Chief Festus Okotie-eboh & Ors V. Director Of Public Prosecutions (1962)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
ADEMOLA, C.J.F
The three appellants were among the 9 accused persons convicted in the High Court at Sapele in the Western Region of the offence of forcible entry contra Section 74 of Cap. 28 of the Laws of the Western Region. The charge reads as follows:
that….. on the 18th day of December, 1960, at Sapele, in Warri Judicial Division, did in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace enter on land situate at Block 3 Plot 3 Macpherson Road, Sapele, which land was in actual and peaceable possession of Orororho Machine and others and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 74 of Cap.28 of the Laws of Western Region of Nigeria.
In a considered judgment, the learned Judge found each of the accused persons before him guilty of the offence and ordered them to pay a fine of £10 each or one month in default. He then made an order in the following words:
In addition, I order that the 1st accused who authorized the demolition of the building, do within 14 days replace the corrugated iron sheets, windows, and doors removed from it at Block 3, Plot 3 Macpherson Road, Sapele on 18/12/60 so as to put the premises back in the condition it was immediately before the demolition took place, and in default two months’ imprisonment.
Only the three appellants have appealed against their conviction and sentence and the 1st appellant has also appealed against the additional order made against him by the learned Judge.
The facts which led to the prosecution are shortly as follows: The land known as Block 3, Plot 3 Macpherson Road, Sapele, is Crown land. It was leased in 1936 to one Madam Eyenaso, who died in 1949. Her grandchild called Dale (3rd witness for the defence) applied for a regrant as the lease expired on 31/12/52, and on 25/2/53 a regrant was made in his favour. In 1957 he assigned his interest to the 1st appellant. In 1958, the 1st appellant brought an action against Machine Orororho for a declaration of title to this land, for trespass and prayed for an injunction against the man. Six months later this action was discontinued to bring a fresh one. Meanwhile, the Attorney General, Western Region prosecuted Orororho, but he was discharged by the Magistrate. On 20th October, 1960, on the 1st appellant’s instructions, his Solicitor gave 7 days’ notice to Orororho to quit and deliver possession of the premises which he was said to hold of the 1st appellant as a tenant. About a month later, indeed on 17/11/60, an action was filed against Orororho for possession of the premises. The case was listed for hearing on 27/12/60. On 18/12/60 the 1st appellant gave his contractors an authority in writing ‘to demolish and clear any buildings, structures or obstructions from the plot known and described as Plot 3, Block 3 Macpherson Road, Sapele, to enable the commencement of a proposed building on the said plot and which building plan has been approved.”
On the land there were two buildings a short distance apart. One, a zinc roof house, in which people lived, and the other, a small thatched roof building, where it would appear the man Orororho carried on his business.
It appears that the authority for immediate demolition applied to the first building where, according to the findings of the learned trial Judge, Machine Orororho and his tenants were living at the time in peaceable possession. The contractors, armed with the authority given to them by the 1st appellant, entered the premises, with others, and carried out the demolition. On the above facts the learned Judge, after considering the law applicable, to which I shall later refer, convicted the appellants and others before him.
For the 1st appellant eight grounds of appeal were filed, and for the 2nd and 3rd appellants’ three grounds of appeal were filed. Leave was later sought and granted to argue 20 additional grounds filed for the 1st appellant and 7 additional grounds were filed in respect of the 2nd and 3rd appellants. The various grounds argued, however, can conveniently be treated as under five heads:-
1. Misdirection. That the learned Judge misdirected himself in law as to the meaning of “actual” and “peaceable” possession, and that some English cases applied on this point were wrongly applied.
2. It was complained that k was a mistake to treat Section 74 as equivalent to the English Statute 5 Richard II.
3. A complaint that the man Orororho was a trespasser; that he was not in actual and peaceable possession; and that Section 229 of the Code was misapplied in the case.
4. That the 1st appellant, who was not present at the scene, should not have been found guilty and that Section 7(d) of the Criminal Code relating to parties to a crime was wrongly applied to him.
Leave a Reply