By Safi Jimba
General Principle of Liability (XVIII)
Petition of Right
Roosevelt Edet v. Attorney-General
(1957) 2 E.R.L.R. 37
High CT (calabar) – H.S. Palmer J.
The petitioner was claiming damages in tort against the Government under the Petitions of Right Ordinance, arguing that section 8(1) conferred on the subject the same rights against the Government as were conferred on the subject in England against the Crown by the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947.
Held: The Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, could not be prayed in the aid of the proceedings.
H.S. Palmer J.;
“The law which is enforceable is here set out in section 14, High Court Law. Having regard to this section, the law relating to petitions of right is the law which was in force in England in 1900, as modified by the Petitions of Right Ordinance. Now it is clear that, so far the present case is concerned of right in England in 1900, and I can see nothing in the Petitions of Right Ordinance which in any way modifies this.”
Petition dismissed
E. Olasupo and others v. Attorney-general, Estern Nigeria and others
(1961) 1 All N.L.R. 562
High Ct. (West) Morgan Ag. C.J.
In this motion to strike out a petition of right, Morgan Ag. C.J. granting the motion said, inter alia:
“In the first place it is to join anyone with the Crown as respondent to a petition of right (Kirk v. R.; Attorney-General v. Kirk (1872) L.R. 14 Esq. 558). In the second place, according to Cockburn C.J. in Feather v. The Queen (1865) 12 L.T. 114):
‘…the case in which the petition of right is open to the subject, are where land, or goods or money of the subject have found their way into the hands of the Crown, and where the purpose is to obtain restitution, or, where that cannot be contained, compensation in money, or where the claim arises out of a contract for goods supplied to the crown or the public service. It is in such cases on that instances of petition of right having been maintained are to be found in the books and no case has been adduced (after all the industry and research which has been brought to bear on the subject) in which a petition of right has been brought in respect of a wrong, properly so called, by the Crown.”
And by section 3(1) of the Petitions of Right law, cap. 90 of the Laws of Western Nigeria, the claims which are the subject matter of a petition of right are those ‘of the same nature as claims which may be prepared against the Crown in England by Petition, manifestation or plea of right’.”
UNINCORPORATED BODIES
An unincorporated body cannot be sued in tort (see P.Ezekwe v. E. T. Otomewo, S. Lessor and God’s Kingdom Society (1957) N.R.N.L.R 130 and Oke v. Gansallo (1923) 4 N.L.R !!!. See post, pp. 334 – 336, 340-342.
TO BE CONTINUED
