Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Din Vs. AGF (1988) CLR 9(a) (SC)

Judgement delivered on September 23rd 1988

Brief

  • Fundamental human rights
  • Government acquisition of property
  • Ouster of jurisdiction
  • Conflicts in affidavit evidence
  • Originating summons
  • Jurisdiction
  • Fortissme contra preferences

Facts

In 1970 the Federal Military Government promulgated the Recovery of Public Property (No. 2) act, 1970 by which the appellant forfeited some of his assets to the Federal Military Government. The 1970 Act was amended in 1972 by the Recovery of Property (Amendment) act, 1972, which took effect retrospectively from the date that the 1970 Act came into force. Namely, 24th December 1970 Sections 1 and 2 of the 1970 Acts as amended, read thus-

  • 1
    Relevant assets for the purpose of this Decree are assets which are or purport to be the property of-
    • a
      a person known or formerly known as Captain Din, or
    • b
      a company known as Nitico, or
    • c
      any other person or body corporate or in corporate accused with the said Captain Din in criminal proceedings which terminated in Lagos in the year 1970.
  • 2
    Where the Nigeria Police holds any relevant assets, it shall be the duty of the Inspector, General of the Nigeria. Police to cause those assets to be sold and to cause the proceeds of the sale to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation.

In 1959 the appellant began to acquire a tract of land measuring about 7 hectares at Mararaba Pushit in Mangu Local Government Area of Plateau State. In January, 1974 part of the land was entered into by officers, servants and agents of the Federal Ministry of Education and the Federal advanced Teachers College, Panshin, Plateau state without the consent or permission of the appellant.

He made several claims against them in court but the respondent did not enter an appearance, and judgment was given in default, against the respondent. The respondent however, applied to set aside the judgment, and filed a counter, affidavit, challenging the appellant’s claims.

The learned trial judge dismissed the action.

Appellant, aggrieved, appealed to the Court of Appeal which reversed the decision of the trial court, and remitted the matter to the High Court for trial de novo before another judge.

The appellant, again aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether an appeal court can suo motu raise issues...
  • Read More