The Queen V. Governor-in-council, Western Region (1962)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADEMOLA, CJF

This is an appeal against a judgment of Charles, J., in the Western Region High Court re-fusing an application for an order absolute for an order of certiorari to quash the approval by the Governor-in-Council of the appointment of Sikiru Deltona as the Awujale of Ijebuland. There is also a cross-appeal by the respondent on the issue of costs: the complaint is that costs were not awarded to the respondent by the Judge.

The facts which led to the application and upon which an order nisi was made on the 12th February, 1960, are shortly these. In 1959 it would appear the stool of the Awujale of Ijebuland became vacant. On 2nd November, 1959, the Secretary to the Ijebu Divisional Council notified, as he is deemed to do, the appropriate Minister that the King Makers had selected and recommended for the approval of the Governor-in-Council Mr. Sikiru Adetona as the Awujale to fill the vacant stool.

On 9th November, 1959, the applicant/appellant through his Solicitor protested against this recommendation, and as he was entitled by law to do, communicated his protest by letter of that date to the Governor-in-Council stating nine grounds against the validity of the appointment. The protest was considered by the Governor-in-Council which presumably rejected it, and without sending a formal reply, published in the Gazette of the 21st January, 1960, an announcement approving of the recommendation made in favour of Mr. Sikiru Adetona in pursuance of the powers conferred upon the Governor-in-Council by Section 16(1) of the Chiefs Law, 1957.

The applicant/appellant was dissatisfied with the method the approval was given without a reply to his letter, which his Counsel maintained should contain specific reply to each of the nine points of objections raised. The core of the argument, therefore, before the High Court was that the Governor-in-Council when deciding whether to approve or set aside the recommendation made to it, had not acted judicially as it ought to do under the Chiefs Law, 1957, in the case of a disputed appointment because it did not inform parties to the dispute of its reply or findings to each of the nine points of the dispute. Failing to do so, it was argued, was fatal to the approval given and rendered it void.

The learned Judge found against the applicant on the issue and this is an appeal against that judgment. Five grounds of appeal were filed. At the hearing leave was sought to include two additional grounds marked 6 and 7 and attached to the notice of Motion. Ground 6 appeared to the Court to be a means of bringing up an appeal against an interlocutory order made earlier in the proceedings (at the hearing of the Motion for order nisi) which resulted in the exclusion of two of the three grounds upon which the writ was sought. No appeal was made when the order was made excluding these two grounds. After hearing arguments from Counsel on both sides, we ruled against Mr. Ayoola for the appellant and refused to hear argument on ground 6 of the additional grounds of appeal. Thus, there were grounds 1 to 7 original grounds of appeal, to argue and ground 7, additional grounds.

Of these six grounds, only two namely 5 and 7, were argued. They read as follows:-

“5. The decision is against the weight of evidence.

7. The learned trial Judge misdirected himself as to the issues before him, when he stated “No Court in the strict sense, is bound as a condition precedent to announce its preliminary findings of fact before giving its ultimate decision or to give any reasons at all for that decision” whereas the real issue before him in this proceedings was whether or not the making of specific findings on material points in issue raised by parties before any body statutorily charged with judicial or quasi–judicial functions is a condition of the valid exercise of the judicial or quasi judicial duty imposed on that body.”

I propose to deal with ground 7 first as Mr. Ayoola himself did. In arguing this ground of appeal, Mr. Ayoola submitted that due regard must be paid to the whole of Section 16 of the Chiefs Law 1957. Section 16(2) enjoins the Governor-in-Council to receive representations from an unsuccessful candidate if one is submitted. This must be sent in a prescribed manner and was so done in this case.

The next sub-section, namely, sub-section (3), Counsel argued is important for the purposes of this case, as it defines what the Governor in-Council is to do after receiving representations from an unsuccessful candidate. The sub-section reads: –

“(3) In determining whether to approve or set aside an appointment under this section the Governor-in-Council may have regard to-(a) whether the provisions of Section 11 or Section 12 have been complied with;

(b) Whether any candidate was qualified or disqualified in accordance with the provisions of section 10;

(c) Whether the customary law relating to the appointment has been complied with;