.
hbriefs heading animation Search for cases summary on Hbriefs like hbriefs on facebook follow hbriefs on twitter

BOOK: First 2-Years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons - visit website

JUMP TO CONTENT

Chief Denis C. Osadebay v. The Attorney-general of Bendel State (1991) - SC


icon CASE SUMMARY OF:

Chief Denis C. Osadebay v. The Attorney-general of Bendel State (1991) - SC

by NSA PaulPipAr
icon LITE HOLDING


iconAREA OF LAW

- Constitutional Law
icon TAG(S)

- Jurisdiction.
place advert here


icon PARTIES

APPELLANT
Chief Denis C. Osadebay

v.

RESPONDENT
The Attorney-general of Bendel State
icon CITATION


icon COURT

Supreme Court
icon LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:

Bello, CJN
icon APPEARANCES

* FOR THE APPELLANT
* FOR THE RESPONDENT

Get that your business, idea, or work available to the public. HCB gets sufficient amount of visits daily. Utilise this golden opportunity to make your product(s) available to the public domain by advertising on this website. If you are interested in advertising on this platform, click "place my advert".

place my advert

place advert here
Go to Crowdfire


icon FACT (as relating to the issues)

The bedrock of the plaintiff's claim in the trial court was the alleged incompetence of the Military Governor to make the Forfeiture order forfeiting the plaintiff's property.

On the Plaintiff's suit to the trial court, the trial court judge held, that the suit is confronted with the provision of section 12 of the Decree No. 37 of 1968 under which the Order forfeiting his property was deemed to have been made, which ousted the jurisdiction of the court in these terms: "12. The validity of any direction, notice or order given or made, or of any other thing whatsoever done, as the case may be, under this Decree or under any enactment or other law repealed by this Decree, or the circumstance under which such direction, notice or order has been given or made or other thing whatsoever done, shall not be inquired into in any court of law, and accordingly nothing in the provisions of chapter 3 of the Constitution of the Federation shall apply in relation to any matter arising out of this Decree or out of any enactment or other law repealed by this Decree."

Hence, the trial court dismissed the suit. The Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal which also dismissed the appeal on the jurisdiction issue.

This is a further appeal to the Supreme Court.
icon ISSUE(S)

1. Whether the Trial Court have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
place advert here


icon RESOLUTION OF ISSUE(S)

[APPEAL: DISMISSED]

1. THE COURT HELD AGAINST THE APPELLANT BUT IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT.

RULING:
i. Accordingly, the Forfeiture Order had the force of law on 1st October, 1979 when the 1979 Constitution came into force and is an “existing law” within the meaning of Section 274(4)(b) of the Constitution. That being the case, by virtue of Section 6(6)(d) of the Constitution, the courts have no power to determine the competence of the Military Governor of Bendel State to make the Forfeiture Order. I have also shown that the main issue for determination in the Plaintiff’s claim revolves on the competence of the Military Governor to make the Forfeiture Order. The Constitution in its Section 6(6)(b) prevented the courts of law from entertaining such issue. Consequently, the Court of Appeal was right in upholding the decision of the trial court that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issue. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Appeal is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. N500 costs shall be awarded to the defendant.
icon REFERENCED


icon SOME PROVISION(S)


icon RELEVANT CASE(S)


The member(s) and administrator(s) of HCB put in energy in order to provide the cases summary they do on this online platform. We desist from charging you a fee, and we have decided to keep this online platform free and accessible for as long as we deem fit. However, in order to keep alive the impetus that makes us provide these free services, kindly make a donation, if you can.
Bank: Zenith Bank.
Name: Branham Paul Chima.
Account No.: 2178756839.


icon CASE(S) RELATED


icon NOTABLE DICTA

* PROCEDURAL


* SUBSTANTIVE
The constitutional limitation imposed on the exercise of judicial powers by the courts must not be breached deliberately and consciously or by the use of clever arguments if the Rule of Law is to reign in our society. - Obaseki, JSC. Osadebay v. Bendel (1991)
The end of this brief.


If this brief was aidful to you, LIKE Hbriefs on Facebook and FOLLOW Hbriefs on Twitter to get frequent Legal updates from Hbriefs.
kind_emoji




USE THE SEARCH BOX BELOW
If the search box is not available below, it is due to network issues; in that case, reload page or check back again.
The search feature works perfect! Although the search feature might not capture very recent uploaded cases; If you did not get a particular case, we recommend entering the Case Summary categories and use your browser search/find feature, or use the request feature below.


JUMP TO TOP


REQUEST A CASE SUMMARY





ABOUT



TERMS AND CONDITONS



ADVERTISE ON HBRIEFS



FOUNDER




Humongouz Empire
© 2018 - 2021

website developed by hzztudio