CORAM
ELIAS CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
UDOMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SOWEMIMO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
IBADAN CITY COUNCILÂ APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff claims for damages against the Defendant Council for refusing to issue with any permits for the operation of his eight buses.
HELD
That an action for damages does not lie in the circumstances of the case and as such same is not the appropriate relief available to the Plaintiff and that a mandamus should have issued against the defendant Council to compel it to grant him permits.
ISSUES
Whether the Appellant is answerable for the acts or defaults of its officials?
Whether the Appellant is liable for non-feasance?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ORDER MANDAMUS TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DETERMINE AN APPLICATION
In Davis v. Bromley Corporation (supra) it was held that an action would lie against a local authority for maliciously refusing to approve of building or drainage plans deposited with it; and if a local authority, in rejecting the plans, has been actuated by improper motives, and has merely pretended to exercise its powers without addressing its mind to the question before it, the remedy of the person aggrieved is by a Mandamus to the local authority to hear and determine his application. – per Sir Udo Udoma
CASES CITED
Asokam Kumar David v. M.A.M. Abdul Cader (1963) 3 All ER 579
Burton v. West Suffolk County Council (1960) 2 WLR 745
Campbell v. Paddington Corporation (1911) 1 KB 869
Carrying Co. Ltd. v. Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd. (1915) AC 705
Glossop v. Heston and Isleworth Local Board (1879) 12 Ch.D. 102
Goff v. Great Northern Railway Co. 30 LJQB 148
Jarmakani Transport Limited v. Madam Wulemotu Abeke (1963) 1 All NLR 1
Wilson v. Kingston-Upon-Thames Corporation (1949) 1 All ER 679
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Ibadan City Council (Control of Traffic) Bye-Laws, 1964
Road Traffic Law (Cap. 113) Western Nigeria
Halsburys Law of England Vol. 9 3rd Ed.