(1965) LCER-344(SC) #
Case Summary #
This case borders on interpretation of Constitution/Statute.
Brief Facts: #
In the Lagos High Court, Justice Omololu J. framed the following questions regarding the interpretation of the Constitution of the Federation, in accordance with the provisions for a reference to the Supreme Court under Section 115 (2) of the Constitution of the Federation. These questions were formulated as follows:
1. Does the Lagos Town Planning (Compensation) Act, 1964, despite compliance with Section 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of 1963, conflict with the provisions of Section 31 (2) (c) of the Constitution?
2. If so, can the Act be considered an amendment of the Constitution, even though its preamble did not indicate to members of Parliament that it was a Bill intended for such amendment?
3. Is the Act legally valid?
The factual basis upon which these questions were formulated was outlined by the learned judge as follows:
“This action, presented in the form of an originating summons by the applicant, seeks the court’s determination on the following matters:
1. Is the first claimant entitled to compensation for his lease of 95 Nnamdi Azikiwe Street (formerly 95 Victoria Street) Lagos, acquired by the applicant under the Lagos Central Planning Scheme 1951, considering the Lagos Town Planning (Compensation) Act 1964?
2. If the answer to the above is affirmative, what is the amount of such compensation?
3. What is the compensation payable to the second and third claimants, who are the freeholders?”
The Supreme Court summarized their responses to the three questions as follows:
1. Is the Act inconsistent with the provisions of Section 31 (2) (c)?
Answer: The Act, if not enacted by the procedure prescribed for a constitutional alteration, would have violated Section 31 of the Constitution.
2. If so, is the Act an amendment of the Constitution when its preamble did not indicate to members of Parliament that it was a Bill intended to amend the Constitution?
Answer: The Act constitutes an alteration of the Constitution as defined in Section 6 (b) of the Constitution, notwithstanding its lack of a preamble, as a preamble is not mandated by the Constitution for Acts making constitutional alterations.
3. Is the Act valid?
Answer: Considering the arguments presented, the Act is deemed valid.
Legal Issues: #
The Court had two issues for determination:
“1. Whether it was essential for an Act altering the Constitution to have a preamble
2. Whether The Act is an amendment to the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi #
LEGISLATION – Preamble – The function of a preamble in an enactment #
”… A preamble may of course be included in an Act so as to make clear the object of the legislature and if there is a preamble, that can be looked at as a guide to the intention of the Legislature if the wording of a provision of the Act itself creates doubt as to what is its meaning, but there is no legal requirement to incorporate a preamble in an Act, be it altering the Constitution or otherwise.” Per IAN LEWIS, JSC in CHAIRMAN, LAGOS EXEC. DEV. BOARD V. SAID (1965) LCER-344(SC) (P. 7 – 8, Paras D – A)
Decision/Held: #
The Court held that the first claimant who alone has argued before them that The Act was invalid must pay the costs which was assessed at twenty-five guineas in respect of the applicant and twenty-five guineas in respect of the second and third claimants jointly. The Attorney-General appeared as amicus curiae at the request of the Supreme Court so the first claimant should not be required to pay his costs and no order as to costs was made in respect of him.