORO) & OTHERS – Appellants

AND

AKINWANDE THOMAS & OTHERS – Respondents

–

ORIGINATING COURT(S)

Appeal from the West African Court of Appeal.

–

ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION

Nigeria— Supreme Court— Native Courts— Jurisdiction— Supreme Court Ordinance, section 12.

–

CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court Ordinance, by which the present Supreme Court of Nigeria was established, contemplates that there may be concurrent jurisdiction in the Supreme Court and a Native Court-which is inconsistent with the vesting of exclusive jurisdiction in the Native Courts where, ex facie, the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction. The opening words of section 12 of the Supreme Court Ordinance, which enact that, “subject to” such jurisdiction as may for the time being be vested by Ordinance in Native Courts, the Supreme Court shall have the thereinafter defined jurisdiction, are equivalent to without prejudice to”, and are not to be construed as ousting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and vesting exclusive jurisdiction in a Native Court in any matter in respect of which jurisdiction had been vested by Ordinance in that Native Court. The proviso to section 12 is conclusive on the question, for if it were the correct view of the substantive part of the section that it enacted that in all cases in which a Native Court has jurisdiction that of the Supreme Court is ousted, there would be no sense in providing by a proviso that in certain of such cases the Supreme Court should not exercise jurisdiction. Further, there is nothing in the previous history of the legislation by which courts were established in the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria, or in the context of the Ordinance of 1943, which would suggest that in 1943 so drastic a measure would be taken as substantially to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in favour of the Native Court.

Accordingly, in a suit which did not raise any issue in respect of which it was specifically enacted by the proviso to section 12 that the Supreme Court should not exercise original jurisdiction, and there was a Native Court— a Grade A Court of competent jurisdiction, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

–

–

MAIN JUDGMENT

The following Judgment was delivered:

Lord Simonds. This appeal, which is brought from a judgment of the West African Court of Appeal varying a judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, raises an important question in regard to the jurisdiction of the latter Court. The suit, in which the appeal arises, was instituted by the respondents (other than a formal respondent), who claimed to be representatives of a certain section of the Iporo community in Abeokuta, against the appellants and the formal respondent claiming a declaration that the installation by the first appellant of the second and third appellants in the offices of Oluwo of Iporo and Balogun of Iporo, respectively, was contrary to native law and custom and for an appropriate injunction.

–

DOWNLOAD PREMIUM PDF COPY (N2000)

READ MORE

JUDGMENTS BY AREAS OF PRACTICE

JUDGMENTS BY PRACTICE/PROCEDURE ISSUES