Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

SELF-HELP IS FORBIDDEN – FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS OF LAW – REGAINING POSSESSION

Dictum

Oputa, JSC in his judgment in Ojukwu’s case (1986) 17 NSCC 304 at 322 referred to Lord Denning’s dicta in the case of Agbor v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969) 1 WLR 703 at page 707 where the learned Lord Justice stated that:- “The plain fact here is that Mr & Mrs Agbor claim as of right to be entitled to possession of the ground floor of this house. They occupied it on February 4. They entered by stealth. They used a key that had been left behind. But they did it under a claim of right. It may be that they had no such right as they claimed. But, even so, the proper way to evict her was by application to the courts of law. No one is entitled to take possession of premises by a strong hand or with a multitude of people. That has been forbidden ever since the Statute of Richard II against forcible entry. This applies to the police as much as to anyone else. It applies to the government departments also. And to the Nigerian High Commission. If they are entitled to possession, they must regain it by due process of law. They must not take the law into their own hands. They must apply to the courts for possession and act only on the authority of the courts.”

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

LAWS ARE MADE FOR MEN, NOT MEN FOR LAWS

Laws are made for men and not men for laws. The administration of justice involves the administration of the purest principles of law among men for the good of men in its fairest conception. Man is fallible, so are the thoughts of man. This fallible nature of man demands that whenever the errors of thoughts and thought processes surface and are exposed and brought to the attention of its authors, there should be power or jurisdiction to depart from the errors and tread the correct path.

— Obaseki, JSC. Odi v Osafile (1985) – SC.144/1983

Was this dictum helpful?

THE LAW IS NO RESPECTER OF PERSON

I can safely say that here in Nigeria even under a Military Government, the law is no respecter of person, principalities, government or powers and that the courts stand between the citizens and the government alert to see that the state or government is bound by the law and respects the law. Under our law, it is the court that has the jurisdiction and power to declare the Respondent, Chief Emeka Ojukwu a trespasser on the premises situate at No. 29 Queen’s Drive Ikoyi after due hearing on relevant evidence.

– Oputa, JSC. Military Governor v. Ojukwu (1986) – SC.241/1985

Was this dictum helpful?

LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY IS ITEMISED IN THE EXCLUSIVE LIST

In Nigeria, the operation of legislative powers by the national assembly and House of Assembly of a State is itemized in two list; the Exclusive Legislative list and Concurrent list, these vest powers on the legislature to legislate upon certain items. The exclusive list is the exclusive preserve of the National Assembly which has 68 items. The item Traffic on Federal Road” is provided for under item 63 2nd schedule part I in the Exclusive legislative list. Study of part I of the 2nd Schedule, Item 63 i.e “Traffic on Federal Trunk roads” gave rise to the promulgation of Federal Road safety Commission (Establishment) Act, 2007 by the National Assembly for the maintenance and security of public safety and order.

— A.O. Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA. FRSC v Ehikaam (2023) – CA/AS/276/2019

Was this dictum helpful?

THE LAW WILL BE FOUND IN BOOKS

Per Lord Camden in Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98 “If it is law, it will be found in our books. If it not to be found there, it is not law.”

Was this dictum helpful?

RULE OF LAW NECESSARY FOR DEMOCRACY SUSTAINABILITY

If our democracy must be sustained and grow, everybody must abide by the rule of law and ensure that all procedures laid down for taking any action are scrupulously complied with.

– AKA’AHS, J.S.C. Danladi v. Dangiri (2014)

Was this dictum helpful?

THEORY OF THE RULE OF LAW VIS-A-VIS CUSTOMARY LAW – PECULIARITY OF NIGERIAN SITUATION

The theory of the rule of law which is now commonly canvassed and resorted to by politicians, journalists, and even lawyers to describe innominate situations seems to me much wider than the formulation of the Rule by Dicey in the late 18th century. It is different from the rule familiar to Constitutional lawyers. The principles in the rule as stated by Dicey are three. The first is the absolute supremacy of law as opposed to the exercise of arbitrary power. The second is the equality of all persons before the law. The third is that the constitution is the result of the ordinary law of the land as interpreted by the courts. It is important to bear in mind that Dicey formulated the rule of law with respect to the unwritten Constitution of England, and in relation to the nature and content of English law – common law and statutory. There is no doubt he had in mind the application of democratic principles of the Westminster style and the impartial enforcement of the laws of England. The rules enunciated by Dicey were formulated in contrast with the situation in foreign countries. Our circumstances in this country are not identical. They are peculiar. We have adopted English law as the general law. We did not abolish all our own laws and customs which govern our ways of life in many important respects. We have also adopted the principles of democracy as recognised in West European countries. Undoubtedly, these principles adopted must be applied with necessary modification and adaptation within the context of the laws adopted, recognised and applicable in our communities. Of course where any such laws are incompatible with our democratic values, they are by our Constitution to be rejected. Hence the Court of Appeal ought to have shown which of the rules of law or its variant is inconsistent with the custom being rejected. The custom applies uniformly only to defaulting members of the Age grade society. It is the law as accepted by them. It is, on the evidence, the law recognised by the community.

– Karibe-Whyte JSC. Agbai v. Okogbue (1991) – SC 104/1989

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.