Attorney-general Osun State V. International Breweries Plc (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADAMU, J.C.A.

The respondent herein (as plaintiff) sued the appellant and one other at High Court of Justice Osogbo, Osun State on 20/10/97 claiming against them jointly and severally for the following reliefs:-

“1. A declaration that sections 3, 4 and 5(e) and (f) of the Osun State Accelerated Revenue Generation, Collection and Accounting Edict, 1997 is as far as the sections purport to establish the Osun State Accelerated Revenue Generation, Collection and Accounting Agency to perform the functions of the State Board of Internal Revenue, are inconsistent with sections 85A and 85B of the Personal Income Tax Decree, 1993 as amended by Finance (Miscellaneous Taxation Provisions) (No.2) Decree NO. 31 of 1996, and thus void.

2. Declaration that the Osun State Accelerated Revenue Generation, Collection and Accounting Agency Edict, 1997 in so far as it purports to take away the vested right of the plaintiff to fair hearing is inconsistent with section 33 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979, and thus void.
3. An injunction to restrain the defendants by themselves or by their servants, agents and/or privies or otherwise however from carrying out or taking any step pursuant to sections 3 and 5(e) and (f) of the Osun State Accelerated Revenue Generation, Collection and Accounting Agency, Edict, 1997.”

The action was commenced by an originating summons supported by a 9 paragraphs affidavit. It was moved and argued. At the conclusion of hearing, the learned trial Judge found for the plaintiff/respondent and granted the 1st and 3rd of the reliefs (as reproduced above). The second relief which was withdrawn was accordingly struck out. Thus, the first declaration sought in the originating summons and the order of injunction were made or granted in favour of the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter simply called “the respondent”). The 2nd defendants/appellants (also hereinafter simply called “the appellants”) being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court (which was delivered on 19/2/98 appealed against it in this court (as per the notice of appeal dated 26/2/98 – see pages 28 – 31 of the record). It is to be noted that the 1st appellant namely, the Military Administrator, Osun State has since ceased to be a party in this appeal as a result of an application to delete his name as a party in this appeal dated 11/1/2000 which was duly considered and granted by this court on 29/3/2000. Thus, leaving only the 2nd appellant – The Attorney-General, Osun State as the only surviving appellant in the case.

In the original notice of appeal, which has not been amended, the appellant filed 7 grounds of appeal (see pages 28 – 31 of the record). In accordance with the rules of this court, the parties have filed briefs of arguments which they respectively adopted at the hearing of the appeal on 19/10/2000. In the appellant’s brief, the following three (3) issues for determination are formulated:-

“Issue I

Whether the provisions of sections 3, 4 and 5(e) and (f) of the Osun State Accelerated Revenue Generation, Collection and Accounting Edict No. 2 of 1997 are inconsistent with and not subordinate to the provisions of sections 85A and 85B of the Personal Income Tax Decree No. 104 of 1993 as amended by Decree No. 31 of 1996?.

Issue II

Whether by virtue of the combined provisions of Decree 107 of 1993 and Decree 12 of 1994 the learned trial Judge was right to assume jurisdiction on the respondent’s case which bothered (sic) on the challenge of the Osun State Administrator’s powers to promulgate and act upon the provisions of Osun State Revenue Generation, Collection and Accounting Edict No.2 of 1997?.

Issue III

Whether the learned trial Judge was right from the circumstances of this case, to hold that the functions of the Osun State Board of Internal Revenue were incapable of being delegated and if so delegated can only be done (delegated) to the staff of the Internal Revenue services?.”

On its own part, the respondent in its brief of argument framed the following two issues for determination:-

“(1) Whether sections 3, 4 and 5(e) and (f) of Edict No.2 of 1997 are inconsistent with sections 85A and 85B of Decree No.104 of 1993?; and

(2) Whether the learned trial Judge had jurisdiction to declare sections 3, 4 and 5(e) and (f) of the Edict void to the extent of the inconsistency?.”