(2011) JELR 46056 (CA)    
Court of Appeal  ·  CA/I/45/2005 ·  2 Mar 2011 ·  Nigeria
SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria MODUPE FASANMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Core Terms Beta
decree no.
professional premises
edict no.
professional premises registration
n.w.l.r part
existing law
provisions of taxes
act of the national assembly
provisions of business
concurrent legislative list
subject matter
local governments
oyo state
renewal fees regulations
state legislation
trial court
area of inconsistency
following matters
learned trial judge
lower court
provisions of the oyo state edict void
state governments
3rd respondent
brief facts of the case
cases of ezeekafor vs. ezeilo
charge no. m1
clear language
clear words
decision of an oyo state high court
extent of any inconsistency of the federal law
extent of their inconsistency
hierarchy of laws
ibadan chief magistrate court
law of the house of assembly
leading judgment
legislative power of the house of assembly
olu of warri vs. kperegbeyi
para c-f.
paras g-h
provisions of the oyo state edicts
renewal arrears of business premises
repeal of statute
repeal of the oyo state edicts
result of the appellant
virtue of its statutory power

MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the decision of an Oyo State High Court delivered on the 17th of April, 2003.

The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is a company operating a brewery firm in Ibadan, Oyo State. 3rd Respondent by virtue of its Statutory Power served a demand notice for 2002 Business/Professional premises Registration/Renewal on the Appellant demanding the sum of Two Million Naira (N2M) as registration/renewal arrears of Business Premises between the years 1995 to 2002. As a result of the Appellant's indebtedness in spite of the demand notice, a charge was preferred by 2nd Respondent against the Appellant in charge No. M1/BPR7/02 at an Ibadan Chief Magistrate Court. Appellant consequently instituted an action at the trial court through originating summons.

Appellant being the Plaintiff at the lower court sought the determination of two questions posed as follows:-

(a) Whether the Provisions of Business and Pr…

There's more. Sign in to continue reading. is the comprehensive database of case law and legislation from Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria. Gain seamless access to over 20,000 cases, recent judgments, statutes, and rules of court.

Get started   Login