Alhaji Sulaiman Mohammed & Anor V. Lasisi Sanusi Olawunmi & Ors. (1990)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ESO, J.S.C. 

The point arising in this appeal could conveniently be taken to commence from the order made by the Supreme Court on 8th July, 1981. There the court while dismissing the appeal of the defendants/appellants made the following remarks-

“Mr. B.A. Augusto for the appellants did not object to aggression by Mr. Abraham Adesanya learned counsel for the respondents that a plan ought to be filed. We thereupon ordered a plan to be filed. Mr. Augusto also agreed that the injunction granted by the court should be tied to the plan.

It was upon this concession that in dismissing the appeal of the appellants it is ordered that the injunction granted by the trial court be tied to the area edged red in plan no. GP/1150 made by G.P. Okusanya as a Certified True Copy of Plan No. AB 1381 which was originally made by one A.B. Apatira licensed surveyor on 13th August, 1962.

With this order incorporated as part of the judgment of the trial court, the appeal of the appellants is hereby dismissed.”

What followed was a complaint that the defendants were, notwithstanding the order, in flagrant disregard of the order of the Supreme Court. An application for committal of these defendants was brought before the Lagos High Court (Fernandez, J.). After hearing the parties, Fernandez, J held-

“This order was made in suit no. LD/1213/76, appeal no.FCA/L/95/78 SC/61/1980. It follows therefore that there is a valid order of injunction which is enforceable by committal proceedings. What then are the interference of the respondents Paragraphs 4-10 of the affidavit in support give the details of the interference by the respondents and the reaction of the applicants.

These interferences vary. While some are institution of legal proceedings in court, others are selling and building on the applicant’s land. In proof of these allegations, the plaintiff’s only exhibits 7, 8 and 9 attached to the further affidavit speak directly by showing interference of the respondents. There is no evidence of any selling or building any part of the plaintiff’s land before me. The respondent did not offer any reasonable explanation to exhibit 7, 8 and 9.

Exhibit 7 is a letter from the Lagos State Government in which the State Government informed the Ado family that the families of Emiabata, Gejere and Gashinbaki on behalf of Odan family through a solicitor requested the government not to pay any compensation to the Ado family. The letter was dated 25th June, 1984. Exhibit 8 is the letter informing the Badagry Local Government of the appointment and recognition as Bale of Abule Ado village.

Exhibit 9 was a letter asking for similar appointment and recognition of Alhaji Rufai Jubril as Bale of Gejere town. Gejere town is within the land of the applicants. Exhibits 8 and 9 were written on Ihe 12th and 19th December, 1985 respectively. These steps as I have earlier said are conclusive acts of contempt and (before and after Forms 48 and 49 were issued and served) which the applicants put forward without any answer from the respondents. Though, this is a civil contempt nonetheless the breach of the order must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt as in criminal prosecution.

Thus, apart from the affidavit of both parties there must be further evidence to incriminate him. Conversely, the slightest interference once proved is punishable for the requirement is not the gravity of the act but the actual commission of the act. The respondents therefore committed an act of contempt as regards exhibits 7, 8 and 9. I therefore found the respondents guilty of contempt of the order of this court confirmed by Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in suit no. LD/1213/76; FCA/L/95/78 and SC.61/1980.”

Having found the defendants guilty of contempt and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the issue of sentence, the learned Judge suspended the sentence until the respondents were able to purge themselves of the following within fourteen days, and that is;

“1. That the respondents and their agents move away from the land of Ado family as shown in exhibit ‘1’ (i.e. the Plan).

2. The respondents are hereby ordered to withdraw the letters exhibits 7, 8 and 9 attached to the affidavit in support dated 20th June, 1986.
3. That the respondents do produce in court copies of letters of withdrawal of the said exhibits 7, 8 and 9 attached to the said affidavit, and also to confirm to the recipient of these letters that they have no authority to do what they did in accordance with the Supreme Court order as aforesaid.”

He concluded –