Application
nzr4de under Order 51
Rule 2 of the Rules of
Supreme Court.
The Judge
refused the application on the
ground inter alia that
the rule only applied to
property outside the
jurisdiction. Held: the rule
confers power on the Supreme
Court to make the necessary
appointment in respect of
property within its
jurisdiction.
The facts of
the case are sufficiently set
out in the judgment.
A. L. .1
oknson for
Applicants-Appellants.
A. O.
Abayomi for Respondent.
The following
joint judgment was delivered :--
KINGDON, C.J.,
NIGERIA, PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD
COAST AND GRAHAM PAUL, C.J.,
SIERR.A LEONE.
The
appellants bring this appeal not
in the hope of succeeding upon
it, but merely to get one of the
rationes decidendi of the
Court below declared erroneous.
They applied to the Court below
for an order appointing the
Deputy Sheriff for other
fit and proper officer of the
Court to take possession of the
property both real and personal
of the deceased and put it under
Seal and so keep it until it can
be dealt with in accordance with
law.
The
application \\as made under
Order 51 Rule 2 of the Rules of
the Supreme Court.
The learned
Judge before ' •... hom the
application came in the Court
below refused the application on
two grounds, viz. :-
(I) That the
rule in question only applied to
property outside the
jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court, so that he had no power
under it to make the order
prayed. and
(2) Even if
he had the power he would not,
in the exercise of his
discretion exercise it since
there was an application for
Letters of Administration on the
file from the widow who was on
the face of it the person best
entitled to the grant.
It is now
admitted that Letters of
Administration have already been
granted to the widow, and that
the granting of the order prayed
for in the Court below is now
impossible, but the appellants
ask this Court to give a ruling
as to the correctness or
otherwise of the view taken by
the learned Judge. in the Court
below as to his powers under
Rule 2 of Order 51.
As to this we
agree with the contention of the
appellants that the Rule confers
power upon the Supreme Court
itself to make the necessary
appointment in respect of
property within its
jurisdiction. The words ," Any
Court" are as wide as they can
be and if it had been intended
to limit the meaning in the way
suggested the words "other than
the Supreme Court" should
obviously have been added.
The only
reason to suggest to the
contrary is the wording " and
shall report its proceeding to
the Supreme Court", but we do
not regard this as conclusive.
It would be a
ridiculous situation if the
Supreme Court could take steps
to protect property outside its
jurisdiction, but had no such
power within its jurisdiction.
We therefore
hold that the. learned Judge in
the Court below had the power to
make the order prayed, if, in
his discretion, he had thought
fit to do so.
To that
extent the appellants have
gained their point. But as has
already been pointed out they
cannot succeed on their appeal.
The appeal is
dismissed with costs. assessed
at 12 guineas.
