SALAWU LASUPO ADEDAYO FAJINMI VS THE SPEAKER, WESTERN HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
September 5, 2025EBUN OMOREGIE VS BREITENBURGER PORTLAND CEMENT FABRIK
September 5, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1962-03) Legalpedia 58331 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Lagos
Sun Mar 25, 1962
Suit Number: SC 107/1962
CORAM
ADEMOLA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
BAIRAMIAN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
UNSWORTH, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
APPELLANTS
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATOR- GENERAL
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LABOUR LAW—INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff/appellant sued that the notice of 11th December, 1956, “purporting” to have been given under s. 9(1) of the Pensions Act, 1951, for the retirement of the plaintiff from the public service, was invalid and his compulsory retirement wrongful.
HELD
The order of dismissal made on the 24th October, 1960, is set aside with costs of appeal to the plaintiff assessed at twenty-five guineas, the costs in the Court below being left to be decided there as may be just hereafter.
ISSUES
Whether, having regard to the fact that the defendants moved the Court under Order. XXVIII, r. 1, solely and ex-pressly, it was competent to the Court to dismiss the claim at the stage reached in the proceedings.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PURPORT OF S. 9(1) OF THE PENSIONS ACT, 1951,
‘It is plain that those rules contemplate that the plaintiff has made allegations of fact, and the defendant raises a defence in law or equity that, even though the facts alleged were to be taken as true, the plaintiff cannot have judg-ment, and he, the defendant, should not be required to answer upon the facts.’ Per BAIRAMIAN F. J.
MOTIONS UNDER THE ENGLISH SUPREME COURT RULESORDER XXVIII, RULE 1
If a defendant chooses to move under Order XXVIII, rule 1, the Court cannot deal with such a motion without first giving the plaintiff an opportunity of making his allegations of fact in support of his claim. Per BAIRAMIAN F. J.
CASES CITED
Dyson v. Attorney-General, (1911) 1 K.B. 410
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The English Supreme Court Rules
