ANIEMEKA EMEGOKWUE VS JAMES OKADIGBO
August 15, 2025IRENE A. ADEBAJO VS L.A. ADEBAJO
August 15, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1979) Legalpedia (SC) 16370
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Thu Apr 19, 1973
Suit Number: SC. 467/1975
CORAM
SIR D.A.R. ALEXANDER , CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA
GEORGE S. SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SIR UDO UDOMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MOHAMMED BELLO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR
ANIAGOLU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KAYODE ESO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. SAMUEL OGUEBIE 2. CHIEF ONWERE ONUOHA (For themselves and as representing Nduka family Imeoha, Mgbidi)
APPELLANTS
1. CHUKWUDILE ODUNWOKE
2. CHUKWUNYERENWA NWACHUKWU
3. OGUALO MGBEKWUE
(For themselves and as representing the people of Umungubo Family, Imeoha, Mgbidi)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This appeal first came before the Supreme Court earlier on, that is, on 3rd November, 1976, the appellants had filed a notice of motion for leave to file and argue additional grounds to the seventeen grounds of appeal, which were originally filed with the notice of appeal.
HELD
The appeal was allowed.
ISSUES
That the decisions of this court in Uttah v. Independence Brewery Limited (1974) 2 S.C.7, Okwuosa v. Okwuosa (1974) 2 SC.13 and other cases decided by this court (which held as a nullity, any judgment of a High Court of Nigeria, based on any material originating in the so-called “High Court of Biafra”) were all given per incuriam.
The trial was illegal and void as per the decision of this Honourable Court in Uttah v. Independence Brewery Ltd. (1974) 2 S.C.7; Okwuosa v. Okwuosa (1974) 2 S.C.13 and other cases.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY
“Where there is evidence of any act whatsoever, of the lawful sovereign, signifying opposition, as a matter of policy , to the application of the doctrine of necessity, or implied mandate, the court will not apply it.” Per K. ESO, JSC.
STATUS OF DECLARATION OF POLICY MAND EX POST FACTO
“The fact that the declaration of policy was made ex post facto does not detract from the validity. All that is required by the court is evidence, if any, of what the policy was at the material time.” Per K. ESO, JSC.
CASES CITED
None.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None.
