Home » WACA Cases » Akisatan (Apena Or Iporo) & Others V. Akinwande Thomas & Others (1950) LJR-WACA

Akisatan (Apena Or Iporo) & Others V. Akinwande Thomas & Others (1950) LJR-WACA

Akisatan (Apena Or Iporo) & Others V. Akinwande Thomas & Others (1950)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

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

Facts

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.

Held

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.

See also  Amodu Tijani & Anor V. John O. Agbeyegbe (1941) LJR-WACA


Appeal from the West African Court of Appeal.


Appeal dismissed.

More Posts

Section 47 EFCC Act 2004: Short Title

Section 47 EFCC Act 2004 Section 47 of the EFCC Act 2004 is about Short Title. This Act may be cited as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment,

Section 46 EFCC Act 2004: Interpretation

Section 46 EFCC Act 2004 Section 46 of the EFCC Act 2004 is about Interpretation. In this Act – Interpretation “Commission” means the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission established

Section 45 EFCC Act 2004: Savings

Section 45 EFCC Act 2004 Section 45 of the EFCC Act 2004 is about Savings. The repeal of the Act specified in section 43 of this Act shall not

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LawGlobal Hub is your innovative global resource of law and more. We ensure easy accessibility to the laws of countries around the world, among others