CHIEF S.O.N. OKAFOR V. D. O. IKEANYI & ORS
August 2, 2025JOSEPH OKOSUN V. THE STATE
August 2, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1979-04) Legalpedia 05343 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
LAGOS
Thu Apr 19, 1979
Suit Number: SC.467/1975
CORAM
ALEXANDER CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA
ESO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OBASEKI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IDIGBE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SOWEMIMO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BELLO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IRIKEFE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
SAMUEL OGUEBIE
CHIEF ONWERE ONUOHA(For themselves and as representing Nduka family Imeoha, Mgbidi)
APPELLANTS
CHUKWUDILE ODUNWOKE
CHUKWUNYERENWA NWACHUKWU
OGUALO MGBEKWUE (For themselves and as representing the people of Umungubo Family, Imeoha, Mgbidi)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
ILLEGAL DECLARATION OF SECESSION
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
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.
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.
CASES CITED
None.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None.
