Pharmacists Board Of Nigeria & Ors V. S.O. Adebesin & Co. Ltd (1978)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

FATAYI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C. 

Section 22 subsections 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Poisons and Pharmacy Act (Cap. 152 of the Laws of the Federation) as amended by the Pharmacists Act (No. 26 of 1964) provide as follows:-

“22 (1) Every selling dispenser or chemist and druggist shall cause all the sets of premises where his business is being carried on to be registered under this section.

(2) An application for registration under this section shall be made in the manner prescribed by regulations, and it shall be the duty of the Registrar to keep, in accordance with the provisions of the regulations, a register for the purposes of this section, in this Act referred to as the register of premises, and, on payment of such fee as is hereinafter provided, to enter therein all sets of premises in respect of which an application for registration is duly made.

(3) On an application for registration under this section, there shall be payable such fee in respect of the registration of any set of premises, as may be prescribed by regulations, and the owner of the business carried on in any premises entered in the register shall pay such fee, in this section referred to as a retention fee, in respect of the retention of the premises on the register of premises in any year subsequent to the year in which the premises were first registered under this section in pursuance of an application made by him.

(5) The registration of any premises under this section shall become void on the expiration of fourteen days from the date of any change in the ownership of the business carried on therein.

(6) A document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Registrar stating that, on a specified date, specified premises were, or were not, registered under this sections shall be admissible in any proceedings as evidence that those premises were, or were not, registered on that date.”

Section 37 of the same Act provides further as follows:-

“37 (1) Nothing in this Act contained shall operate to prevent any body corporate, a company as defined in the Companies Act or a firm as defined in the Registration of Business Names Act, carrying on a business which comprises the dispensing or selling of any drug or poison within the meaning of this Act from carrying on such business if the following conditions are complied with:-

(a) in all premises where the business is carried on, the business must, so far as concerns the dispensing or sale of drugs or poisons, be carried on under the direct personal control and management of a superintendent who is a selling dispenser or a chemist and druggist;

(b) every sale of poison must be effected on behalf of such body corporate, company or firm by a person who is a selling dispenser or a chemist and druggist; and

(c) no drug or poison shall be mixed, prepared, compounded or dispensed on behalf of such body corporate, company or firm except by a dispenser or chemist and druggist.”

(The underlining is ours)

The Pharmacy Regulations (Cap. 152) which provide for the mechanics of the registration of the premises required to be registered under the Act state in Regulations 21 and 22 as follows:-

“21. An application for registration of premises to be used by a Selling Dispenser or a Chemist and Druggist for the retail sale of drugs shall be made in the Form B in the First Schedule hereto.

22. The Registrar shall prepare and keep a correct register showing the address of each set of premises, the names of the Selling Dispenser or Chemist and Druggist carrying on business therein, and the name of the registered Selling Dispenser or Chemist and Druggist having personal control of the business, furnished in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act.”

It is further provided in the First Schedule to the said Regulations that the application for registration of premises should be in Form B which is as follows:-

“FORM B

APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF PREMISES

Situation….. Name of Registered Selling

….. Dispenser or Chemist and

…. Druggist having control

….. of the busininess….

I apply for registration and enclose..

…….

Signature….

Date…… ”

Pursuant to the provisions set out above, the firm of S.O. Adebesin & Co. Ltd, a limited liability company incorporated in Nigeria, applied, early in 1974, early in 1974, to the Pharmaceutical Board of Nigeria for the registration of their business premises at No. 38, Ikorodu Road, Yaba. The application was made by one Babatunde Ojomu, a qualified pharmacist of No. 60, Queen’s Street, Yaba, on behalf of the applicant company. The application form showed that although it was made in respect of the premises at 38, Ikorodu Road, Yaba, there were other premises involved, namely:-270, Herbert Macaulay Street,Yaba, and1, Abeokuta Street, Odi Olowo.

The application was refused by the Board and the applicant company was so informed by letter dated 27th March, 1974, the contents of which read-

“Mr. B.O. Ojomu,

60, Queens Street,

Yaba.

Dear Sir,

Registration of premises for 1974

With reference to your application on the above subject, I am directed to inform you that it is not in conformity with the provisions of the law in Section 23 (i) of the Poisons and Pharmacy Act Cap. 152 which allows ONLY one single premises for one Pharmacist. Consequently, therefore, I do, herewith, return your Postal Order No. A128750 of 23rd January, 1974 for N6.00.

Will you please submit a fresh application taking into cognizance the regulation mentioned above.

Yours faithfully,

(Sgd.) A.A.O. Sonubi

Registrar/Secretary”

Being dissatisfied with the decision, the company applied to the High Court of Lagos State for an order of mandamus compelling the Pharmacists Board of Nigeria to issue the “certificate of registration of premises” in respect of the applicant company’s said premises at No. 38, Ikorodu Road, Yaba. Mr. A.O. Sonubi, the Registrar of the Board, and Miss L.V. Nylander, the Chief Pharmacist of the Federal Ministry of Health who was at the material time the Chairman of the Pharmacists Board of Nigeria were also joined as respondents to the application.

The grounds on which the applicant company sought relief are-

“(a) that the refusal is malicious, wrongful and unlawful; and

(b) that the respondents have acted mala fide and discriminatingly in failing to issue the said certificate to the applicant.”

Paragraphs 5 to 8 of the affidavit sworn to by one Babatunde Ojomu in support of the application read –

“1. That I am a duly registered chemist in the employ of the applicant/company and I am familiar with the facts of the case.

2. That I am the Superintendent Pharmacist in charge of the applicant’s business premises of 38, Ikorodu Road, Yaba.
3. That the respondents are the persons charged with the legal duty of issuing Certificate of Registration/Retention of Premises.

4.That early in this year, I submitted an application with necessary fees for the renewal of the said business premises of the applicant.

5. That my aforesaid application was wrongfully and maliciously refused by the respondents.
6. That the respondents’ refusal to register the applicant’s premises is causing me and the applicant untold hardship as we cannot operate without Certificate of Registration.
7. That previous applications for registration of the aforesaid premises had always been approved by the respondents and I am not aware of any facts or grounds which now justify the respondents’ refusal.
8. That I was told by Mr. S.O. Adebesin the Managing Director of the applicant’s company and I verily believe that the refusal of the respondents to register the applicant’s premises was engineered by Miss L.V. Nylander the Chairman of the Pharmacists Board of Nigeria who nurses personal grudge against me and insisted that she would nominate another chemist to serve as Chemist to the applicant’s company.”

One Stephen Adebesin, the Managing Director of the applicant company also swore to an affidavit dated 10th August, 1974, in which he said that the Board had registered his company under the Poisons & Pharmacy Act in the years 1972 and 1973. He also said that although his company had complied with the provisions and requirements of the Act for the purpose of registration, the Board had “maliciously” refused to register the company at the instigation of the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

The 2nd respondent (A.O. Sonubi) swore to two counter-affidavits in reply to the above. The main counter-affidavit containing his defence is the one sworn to one 26th August, 1974. Paragraphs 4 to 14, 29, 30, 31 and 34 of the said counter-affidavit read –

“4. That I know one Babatunde Oladipo Ojomu, a registered pharmacist, and formerly an Inspector of the Board attached to the office of the Lagos State Ministry of Health.

5. That sometime in February 1974 he submitted an application form with a payment of N6.00. A copy of the application form is herewith annexed and marked Exhibit “A”.
6. That the payment of N6.00 was in respect of his own renewal of personal license to practice as a pharmacist, retention of his name in the pharmaceutical register, and registration of three old premises.
7. That there was no dispute over the question of the renewal of the licence of Mr. Babatunde Ojomu to practise as a pharmacist or retention of his name as a pharmaceutical chemist.
8. That the attention of Mr. Babatunde Ojomu was drawn to an irregularity in his application form – Exhibit “A”.
9. That the particulars of the alleged irregularity of which Mr. Ojomu was informed was that the 1st respondent has discovered that in accordance with the provisions of the existing law, every registered pharmaceutical shop should have a registered pharmaceutical chemist in control of the business on each premises and therefore, he the applicant can only register one of the three premises in his own name because it is the policy of the Board that distribution and sale of drugs can only be effective under the direct supervision of a registered pharmacist, and in adopting this policy the Board is strictly applying the provisions of the law with effect from January, 1974.
10. That on the strength of this discussion with the said Mr. Ojomu, he (Mr. Ojomu) insisted that the 1st respondent should register his name for two premises that are known as S.O. Adebesin & Co. Ltd. of 38 Ikorodu Road, and Wisdom Pharmaceutical Chemists situated at 270 Herbert Macaulay Street, Yaba.
11. That the said Mr. Ojomu also said that one Mrs. Olowokande a registered pharmacist , still attached to the General Hospital Ikeja and known to me to be under Government employment, should be registered for the third premises known as Wisdom Pharmaceutical Chemists Ltd., situated at 1, Abeokuta Street, Odi-Olowo.
12. That the said Mr. Ojomu, in his own hand-writing amended the application form (Exhibit A) by inserting a foot-note as follows:-

‘Pharmacists

Mr. B.O. Ojomu – A & B

Mrs. O. Olowokande – C’.

13. That I told Mr. Ojomu that the problem was not settled since it is not physically possible for him to be working in two separate premises at the same time and that therefore, his application still remained irregular until an additional registered pharmacist can be produced for registration thereby making registered pharmacists available for each of the three proposed registered premises.
14. That I could not register the three premises because of the failure of Mr. Ojomu to present a registered pharmacist for each proposed premises at that time, and at no time did Mr. Ojomu offer his services for a single premises.
15. That to the best of my knowledge, the refusal to register the premises of the applicant is not due to malice against the applicant, but the refusal of the Board is absolutely based on his non-compliance with the law.
16. That to register the premises of the applicant without a registered pharmacist could amount to a discriminatory application of the law since other companies are expected to comply with the same procedure.
17. That it would also be against public policy to allow indiscriminate importation, storage, sale and distribution of drugs by companies who have not satisfied the 1st respondent that they are in a position to provide on the spot services of registered pharmacists that can have effective supervision of the drugs.
18. That in strict compliance with the law, a few of the pharmaceutical companies that operate more than one premises are granted certificates on the pre-condition that registered pharmacists are available on the spot.”

(The underlining is ours)

The 3rd respondent (Mrs. Nylander) in her own counter-affidavit denied that she was responsible for issuing Certificates of Registration and Retention of Premises under the Poisons & Pharmacy Act. She also denied the allegations made against her by the applicant.

In a further counter-affidavit, she deposed as follows:-

“1. That I am the Chief Pharmacist of the Federal Ministry of Health and Chairman of the Pharmacists Board of Nigeria.

2. That I am only a member of the aforesaid Pharmacists Board of Nigeria.
3. That I am not the Registrar to aforesaid Pharmacists Board of Nigeria nor am I responsible for issuing Certificate of Registration and Retention of Premises.
4. That I have seen and read the affidavits sworn to by Babatunde Ojomu and Stephen Olu Adebesin both dated 14th August, 1974.
5. That the allegation against me contained in paragraph 8 of the affidavit of Babatunde Ojomu is absolutely false.
6. That the duty of Registration of Pharmacy Business Premises is wholly and solely the responsibility of the Registrar to the Pharmacists Board of Nigeria.
7. That all allegations against me contained in the affidavit of Stephen Olu Adebesin and in particular paragraph 6 thereof are totally false.
8. That when I became aware of the controversy over registration and non-registration of the business premises of the applicant I sent for Mr. Adebesin as stated in paragraph 7 of his affidavit.
9. On his visit to my office as stated in paragraph 8 of his affidavit, I explained the position of the law to him with regard to registration of business premises but never requested him to remove Mr. B.O. Ojomu or anyone else from his employment
10. That I have a ready sworn to and filed an affidavit in respect of this matter, a copy of the same is annexed herewith and marked Exhibit “A”.
11. That I know nothing about paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the affidavit of Stephen Olu Adebesin.”

Significantly, although the learned trial Judge had all these conflicting affidavits and counter-affidavits before him, he did not take oral evidence from any of the parties in order to determine who was telling the truth. He must have thought, and rightly too, that the point in issue would turn on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Poisons & Pharmacy Act (Cap. 152) which is hereinafter referred to as the Act. Be that as it may, we would, nevertheless, wish to point out, in passing, that since no evidence was taken on oath, none of the allegations of malice and discrimination made against the 2nd and 3rd respondents (Mr. Sonubi & Miss Nylander) was substantiated, the findings of the learned trial Judge in his summary of the issues to the contrary notwithstanding.

