Application by private Relator
for
Quo Warranto to show
authority of
Defendant-Respondent to exercise
the office of Alaperu of IPeru-Office
created by, or held under, the
Crown.
Held: The office of Alaperu of
Iperu being neither an office
created by, nor held under, the
Crown Quo Warranto cannot
be exhibited, and the appeal is
dismissed ..
There is no need to set out the
facts.
Sir William Geary, Bart.,
for Relator-Appellant.
O. Alakija for
Defendant-Respondent.
The following judgment was
delivered :-
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 absent."
