HEAD OF THE FEDERAL MILITARY GOVERNMENT VS MILITARY GOVERNOR MID-WESTERN STATE OF NIGERIA

CORAM

ELIAS, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA

COKER, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

BELLO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

BABALAKIN,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

THE HEAD OF THE FEDERAL MILITARY GOVERNMENT AND COMPLAINANT COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The applicant brought an ex-parte application in which he sought leave to apply for an order of certiorari to quash the revocation of his appointment as a member of the Public Service Commission of the Mid-Western State published in Mid-Western State Legal Notice No. 2 of 1971.

HELD

The Supreme Court held that the application for leave to apply for an order of certiorari cannot be supported. The Court refused to grant the order because the proper procedure for challenging the Governors exercise of his purely administrative power of dismissal of the appellant had not been followed.

ISSUES

Whether certiorari can lie against the Governor in his official capacity

RATIONES DECIDENDI

MEANS OF CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION OR A DOCUMENT IN NEED OF CONSTRUCTION

“An action for a declaration is the appropriate means of challenging the validity of legislation or a document in need of construction. In any case, our Supreme Court Rules provide for seeking from the court the construction of statutes in one of two ways: either on an application by an originating summons or by filing a statement of claim.” Per ELIAS, CJN

USE OF ORDER OF CETIORARI

“This general proposition that certiorari lies only to quash judicial or quasi-judicial acts and not purely administrative acts remains true today, despite Lord Reids criticism of it, (on the quite separate point that, in acting judicially or quasi-judicially, the inferior body or tribunal must observe the principles of natural justice, in the oft-cited case of Ridge v. B. Baldwin (1964) AC 40, at pp. 74-79.” Per ELIAS, CJN