Chief Babatunji Olowofoyeku V. The Attorney-general Of Oyo State & Ors.(1996)
LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report
MOHAMMED, J.S.C.
Chief Babatunji Olowofoyeku was, between January 1963, and January, 1966, the Attorney-General of former Western Region of Nigeria. After the 1966 Military Coup, the then Military Government of the former Western State of Nigeria set up Somolu Assets Tribunal and empowered it to probe the assets of some key public officers, who were alleged to have committed unlawful enrichment during the course of their public duties.
In July, 1969, following the release of Somolu Report, certain properties of Chief Olowofoyeku, the appellant, in this appeal, were forfeited to the former Western State of Nigeria, by virtue of the Public Officers and (Other Persons Forfeiture of Assets) Order, 1969 – WSLN, 65 of 1969. The properties are:
(a) A piece of land at Commercial Reservation, Ibadan
(b) A house at No.9 Queen Elizabeth II Road, Ibadan
(c) A piece of land at Ojo Road, near Apapa, off Badagry Road, Lagos State.
(d) A house known as No. 101 Awolowo Road, S.W. Ikoyi, Lagos.
The appellant soon after the release of Somolu’s report instituted an action in the Lagos High Court and challenged the forfeiture order, contesting that not a single property of those listed above or any other property had been illegally or corruptly acquired by him. The case was still pending in court when the Federal Military Government enacted into law the first ouster Decree with general application, to wit, the Federal Military Government (Supremacy and Enforcement of Powers) Act, No. 28 of 1970, which ousted the jurisdiction of courts from determination of any action Which challenges the legality of a Decree or an Edict and the powers exercised under them. The Act reads:
“It is hereby declared also that –
(a) for the efficacy and stability of the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; and
(b) with a view to assuring the effective maintenance of the territorial integrity of Nigeria and the peace, order and good government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria –
(i) no civil proceedings shall lie or be instituted in any court for or on account of or in respect of any act, matter or thing done or purported to be done under or pursuant to any Act or Law and if any such proceedings are instituted before, on or after the commencement of this Act the proceedings shall abate, be discharged and made void,
(ii) the question whether any provision of Chapter IV of the Constitution has been, is being or would be contravened by anything done or purported to be done in pursuance of any Act or a Law shall not be inquired into in any court of law, and, accordingly, no provision of the Constitution shall apply in respect of any such question.”
After the promulgation of the Ouster Decree, the Federal Attorney-General applied for the action filed by the appellant to be struck out, for want of jurisdiction. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, and pending the determination of his appeal, his application for stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court was granted. He was thus permitted to remain in occupation of his properties but on condition that he paid rents of (N2,000.00) per annum, for the use and occupation of all the properties involved, including No. 101 Awolowo Road, South West Ikoyi, Lagos, which is the subject of the action. It was the decision of the High Court in respect of this house which brought about this appeal.
Leave a Reply