Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T16:26:02.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Interaction of English Law with Customary Law in Western Nigeria: II1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

F. A. Ajayi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The power of the High Court to apply customary law in appropriate cases is now to be found in s. 17 of the Western Region High Court Law, 1954, No. 3 of 1955, which in this respect merely repeats in substance the provisions of s. 17 of the old Supreme Court Ordinance (cap. 211). The power to enforce customary law in the Region is, as is usual in other places, made subject to such law not being repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience or incompatible with legislative provisions. Also customary law may be applicable between “Nigerians” and “non-Nigerians” where otherwise substantial injustice would be done to either party, and the operation of customary law could be excluded either by the nature of the transaction in question or by the agreement of the parties.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of African Law , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , Summer 1960 , pp. 98 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 The corresponding expressions used in the Supreme Court Ordinance are “natives” and “non-natives”.

3 The new s. 17 was inserted by an amending Law, No. 11 of 1959. The provisions of the original s. 17 were identical with the corresponding provisions of the old Supreme Court Ordinance.

page 99 note 1 Also under s. 73 (i) (1) the court is required to take judicial notice of all “general customs” which have been held to have the force of law either in the old Supreme Court of Nigeria or in the High Court of the Region and s. 61 (2) defines “general custom” as including “customs or rights common to a considerable class of persons”.

page 100 note 1 Hence in Belo Adedibu v. Gbadamosi Adewoyin & anor., 13 W.A.C.A. 191 the judgment of HALLINAN, J., based on an interpretation of Yoruba customary law as contained in Ward Price's Memorandum of Land Tenure in the Yoruba Provinces was overruled on the ground inter alia that there was no evidence before his Lordship that this Memorandum was “recognised by natives as a legal authority”.

page 100 note 2 See M. 0. Bamgbose v. F. B. Daniel & ors., 14 W.A.C.A. 111, 116.

page 100 note 3 See Kobina Angu v. Cudjoe Attah, Gold Coast P.C. 1874–1928.

page 100 note 4 See F. S. Larinde v. S. Afiko & 0. Debari, 6 W.A.C.A. 108, in which it was held that a solitary decision in the case of Odu of Ikeja v. Akitoye of Ikeja in 1892 was not sufficient as a precedent warranting judicial notice.

page 100 note 5 1 N.L.R. 75.

page 100 note 6 See for instance Wanta Dick v. Fred Green, 1 N.L.R. 115; Okupe v. Soyebo (Alaperu of Iperu), 3 W.A.C.A. 151; Oba Ademola II & ors. v. Akinwande Thomas & ors., 12 W.A.C.A. 81; Adegbite (the Owa-Ale of Ikare) v. Alasan Babatunde (the Olukare Odo), 13 W.A.C.A. 68 and Oke Lanipekun Laoye v. Amao Ojetunde, [1943] A.C. 70.

page 101 note 1 See Eshugbayi Eleko v. Officer Administering the Govt. 0f Nigeria, [1931] All E.R. Rep. 44; [1931] A.C. 662, per Lord ATKIN, at pp. 49, 50 and 672 respectively; Akinwande Thomas v. Oba Ademola II, 18 N.L.R.12, per POLLARD, J., at p. 18.

page 101 note 2 Lewis v. Bankole & ors., 1 N.L.R. 82, per SPEED, Ag. C.J., at pp. 83–4.

page 101 note 3 See Brimah Balogun & Scottish Mortgage and Trust Co. Ltd. v. Saka Chief Oshodi, 10 N.L.R. 36, per WEBBER, J., at pp. 54–5; Ibadan District Council v. Ishola Mosadogun & ors., 1955–56 W.R.N.L.R. 22.

page 101 note 4 Henry Olowu v. Gertrude Desalu, 14 W.A.C.A. 662.

page 101 note 5 [1931] All E.R. Rep. 44, at p. 51; [1931] A.C. 662, at p. 673.

page 102 note 1 See too R. L. Taiwo v. Odunsi Sarumi, 2 N.L.R. 106, where the plaintiff sued “on behalf of herself and as head of the family of Chief Taiwo, deceased”.

page 102 note 2 Ramotu W. Salami v. S. L. Salami, 1957 W.R.N.L.R. 10, following Sule v. Ajisegiri, 13 N.L.R. 146.

page 102 note 3 See Best v. Samuel Fox & Co. Ltd., [1951] 2 All E.R. 116; [1951] 2 K.B. 639, per BIRKETT, L.J.; Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] All E.R. Rep. 1; [1932] A.C. 562, per Lord MACMILLAN; Candler v. Crane Christmas & Co., [1951] 1 All E.R. 426; [1951] 2 K.B. 164, per DENNING, L.J. (as he then was); Pollock, “Judicial Caution and Judicial Valour” (1929), 45 L.Q.R. 293; Lord Wright, “Precedents” (1943), Camb. L.J. 118; Friedmann, Legal Theory, 2nd ed., pp. 286 et seq.; Julius Stone, The Province and Function of Law (1950), pp. 201 et seq.

