Minister Of Lagos Affairs Mines And Power & Anor V. Chief Akin-olugbade & Ors. (1974)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ELIAS, C.J.N.

In our judgment in Akin-Olugbade and ors. v. Onigbongbo Community and ors. (1974) 6 S.C.J, delivered on June 21, 1974, we made the following orders:

(i) that the joinder of Claudius Adebowale Soderu (deceased) in Suit No. HK/11/59 as one of the 3rd to 31st claimants represented in the consent judgment in Appeals Nos. S.C. 83/1970 and S.C. 369/1970 was inadvertence;

(ii) that the consent judgment is amended so as to exclude C.O. Soderu (deceased) as one of the 3rd to 31st claimants represented in the said consent judgment;

(iii) that the estate of the said C.O. Soderu (deceased) is entitled to be paid compensation of N4,400.00 in respect of his 4,390 acres of land compulsorily acquired by the then Minister of Lagos Affairs, Mines and Power;

(iv) that Chief F.R.A. Williams and the Egba Refugees (1867) Descendants Community should pay over the said sum of N4,400.00 which had been collected by them to the Estate of Claudius Adebowale Soderu (deceased); and

(v) that the respondents do pay to the applicants costs assessed at N10 to each of the two groups of applicants.

On June 22, 1974, three motions were filed, of which one was for a stay of execution of that judgment, although counsel for the applicants offered to abandon when the matter came before us on October 7, 1974, on the ground that it had been ovenaken by events. The relevant prayers in the remaining two motions, one on behalf of the respondents in the Onigbongbo Community Case and the other on behalf of Chief F.R.A. Williams who was counsel for the Egba Refugees (1867) Descendants Community at all material stages in the case up to the compromise consent judgment in 1972, are for an order:

(i) to review the decision of this Honourable Court delivered in the abovematter on Friday, 21st June, 1974, pursuant to the provisions of Order VII rule 29 of the Supreme Court Rules 1961 in the manner and on the grounds set forth in Schedule 1 to this Motion on Notice;

(ii) to clarify, determine or direct whether the above-named Applicants are entitled as co-owners of land vested in the Respondents under the Terms of Settlement in Suit No. S.C. 369/1970 (High Court No. HK/11/59) by virtue of the fact that they are descendants of Egba Refugees;

(iii) to clarify, determine or direct whether the said Applicants are entitled to the amount of :N4,400.00 ordered to be paid to the Applicants if for their own benefit or for the use of the Egba Refugees;

and

(iv) such further or other Orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make.

When learned counsel for the respondents rose to object on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the motions, we were of the opinion that, as this is not an appeal, we should allow the applicant to show that we have jurisdiction to hear the motions. With our pennission, learned counsel submitted that there are the following two instances in which the court is entitled to review its own previous decision: