IBOJE ITAMBONG & ORS VS MICHAEL AKONYE - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

IBOJE ITAMBONG & ORS VS MICHAEL AKONYE

SAMSON AYOOLA & ORS VS DAVID OGUNJIMI
September 4, 2025
JAMES OGUNTIMEYIN VS KPEKPE GUBERE & ANOR
September 4, 2025
SAMSON AYOOLA & ORS VS DAVID OGUNJIMI
September 4, 2025
JAMES OGUNTIMEYIN VS KPEKPE GUBERE & ANOR
September 4, 2025
Show all

IBOJE ITAMBONG & ORS VS MICHAEL AKONYE

Legalpedia Citation: (1964-04) Legalpedia 83180 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden At Abuja

Fri Apr 24, 1964

Suit Number: SC 81/1963


CORAM


BRETT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

TAYLOR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

BAIRAMIAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


IBOJE ITAMBONG & ORS

APPELLANTS 


 MICHAEL AKONYE

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellants brought an action for damages on the ground that the respondents had trespassed into their land and removed 809 cubic yards of gravel.

 


HELD


The court held that the appeal based on trespass failed as the Ministry of Works has power to delegate its duties but that the court is not concerned with the question as to whether the plaintiffs (appellants) are or are not entitled to compensation for the gravel dug from their land and if so from whom

 


ISSUES


Whether  the Ministry of Works in point of fact authorise or permit the defendant either directly or through Mr. Asika, the Provincial Engineer, to do the work the subject matter of the alleged trespass?

If the defendant was so authorised by the said Ministry, was the Ministry empowered to delegate its authority?

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI


ON WHOM LIABILITY LIES WHERE AUTHORITY IS DELEGATE


ALASAN BABATUNDE, AJAGUNNA II OLUKARE OF IKARE VS GOVERNOR, WESTERN REGION   1960   FSC 207/1959   [1960] NSCC 41

“Ever since Quarman v. Burnett it has been considered settled law that one employing another is not liable for his collateral negligence, unless the relation of master and servant existed between them. So that a person employing a contractor to do work is not liable for the negligence of that contractor or his servants. On the other hand, a person causing something to be done, the doing of which casts on him a duty, cannot escape from the responsibility attaching on him of seeing that duty performed by delegating it to a contractor.”

 


CASES CITED


Hardakar v. Idle District Council [1896] 1 Q.B. 335

Dalton v. Angus 6 App. Cas. 740, 829

 


STATUTES REFERRED TO


Building Regulation Ordinance of the 4th June, 1936, as amended by E.R.No. 4 of 1952

Public Health Act, 1875

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.