After hearing arguments in the course of which reference was made to Section 24 of the Act which had been repealed by the Pharmacists Act of 1964, and to the effect of the repeal on Sections 22, 23 and 37 of the Act, it became clear that the question which the learned trial Judge had to decide is whether the Act, as it stands, allows a registered dispenser or chemist to be in personal control of more than one business premises where drugs are sold or whether each premises must have one registered chemist in personal control of it.

In a reserved judgment, the learned trial Judge, after considering the provisions of Sections 22, 23 and 24 of the Act, and without any reference to Section 37 of the Act, which is specifically made applicable to incorporated companies such as the applicant company, observed as follows:-

“Having said that the Pharmacists Board or the Registrar would not appear to have the power to enquire into the number of premises being put under the control of each selling dispenser or chemist and druggist in the lists of premises, I have thought it necessary nevertheless, to consider the meaning of the phrase ‘personal control of the business’ in Section 23 (1) of the Poisons and Pharmacy Act. I have had great difficulty and, indeed, no luck in finding authorities that would apply or in which the phrase ‘personal control’ has been judicially interpreted. Personal control of a business must, however, mean what it says. I think it means the selling dispenser or chemist and druggist who personally directs the business that is being carried out on the premises. Does that person need to be on the premises at all times when the premises are open for business My answer to that question must be ‘No’ as it is possible to be in personal control of a business on premises on which one is not physically present. I would therefore hold that were the Registrar even entitled to test the list of premises by the provisions of Section 23 he is not entitled to require that a selling dispenser shall be in personal control of the business on no more than one set of premises.

I think this finding is supported by the fact that for the nine years since the Pharmacists Act, 1964, registration of premises has been permitted without the requirement.

The fact that at one point in time Section 23 had been allied with Section 24 of the Act in the control of the pharmaceutical business should not be overlooked. Although the two sections at first reading would appear to be regulating different things a close examination would show that the difference cannot seriously affect the business being controlled. Section 23 deals with the ‘sale of drugs’ whereas Section 24 deals with ‘retailing any poison or for mixing, compounding, preparing or dispensing any drug or poison.’ I would imagine that any place or business under the control or supervision of a pharmacist would normally wish to carry out the business covered by the two sections. However, whereas under Section 24 a pharmacist must have ‘continuous personal supervision’ of the business Section 23 only speaks of ‘personal control’. Section 24 was repealed in 1964 and the need for the higher ‘continuous personal supervision’ disappeared with that Section. I think it is important too that whereas Section 23 calls for ‘control’ Section 24 called for ‘supervision’ that is ‘continuous.’

Considering the papers filed herein I could not escape the impression that some bureaucrats were at work here.”

He thereafter found as follows:-

“For the reasons which have appeared above, this application succeeds. I accordingly order the 2nd respondent forthwith to register the premises of the applicant at 38, Ikorodu Road, Yaba, pursuant to Sections 22 and 23 of the Poisons & Pharmacy Act for the calender year 1974. The 1st and 3rd respondents shall do nothing to hinder the carrying out of my order by the 2nd respondent.”

It is against this order that the three respondents have now appealed. The main complaints of the respondents/appellants in the four grounds of appeal which learned counsel for the respondents/appellants argued together, may be summarised as follows. Notwithstanding the inelegant wording of the provisions of the Poisons and Pharmacy Act (Cap. 152) as amended by the Pharmacists Act, 1964, the purpose of the law is to control the importation, manufacture of medicines and the dispensing, selling and distribution of drugs and poisons. This purpose is a relevant factor in interpreting the Act.

Although the learned trial Judge rightly addressed his mind to the purpose, he adverted his mind to Sections 23 and 24 erroneously. Since the application was made by an incorporated company, it is Section 37 which applies and that is the section which the learned trial Judge should have construed. Learned counsel then referred to Form B in the Pharmacists Registration Rules (L.N. No. 2 of 1968) which shows that the name of the chemist in charge must be supplied. It was then finally contended that if the learned trial Judge had adverted his mind to the provisions of Section 37 he would not have found as he did that it was not necessary for Ojomu to be on the premises at all times.

Learned counsel for the applicant company in his reply, conceded that the applicant for the registration of the premises is the company and not Ojomu who only applied on its behalf. He also contended that Section 37 is applicable but submitted that that section must be construed together with Section 23 (1) which he said is also applicable. He then submitted that under Section 23 (1) Ojomu is entitled to apply as he did as the Superintendent-in-charge of the three premises. Learned counsel finally contended that since Section 24 had been repealed the need for personal supervision by a dispenser or chemist had been removed, that continuous personal control was, in any case, unnecessary, that the Board was wrong in refusing to register the premises, and that the learned trial Judge was, therefore, right in making the order for mandamus to issue.

With respect, we think the learned trial Judge went off the mark in placing too much emphasis on the provisions of Section 23 of the Act when for the purpose of the case in hand, the sections that are applicable are Sections 22 and 37 to which we have referred earlier. It seems to us that if the two sections are read together, a body corporate “carrying on a business which comprises the dispensing or selling of any drug or poison” such as the applicant company, can be prevented by the 1st and 2nd respondents “from carrying on such business’ by refusing registration of any of the premises of such company which is not “under the direct personal control and management of a superintendent who is a selling dispenser or chemist and druggist.” The type of personal control and management required under the Act is, in our view, clearly indicated in the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 37 (1) of the Act which reads-

“(b) every sale of poison must be effected on behalf of such body corporate, company or firm by a person who is a selling dispenser or a chemist and druggist; and

(c) no drug or poison shall be mixed, prepared, compounded or dispensed on behalf of such body corporate, company or firm except by a dispenser or chemist and druggist.”

(The underlining is ours)

A “dispenser” is defined in Section 2 of the Act (as amended by Part B of the Third Schedule to the Pharmacists Act, 1964 – No. 26 of 1964) as –

“the holder of a certificate as such under any enactment repealed by this Act and duly recognised in the provisional register of the Pharmacists Board of Nigeria.”

By the same Part B of the Third Schedule, the definition of “chemist and druggist” in Section 2 of the Act (Cap. 152) was deleted and the following substituted –

” ‘chemist’ means a person permitted to practice as a pharmaceutical chemist under the Pharmacists Act, 1964, and authorised under this Actto import, mix, compound, prepare, dispense and sell drugs and poisons, and includes any person who immediately before the commencement of the Pharmacists Act, 1964, was authorised by this Act so to deal in drugs and poisons as a chemist and druggist which authority or licence, as the case may be, is still in force on the commencement of the Pharmacists Act, 1964, and reference in this Act shall be so construed accordingly.”

If by the above provisions the direct personal control of a qualified dispenser or chemist is required under the Act for the sale, mixture, preparation or dispensing of drugs or poisons in any of the premises in which the applicant company carries on its business in Nigeria, the conclusion that such dispenser or chemist must be in physical control most of the time when each of those premises is open for business is inescapable. No other interpretation appears to us to be possible. Any control in absentia vis-a-vis the company’s customers will not do. To hold otherwise would only result in the indiscriminate selling and dispensing of dangerous drugs and poisons without any proper control whatever.

There is another point which we would like to make. The learned trial Judge, in the instant case, said that nowhere in the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act is the Registrar (that is, 2nd appellant) empowered to do anything to the application made for the registration of premises. In making this statement, the trial Judge seemed to have overlooked the provisions of regulation 22 of the Pharmacy Regulations made under Section 69 of the Act. A close look at this regulation shows that the Registrar is empowered to “prepare and keep a correct register showing the address of each set of premises, the names of the selling dispenser or chemist and druggist carrying on business therein, and the name of the registered selling dispenser or chemist and druggist having personal control of the business.” Regulation 22 significantly draws a distinction between the dispenser or chemist and druggist “carrying on business” in the premises and another dispenser or chemist and druggist “having personal control” therein. Of course, in the exercise of this power with respect to incorporated companies, the Registrar must have regard to the conditions laid down in Section 37 of the Act to which we have referred earlier. That being the case, we think that in order to be able to keep his register properly and make it serve the purpose for which it is intended, it would be in order for the Registrar to insist, as he did, on compliance with all the conditions laid down in Section 37 before registering the premises of the applicant company. The Registrar can do this because it is provided in Section 10 subsection (2) of the Interpretation Act (No. 1 of 1964) that –

“(2) An enactment which confers power to do any act shall be construed as also conferring all such other powers as are reasonably necessary to enable that act to be done or are incidental to the doing of it.”

It seems to us, therefore, that since Mr. Babatunde Ojomu has not shown that he can personally control the selling, dispensing or mixing of drugs or poisons continuously, during the hours of business, both at No. 270, Herbert Macaulay Street, Yaba, where his name had already been registered and at No. 38, Ikorodu Road, Yaba, the premises in respect of which the application under consideration is made, the Registrar is perfectly entitled to “prevent’ the applicant company from carrying on the business of dispensing and selling of drugs and poisons under the Act in the said premises by refusing to register it. The onus is on Ojomu to show that he can shuttle from one premises to the other all day and every working day but this onus he has made no effort to discharge.

Without doubt, the mischief which the Act is meant to prevent, and which the provisions of Section 37 clearly covers, is that incorporated companies such as S.O. Adebesin & Co. Ltd. (applicant/respondent), should not be allowed to dispense or sell dangerous drugs or poisons to the public in any of their premises unless a qualified dispenser or chemist is in direct personal charge and control of each of those premises most of the time. To hold otherwise, as the learned trial Judge has done, will make nonsense of the whole legislation which, although inelegantly drafted, still makes sense and does not create much difficulty in construing.

In the particular circumstances of this case, we think the Registrar (2nd respondent/appellant) acted within his powers in refusing to register No. 38, Ikorodu Road, Yaba. All the applicant company should have done, when he was told the reason, was to have engaged another dispenser or chemist for the premises instead of basing his contention on what had been the practice in the past, forgetting the old adage that two wrongs do not make a right! Finally, we think that if the learned trial Judge, when he was construing the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, had adverted to the relevant provisions of Section 37, and particularly to the words “direct personal control and management” in subsection (1) (a) thereof, he would not have come to the conclusion, as he did, that no personal supervision was necessary under the Act.

The facts of the case in hand are not unlike those in Hygienic Stores Ltd. v. Coombes (1938) 1 All ELR 63. In that case, the provisions of Section 9 subsections (1) and (2) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933 of the United Kingdom, which are similar to our Section 37 were considered. The decision in the case, to which learned counsel to the respondents/appellants, has referred us, brings into focus the mischief which the law is out to prevent. The facts are these. The appellants were charged with unlawfully selling at 2, Piccadilly Circus, strychnine contained in Easton’s Syrup, and at 95, Charing Cross Road, strychnine contained in a compound syrup of hypophosphites. They were also charged with unlawfully taking or causing to be taken and used at each of these addresses the title of chemist. It was alleged in each case that they were not authorised sellers of poisons. The appellants employed a registered pharmacist as superintendent in connection with the retailing and dispensing of poisons. The appellants carried on business at 16 shops in or near London, but the business carried on comprised the sale of drugs and poisons by retail at the above premises and one other shop in Edgware Road only, the other premises being mainly concerned with the sale of proprietary medicines. The superintendent attended at the Edgware Road shop during half the time the shop was open, and at each of the shops at Piccadilly Circus and in Charging Cross Road a registered pharmacist was employed as manager, and attended there during the whole time the shop was open. The superintendent was a member of the appellants’ board, and the statement in writing required by the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, S. 9 (i) (a) (ii), had been duly made and sent to the registrar of the Pharmaceutical Society. It was held that the appellants’ business was not, so far as concerned the sale by retail of drugs and poisons, under the personal control of the superintendent, nor, subject to the directions of the superintendent, under the personal control of a manager who was a registered pharmacist, as required by the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, S. 9(1)(b), and the appellants were guilty of the offence charged.

It is our view, in short, that the Registrar, in order to keep a correct and proper register of premises in which an incorporated company’s business is carried on, must be deemed to have the ancillary power to make sure that the person shown in his register as having personal control of the premises is actually in “direct personal control and management” as required by the Act. Furthermore, the control, to be meaningful and effective, must be continuous. To hold otherwise would defeat the whole purpose of the Act. We, therefore, think that the learned trial Judge was in error in holding, as he did, that the Registrar has no power to insist that one dispenser or druggist can only be registered in respect of one premises.

This appeal, therefore, succeeds and it is allowed. The order of mandamus made by the learned trial Judge in Suit No. M/164/1974 on 18th November, 1974, including his order as to costs, is hereby set aside. Instead we order that the application for an order of mandamus be and is hereby dismissed and that this shall be the judgment of the court. Costs in favour of the appellants are assessed at N50.00 in the court below and in this court at N420.00.

---

Other Citation: (1978) LCN/2055(SC)