–
IN RE MOTION FOR QUO WARRANTO
ABRAHAM OLAYINKA OKUPE
V.
SOYEBO, THE ALAPERU OF IPERU
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL HOLDEN AT LAGOS, NIGERIA
22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 1937
LEX (1937) – III WACA PP. 151 – 152
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1937/16 (WACA)
(1937) III WACA PP. 151 – 152
–
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
DONALD KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA
BUTLER LLOYD, J.
CAREY, J.
–
BETWEEN/MATTER:
IN RE MOTION FOR QUO WARRANTO:
ABRAHAM OLAYINKA OKUPE – Relator-Appellant
AND
SOYEBO, THE ALAPERU OF IPERU – Defendant-Respondent.
–
ORIGINATING COURT
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT
–
REPRESENTATION
Sir William Geary, Bart — for Relator-Appellant
O. Alakija — for Defendant-Respondent
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
CUSTOMARY LAW — CHIEFTAINCY:- Application by private Relator for Quo Warranto to show authority of Judgment of Defendant — Respondent to exercise the office of Alaperu of Iperu — Office not created by, or held under, the Crown — Whether Quo Warranto can issue
–
DECISION OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held: Appeal is dismissed.
1. The first essential for an information of this nature to lie is that the office must be held under the Crown, or have been created by the Crown.
2. The Alaperu of Iperu is not an office created by the Crown, a minor chief in the Protectorate – not even in a colony — owing its existence to native custom and the holder is not even a native authority appointed under the Native Authority Ordinance, 1933 (No. 43 of 1933). Therefore, being neither an office created by, nor held under the Crown, Quo Warranto cannot be exhibited
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following judgment was delivered: per KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA.
This is an appeal against a decision of Bartley, Assistant Judge of the High Court of the Protectorate sitting in the Ibadan Division, dismissing an application by a private relator named Abraham Olayinka Okupe that an information in the nature of Quo Warranto be exhibited against Soyebo to show what authority he claimed to exercise the office of Alaperu of Iperu.
Now the first essential for an information of this nature to lie is that “the office must be held under the Crown, or have been created by the Crown.” Halsbury, second edition, vol. 9, page 805, paragraph 1374.
It is abundantly clear that the Alaperu of Iperu does not hold an office created by the Crown. The position is one of a minor chief in the Protectorate – not even in a colony-it owes its existence to native custom and the holder is not even a native authority appointed under the Native Authority Ordinance, 1933 (No. 43 of 1933).
It is equally clear that the Alaperu does not hold an office under the Crown. The first sentence of the first paragraph of the applicant’s own affidavit is sufficient to demonstrate this:
“The office of Alaperu of Iperu is elective and the electors are the Chiefs and Elders of Iperu Town.”
There is no need to look further than this, and I will only add that I entirely agree with the finding of the learned Judge in the Court below that the position of the Alaperu of Iperu is a mere dignity, a position of honour-based, as that finding is, upon the Judgments of the Full Court in Adanji v. Hunvoo (1 N.L.R. 75). In that case, it is worth noting, it was common ground that Quo Warranto did not lie, even the claimant’s counsel admitting “the essential feature is absent.”
I am of opinion that the decision of the Court below was right and that the appeal should be dismissed.
–
BUTLER LLOYD, J.
I concur.
–
CAREY, J.
I concur.
–