CHIEF BOLA IGE V DR VICTOR OMOLOLU OLULOYO & 2 ORS
July 24, 2025KARIMU AYINLA V SIFAWU SIJUWOLA
July 24, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1984) Legalpedia (SC) 28111
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri May 18, 1984
Suit Number: SC. 68/1982
CORAM
DANIEL O. IBEKWE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT br/>
MOHAMMED BELLO (DISSENTING), JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ANDREWS OTUTU OBASEKI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KAYODE ESO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ANTHONY NNAEMEZIE ANIAGOLU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
AUGUSTINE NNAMANI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CHIEF DOMINIC ONUORAH IFEZUE APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
One Mr. Okeke mortgaged the property of the appellant who gave him power of attorney in relation to the house while the appellant travelled overseas. The house was consequently sold to the defendant and the appellant obtained judgment to recover his property. The Court of Appeal, however, after seven months of close of case re-opened the appeal and non-suited the plaintiff.
HELD
The Supreme Court declared the so-called judgment null and void and set it aside for exceeding three months. The appeal was remitted to the Court of Appeal, before a different panel, for hearing and determination, according to law.
ISSUES
Had the Court the power – in-deed, the jurisdiction – to “reopen” the appeal after the expiration of the three months stipulated in the Constitution for the delivery of judgments?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
THE MISCHIEF RULE OF INTERPRETATION
That for the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law) four things are to be discerned and considered: (1st). What was the common law before the making of the Act. (2nd). What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide. (3rd). What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the common-law. And, (4th). The true reason of the remedy; and then the office of all the judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief, and pro privato commodo, and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act, pro bono publico. Per Aniagolu, JSC
THE LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION
If there is nothing to modify, alter or qualify the language of a statute, it must be construed in the ordinary and natural meaning of the words and sentences used…. The object of all interpretation is to discover the intention of the law-makers which is deducible from the language used. Once the meaning is clear the Courts are to give effect to it. The Courts are not to defeat the plain meaning of an enactment by an introduction of their own words into the enactment. Per Aniagolu, JSC
MANDATORY AND DIRECTORY ENACTMENT
On this, however, is certain: that an absolute or mandatory (sometimes also referred to as imperative) enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly; but in the case of a directory enactment, it is sufficient if it be obeyed or fulfilled substantially. In the case of imperative enactment the Courts give effect to the provisions irrespective of consequences. Per Aniagolu, JSC
CASES CITED
Att-Gen. v. Mutual Tontine Westminster
Chambers Association Ltd. (1876) 1 Ex. D.469
Bradlaugh v. Clarke (1883) 8 App.Cas. 354.
Woodward v. Sarsons (1875) LR. 10 CP. 733 at 746 per Lord Coleridge, C.J
Heydons Case, 3 Co.Rep. 7a at 7b
Nafiu Rabiu v. Kano State (1980) 8-11 SC. 130 at 149,
Adegbenro v. Akintola & Anor. (1962) 1 All NLR., 442,
Chief Obafemi Awolowo v. Alhaji Shehu Shagari and Ors. (1979) 6-7 SC. 51 at 64,
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria