BORNU HOLDING CO. LTD V. ALHAJI HASSAN BOGOCO
August 27, 2025PAUL OMOREGBE V. EHIGIATOR EDU
August 27, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1971) Legalpedia (SC) 11241
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Nov 26, 1971
Suit Number: SC 199/1970
CORAM
ADEMOLA, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
MADARIKAN, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OBASEKE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
S. A. OLAWALE APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff, now appellant, is a transporter and owner of a bus. The plaintiffs driver obtained a ticket for the purpose of conveying the said bus from the Sapele side of the River Ethiope to the Benin side of the said River on the MB. SAPO. The plaintiffs bus together with an oil tanker and other vehicles were duly put on the said ferry. With all the vehicles still on the ferry, the oil tanker, while being repaired by its driver, caught fire. The fire quickly spread to the plaintiffs bus before it could be taken off the ferry. As a result of the fire, both the oil tanker and the bus were completely destroyed. The plaintiff commenced proceedings by petition of right in the High Court where he claimed against the two defendants jointly and severally damages suffered as a result of the destruction of his vehicle. The trial judge dismissed the claim against the 2nd defendants on the ground that no case had been made out against them. He did not consider the plaintiffs claim against the 1st defendant on the merits. The plaintiff appealed to the court of appeal and further to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal was allowed.
ISSUES
That under the Act, the Attorney-General (1st defendant/respondent) could not be sued without his consent.
That the decision in Attorney-General v. Kirk L.R. 14 Eq. 558 relied upon by Morgan J. (as he then was) in Olasupo v. Attorney-General of Western Nigeria (1961) All N.L.R. 562 in deciding that the Crown could not be joined with another party in a petition of right did not support that conclusion, and that that case is, therefore, no authority for that proposition of law.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN ACTION INSTITUTED BY WAY OF PETITION OF RIGHT AND ONE INSTITUTED BY THE ISSUE OF A WRIT OF SUMMONS. RTRTRTRT
<br< p=””></br<>
CASES CITED
Attorney-General v. Kirk (1872) 14 Eq. 558.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
