CORAM

---

ADEMOLA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

BAIRAMIAN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

BRETT, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

SALAWU LASUPO ADEDAYO FAJINMI

APPELLANTS 

---

THE SPEAKER, WESTERN HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

ELECTION PETITION – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE—INSTITUTING AN ACTION—APPEAL

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiff/appellant sued the defendant/respondent claiming that he is entitled to take his seat at the house amongst other reliefs. The Trial Court dismissed the case that it was not properly before it. The plaintiff then appealed to this Court being dissatisfied.

 

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal allowed

 

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the High Court was right to dismiss the appellant’s claim as not properly brought before it in view of the applicable legislations?

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PROCEDURAL STEPS TO CHALLENGE ELECTION PETITION THE UNDER PARLIAMEN-TARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTORAL REGULATIONS, 1955

---

“The reasonable course is for the Legislature to make provision under subsec-tion (2) for the matters in both (a) and (b) of subsection (1); and if it so hap-pens that the legislature, through inadvertence, has not made any provision on the question in (b), a member who asks the High Court to determine such a question, as it is within the Court’s jurisdiction, ought not to “be driven from the judgment seat”, but should be heard.” Per BAIRAMIAN, F.J.

 

 

---

JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT UNDER THE PARLIAMEN-TARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTORAL REGULATIONS, 1955

---

“That the jurisdiction conferred on the court to hear an election petition, or a question whether a seat has become vacant, is a special jurisdiction; but the point of that pronouncement is that there is not the or-dinary right of appeal to the Privy Council from the local court’s decision, which was intended to be final.” Per BAIRAMIAN F. J.

 

 

---

PROCESS OF DETERMINING A SEAT VACANT UNDER THE1960 REGULATIONS

---

“Those 1960 Regulations provide in Regulations 70 to 127 for election petitions: they do not provide for the hearing and determination of a question whether the seat of an elected member has become vacant; and the lacuna should be drawn to the notice of the Attorney General of the Region. In the meantime the High Court has a duty to hear and determine the case in hand, and resolve the question raised.” Per BAIRAMIAN, F.J.

 

 

---

CASES CITED

---

1. Theberge v. Laudry, (1876), 2 A. C. page 102 at page 106

2. Patterson v. Solomon, (1960) 2 All E. R. page 20 at page 24

 

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. The Constitution of Western Nigeria

2. The 4th Schedule to the Nigeria (Constitution) Order-in-Council, 1960

3. The Parliamen-tary and Local Government Electoral Regulations, 1955

 

 

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT