DUMEZ (NIG.) LTD VS PATRICK NWAKA OGBOLI
August 22, 2025NURUDEEN ADIO OLUFUNMISHE VS T. E. G. LABINJO
August 22, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1972) Legalpedia (SC) 41150
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Thu Mar 30, 1972
Suit Number: SC. 254/1969
CORAM
D.O. EDOZIE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MADARIKAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SOWEMIMO A.G. JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
G.A. AKHIWU APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant/1st Defendant & 2nd Defendant both claim to be entitled to a winning ticket prize of £4000(four thousand pounds). The Plaintiff is in possession of the said money and instituted the suit to determine the owner.
HELD
The appeal was dismissed with cost. The Order of the trial court was also set aside. It was held that the trial court judge should not have ordered the arrest of the 1st defendant and ordered that he should be specifically charged with certain offences.
ISSUES
Whether the learned trial Judge erred in law and/or failed to exercise his discretion judicially in proceeding with the trial without pleadings once it became clear to him that fraud amounting to criminal offences were alleged by one side against the other
Whether the learned trial Judge erred in law in making an order for the arrest and prosecution of the appellant when the duty and responsibility for deciding on such questions are not matters within his competence
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DISCRETION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION TO DECIDE WHO AND WHAT OFFENCE SHALL BE CHARGED
” It is without question the province of the Law Officers of the Crown (in this case the Director of Public Prosecutions) to decide, in the light of what the public interest requires in any particular case, who shall be charged, and with what offence. It is entirely a matter for this officers quasi-judicial discretion and, in our view, in order to secure the proper administration of justice, he must be left to exercise this discretion according to his own judgment, neither acting on any rule of thumb nor taking into account any other consideration than the public interest.” Adopted by : Per Lewis, JSC
CASES CITED
Aerial Advertising Co. v Batchelors Peas Ltd. (Manchester), 2 All ER 788, at p. 795
Chaplin v Ricks (1911) 2 KB 786
Khanwam and Co. v Chellaram and Sons (Nig.) Ltd., (1964) 1 WLR 711 at p. 714
STATUTES REFERRED TO