page 103 note 1 Lewis v. Bankole, 1 N.L.R. 82, per SPEED, Ag. C.J., at pp. 84–5.

page 103 note 2 19 N.L.R. 38.

page 103 note 3 See too Eshugbayi, Chief Oloto v. Dawuda & ors., 1 N.L.R. 58, where NICOLL, C.J. and SMITH, J., on the one hand, and PENNINOTON, J., on the other, disagreed on the justice or otherwise of enforcing a claim to forfeiture of a customary tenant's interest for denying his overlord's title.

page 103 note 4 Richardson v. Mellish (1824), 2 Bing. 229, per BURROUGH, J., at p. 252.

page 104 note 1 Attorney-General v. John Holt & Co. & ors., 2 N.L.R. 1, per OSBORNE, C.J., at P.39.

page 104 note 2 Aganran (Oku) v. Olushi, 1 N.L.R. 67.

page 104 note 3 L. 0. Akuru v. Olubadan-In-Council, 14 W.A.C.A. 523.

page 104 note 4 Chief M. Ashogbon v. S. Oduntan, 12 N.L.R. 7, per GRAHAM PAUL, J., at p. 10.

page 104 note 5 Kuahen v. Avose, Report of certain Judgments of the Supreme Court, Lagos, Vice-Admiralty Court and Full Court of Appeal 1884–1892, per SMALMAN SMITH, C.J.

page 104 note 6 12 N.L.R. 4.

page 104 note 7 In re Sarah Adadevoh & ors., 13 W.A.C.A. 304, per VERITY, C.J., at p. 310.

page 104 note 8 See for example, Savage v. Macfoy, Vol. I, Part II Renner's Report, 502; In re Sapara, Vol. I, Part II Renner's Report, 606; Abudu W. Phillip v. Sanni Phillip & anor., 18 N.L.R. 102; Caesar Augustus Ajayi Young v. Benjamin Ajayi Young & ors., Civil Appeal W.A.C.A. No. 3631 (in the Cyclostyled Report of Selected Judgments of W.A.C. A. 1953).

page 105 note 1 12 N.L.R. 47.

page 105 note 2 See, for instance, para. 114 of the Report of the Native Courts (Western Provinces) Commission of Inquiry, 1952.

page 105 note 3 Native Authority Ordinance, s. 10 (2).

page 106 note 1 See the Laws of Nigeria (Supplement), 1948–1949, pp. 665–6.

page 106 note 2 See W.R.L.N. 456 of 1958.

page 107 note 1 Among the earlier Ordinances, litigation under which was protracted and often proceeded as far as to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, were the Deposed Chiefs Removal Ordinance, No. 59 of 1917; the Appointment and Deposition of Chiefs Ordinance, Cap. 12 of the Laws of Nigeria (1948 ed.), and the rather optimistically titled Chieftaincy Disputes (Preclusion of Courts) Ordinance, No. 30 of 1948.

page 107 note 2 Chiefs Law, 1957, s. 4.

page 107 note 3 Id., s. 8.

page 107 note 4 Id., s. 9.

page 108 note 1 Press Release from the Public Relations Department, Lagos, No. 678 of 3rd March, 1955, p. 3, on Western House of Assembly Proceedings.

page 108 note 2 Potter, Historical Introduction to the History of English Law and its Institutions (2nd ed.), p. 10.

page 108 note 3 Lord Hailey, An African Survey (2nd ed.), pp. 251–2.

page 108 note 4 Potter, op. cit., pp. 10–11.

page 111 note 1 Cheshire, The Modern Law of Real Property, 6th ed., pp. 326 and 477 et seq.; Potter, op. cit., pp. 457 et seq.

page 112 note 1 See for example, Lewis v. Bankole, 1 N.L.R. 82, per OSBORNE, G.J., at pp. 101–2; Report of the Native Courts (Northern Provinces) Commission of Inquiry, 1952, para. 409.

page 113 note 1 See the Symposium by the Afrika-Instituut, Leiden, 1955, on The Future of Customary Law in Africa, pp. 67–8.

page 113 note 2 For instance, where, as is the widespread practice, customary owners of land purport to convey the same to others for English types of interests in land like the fee simple or a leasehold.

page 113 note 3 Cf. the recent decision in A. Akani & anor. v. Olubadan in Council, 1958 W.R.N. L.R. 98, by ADEMOLA, C.J., of the Western Region (as he then was) on the customary law in Ibadan regarding the acquisition of private land for public purposes.