District Officer Vs The Queen (1961)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADEMOLA, C.J.F.

This is an appeal from the decision of Brown, J. sitting in the High Court of the Eastern Region at Enugu, discharging an Order Nisi for an order of certiorari to quash the judgment of the District Officer Obudu in his review of a Native Court case in the Utugwang-Ukpe clan court. Civil No. 16/57.

It is important at this stage to state the background which gave rise to this matter. In 1957 the Okorotung people brought an action against the Ukpe people for a boundary to be demarcated between the land of the two and for pillars to be fixed on the land in order to stop further boundary disputes. The Utugwang Ukpe Clan Court heard the case on the 15th April 1957 and on the 7th May, 1957, the court fixed the boundary by a path which parties themselves voluntarily agreed upon.

Apparently both sides were satisfied with the judgment as such. The District Officer in charge (Mr. R. G. Anderson), whose duty it was to supervise all Native Courts in the area, apparently viewed the case with some concern and felt that the case savours of some spurious arrangements between Okorotung and Ukpe in order to squeeze out a third party, known as the Kutia people. He therefore decided, of his own motion, as he was entitled to do, to review the case.

Earlier, and indeed in 1955, in the same clan court there was a case No. 56/55 between Adie Oko of Kutia (2nd Respondent in this matter) and Ojie Mang of Okorotung, the claim being “£10 damages for felling plaintiff’s seven palm trees and tapped them at Nwagba two months ago.” It was a personal action. That claim was dismissed. The plaintiff was dissatisfied and he applied to the District Officer for a review. The District Officer Mr. Anderson reviewed the case, and on the 12th October 1955, confirmed the judgment of the native court which dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. In his order on review he, however, ordered parties to deposit monies for a survey of the area to show portion allocated to various tenants. This was in 1955. It would appear that in January or February, 1957 the plans submitted to him were found unsatisfactory by him. They were returned to the surveyor for correction. His notes contained the following:

All interested parties are advised to interplead that is Mgbanage, Alege, Ukpe and Okorotung.

Now, the pith of the whole matter is this. In 1957 when he decided to review, of his own motion, case No. 16/57, the Districts Officer minuted as follows:-

Case 16/57 on review (of my own motion as a result of order in case 56/55). Parties present. This is in fact a claim. This in that the boundary is required to be defined. This is the result of the survey and order in case 56/55 (page 94 Land J.B.9). All interested parties were ordered to interplead.

Thus, the District Officer commenced a review of case No. 16/57, an action in a representative capacity, he then joined parties in the case he had disposed of in 1955, case No. 56/55, which was a personal action. He apparently heard the parties he had asked to interplead and joined by him as parties to the suit. After this exercise the District Officer proceeded to write out the history of the whole area as acquired by him from his personal experience of the area, because he formed the view that “the history of this land must be traced back and a decision based on pure equity must be sought.” He then proceeded to castigate Okorotung of whom he had “fairly recent experience of their arrogant land grabbing and self aggrandizement tendencies . . . .” Finally, he said, “by reason of their long and peaceful possession of this land and the increasing hostility of their neighbours;” he (the District Officer) awarded to the Kutia people the land which was shown on a plan made for the purpose of the review; and, be it remembered, Kutia was never a party to the case in the Native Court. In the penultimate part of his reasoning the D.O. set aside the judgment of the Utugwang-Ukpe Clan Court in these words:—

Judgment annulled: no costs.

Order. All Okorotung people at present living on the land awarded exclusively to Kutia may harvest existing crops, but will plant no further farms whatsoever. They will remove all houses within six months, that is by January 18th, 1958, and not molest Kutia within this land in any corner whatsoever.

I set out the above order in full in order to show the effect of the review order on Okorotung and the benefit to Kutia who was not a party to the case between Okorotung and Ukpe.

On these facts, Okorotung by their representative, the present appellant, applied for, and obtained, an order nisi for an order of certiorari to quash the judgment or review order of the District Officer Obudu on three grounds:-

(1) That the District Officer was wrong in law, and it was ultra vires his powers, when he awarded title of ownership to the Kutia people on a claim as it stood in which the Kutia people were neither a party nor did institute a claim for a declaration of title of ownership.