SALAWU OYELADE VS SANUSI ARAOYE AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL WESTERN NIGERIA

Legalpedia Citation: (1967-12) Legalpedia 05339 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

Fri Dec 22, 1967

Suit Number: SC 1/1967

CORAM

BRETT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

COKER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

LEWIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

SALAWU OYELADE

APPELLANTS

SANUSI ARAOYE AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL WESTERN NIGERIA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

BIAS – NATURAL JUSTICE-CERTIORARI

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Mr. E.O Enahoro signed the letter under which a recommendation was made for the land in dispute between the parties to be settled under the Inter-Tribal Boundaries Settlement Ordinance. There were findings stated in the letter which favoured the defendant and Mr. E.O Enahoro was appointed to carry out the enquiry.

HELD

The court held that there was a likelihood of bias and that his findings were therefore contrary to natural justice and unconstitutional.

ISSUES

Whether it was proper that Mr Enahoro, after signing the letter of recommendation, should conduct the inquiry under the Inter- Tribal Boundaries Settlement Law, Laws of the Western Region of Nigeria, 1959.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BIAS

1. ‘In the rare cases where it could be proved that a decision had actually been affected by the bias of the person making it, that would no doubt be conclusive, but while suspicion is not enough the courts do not appear to have required proof that actual bias operated on the mind of the person making the decision.’ Per Brett J.S.C

CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTER-TRIBAL BOUNDARIES SETTLEMENT LAW

2. ‘An officer conducting an inquiry under the Inter-Tribal Boundaries Settlement Law may not be bound by the Evidence Act, and may be entitled to give weight to matters which would not be treated as relevant in a court of law, but if he is to give a judicial decision he must approach the inquiry with an open mind, and he ought not to presume in advance that any particular solution is the right one.’ Per Brett J.S.C