NATHANIEL NASAMU V. THE STATE
August 1, 2025SAMUEL ADAJE VS THE STATE
August 1, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1979) Legalpedia (SC) 12711
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Thu Jul 5, 1979
Suit Number: SC. 13/1979
CORAM
GEORGE S. SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MOHAMMED BELLO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR
KAYODE ESO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ANTHONY N. ANIAGOLU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. OBIANWUNA OGBUNYIYA 2. NWANKWO MUOKWUE 3. UDEDIBIA CHIEZIE 4. ANDREW OBIECHINA 5. MICHAEL ELOBISI 6. CHIJI ADIBE (For themselves and on behalf of the people of Umueri, Ogbunike APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
A judgment was delivered in favour of the respondent/plaintiffs who claimed against the appellants/defendants, a declaration of title to a parcel of land, damages for trespass and an order of injunction to restrain the appellants from further interference with the respondents ownership of the said land. The appellants unsuccessfully appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, and further to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal succeeded and was allowed
ISSUES
That the judgment of the High Court of Anambra State in Suit O/71/58 is null and void the same having been delivered by the learned Judge when he had no jurisdiction to do so.
Their Lordships of the Court of Appeal erred in Law when they held, in effect, that the mere production of the Official Gazette of 6th October, 1977, (hereafter referred to as “the October Gazette”) without more, did not constitute evidence of the Government Notice No. 1258 therein contained.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
THE EVIDENCE LAW IS AN ENACTMENT OF STATE LEGISLATION
“The Evidence Law is an enactment of a State Legislature which is not competent to make any enactment on evidence in relation to proceedings before the Federal Court of Appeal.” Per IDIGBE, JSC.
THE CARDINAL RULES OF CONSTRUCTION OF WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS
“One of the cardinal rules of construction of written instruments is that the words of a written instrument must in general be taken in their ordinary sense notwithstanding the fact that any such construction may not appear to carry out the purpose which it might otherwise be supposed was intended by the maker or makers of the instrument.” Per IDIGBE, JSC.
CASES CITED
Hangsfstaengl v. American Tobacco Co. (1895) 1 QB 347
Perry v. Gibson (1834) 1 A.& E1 48
R. v. Gilmore (1961) NZLR. 384
STATUTES REFERRED TO
