Eti-osa Local Government V. Mr. Rufus Jegede & Anor (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MONICA. B. DONGBAN-MENSEM J.C.A, JP+

Before the High Court of Lagos State Coram Hon. Justice J. O. Pedro (Mrs.), Respondents took out an originating summons on the 1st August 2001, pursuant to the provisions of Order 42 Rules 1 and 3 of the High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules of 1994.

Four issues were placed before the trial Court for determination and these are:-

“1. Whether Eti-Osa Local Government can collect taxes and levies outside the area Specified in Part III Taxes and levies to be collected by the Local Government, Taxes and Levies (Approved list For Collection) Decree No. 21 1998.”

“2. Whether the Respondent’s demand Notice dated 3rd July 2001 served on the Applicants shops B – 106 and B-107 Ikota Shopping Complex, Lagos is not in conflict with the provisions of Part III Taxes and Levies to be collected by the Local Government Taxes and Levies (approved list for collection) Decree No. 21 1998.”

“3. Whether Eti -Osa Local Government has the power and capacity to legislate, determine and demand whatever taxes and levies it deems fit from time to time outside the provisions of Part III Taxes and Levies to be collected by the Local Government Taxes Levies (Approved list for collection) Decree No. 21 1998.”

“4. Whether Eti-Osa Local Government BYE-LAWS NO. 10 1998 (Corporate Outfit Bye-Laws) is inconsistent with the provisions of PART III Taxes and Levies to be collected by the Local Government Taxes and (Approved list for Collection) Decree No. 21 1998.”

In a well considered Ruling, the learned trial Judge granted all the four reliefs sought by the Applicants.

The Appellants are irked by the decision of the trial Court and have come to this Court upon seven grounds of appeal – seeking two reliefs. The reliefs sought are:

“(a) An order setting aside the Ruling of the High Court delivered on the 15th January 2002,

(b) An order striking out and or dismissing the Respondent’s case.”

Five issues were formulated by the Appellant for determination and these are:

“1. Whether the Honourable Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit from the facts and circumstances of this case in view of the provisions of the Local Government Law (No 16) 1976 as Amended by the Local Government (Consequential Amendments and Repeals) Edict No 7 of 1985.”

“2. Whether the mere fact that a particular type of tax is not mentioned in the list of tax contained in Decree No 21 of 1998 ipso Facto means that a level of Government (the Appellant) in this suit cannot levy and or collect such a tax.”