NIGERIAN BREWERIES PLC. v. THE GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE & ORS
(2011)LCN/4349(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 2nd day of March, 2011
CA/I/45/2005
RATIO
RULE OF INTERPRETATION: THE CARDINAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION OF WORDS IN A STATUTE
The best way to address the meaning and application of a statute or its provisions is to look at the very words of the provision. See ADISA VS. OYINWOLA (2000) 10 N.W.L.R. Part 674 page 116 at 202. Again the established principle of law in the interpretation of a statute is to give the legislative provision its plain and natural meaning. see ATUYEYE VS. ASHAMU (1987) 1 N.W.L.R Part 49 at 267 where the learned jurist Karibi-Whyte J.S.C had this to say: “In construing the provisions of a statute where the words are clear and unambiguous, it is the words used that govern” See also the cases of AWOLOWO VS. SHAGARI (1979) 6-9 AT 51; ATTORNEY GENERAL OGUN STATE VS. ALHAJA A. ABERUAGBA & ORS (2002) 2 W.R.N at 52; (1985) 1 N.W.L.R Part 3 at 395. The cardinal principle of interpretation of words in a statute is that where the words of a statute are clear, the Court must give effect to the literal meaning. However if the literal meaning may result in ambiguity or injustice, a Court of law which is as well a Court of justice may seek internal aid within the body of the statute or external aid from statutes in pari materia in order to resolve the ambiguity or avoid doing injustice. See MOBIL OIL (NIG) LTD VS. F.B.I.R. (1977) 3 SC at 53; OSAWARU VS. EZEIRUKA (1978) 6 & 7 SC at 135. PER MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.
POSITION OF THE LAW ON WHERE IDENTICAL LEGISLATIONS ON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER ARE VALIDLY PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE AT BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVELS BY VIRTUE OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIVE POWERS, WHETHER THE IDENTICAL LAW PASSED BY THE STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY WOULD BE INVALIDATED ON THE GROUND THAT THE LAW-PASSED BY THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY HAS COVERED THE WHOLE FIELD OF THAT PARTICULAR SUBJECT MATTER
Section 3 (3) & (4) of the Constitution provides as follows:- Section 3 (3) The power of the National Assembly to make Laws for the peace and good government of the Federation with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List shall save as otherwise provided in this constitution be to the exclusion of the Houses of Assembly of States. (4) In addition and without Prejudice to the Power conferred by subsection (2) of this section the National Assembly shall have power to make laws with respect to the following matters that is to say:- (a) any matter in the Concurrent Legislative List set out in the first column of Part II of the second schedule to this constitution to the extent prescribed in the second column opposite thereto; and (b) any other matter with respect to which it is empowered to make law in accordance with the with Provision constitution. While Section 4 of the Constitution provides as follows: Section 4 (7) The House of Assembly of a State shall have power to make laws for the peace, or any Part thereof with respect to the following matters that is to say: (a) any matter not included in the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part II of the second schedule to this Constitution. (b) any matter included in the concurrent Legislative List set out in the first column of Part II of the second schedule to this constitution to the extent prescribed in the second column opposite thereto, and (c) any other matter with respect to which it is empowered to make laws in accordance with the Constitution. In the light of the above provisions of the constitution if the matter covered by Decree No. 21 of 1998 is a matter within the Exclusive Legislative List the Oyo State Edict on that matter is void. Again if the matter is within the concurrent Legislative List the Oyo State Law will be void to the extent of any inconsistency of the Federal Law. Item No. 59 of the Exclusive Legislative List vests exclusively in the National Assembly the power to make Law on “Taxation of incomes, Profits and Capital Gains except as otherwise prescribed by this Constitution” The Oyo State Edict of 1994 as amended by the 1996 Edict provides in section 3 (1) thereof as follows:- “No person shall carry on any business unless the business and Professional Premises has been duly registered by the Ministry” The second Schedule to that law prescribes the fees payable for such registration and for renewal of the registration. The two legislations are identical on the same subject matter. It is the law that where identical legislations on the same subject matter are validly passed by the legislature at both the Federal and State levels by virtue of their constitutional legislative powers, the law passed by the State legislature will be invalidated on the ground that the Federal legislature has covered the whole field of that particular subject matter. See OSENI VS. DAWODU (1994) 4 N.W.L.R Part 339 page 390 at 406 paras E-G where the Supreme Court had the opportunity to consider the effect of subsequent Federal legislation over a state legislation and stated thus: “where identical legislations on the same subject are validly passed by virtue of their Constitutional powers to make laws by the National Assembly and a State House of Assembly, it would be more appropriate to invalidate the identical law passed by the State House of Assembly on the ground that the law-passed by the National Assembly has covered the whole field of that particular subject matter. PER MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.
SUPERIORITY OF LAWS: POSITION OF THE LAW WHERE THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE LAW ENACTED BY THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY OF A STATE IS AND THAT OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
By the provision of Section 315, (1) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 an existing law shall have effect with such modifications as may be necessary to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the Constitution and shall be deemed to be a law made by a House of Assembly to the extent that it is a law with respect to any matter in which a House of Assembly is empowered by the Constitution to make laws. See the case of EDET VS. CHAGOEN (2008) 2 N.W.L.R Part 1070 page 85 at 102-103 paras G-A. Decree No. 21 of 1998 on the coming into effect of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria became an Act of the National Assembly. The Decree being an Act of the National Assembly is therefore superior to Edict No 11 of 1996. Section 4 (5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides that: “If any Law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State is inconsistent with any law validly made by the National Assembly the law made by the National Assembly shall prevail and that other law to the extent of the inconsistency is void” PER MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
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
Between
NIGERIAN BREWERIES PLC. Appellant(s)
AND
(1)THE GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE
(2)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OYO STATE
(3) COMMISSIONER FOR COMMERCE, INDUSTRY, CO-OPERATIVES AND TOURISM OF OYO STATE Respondent(s)
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 Professional Premises (Registration) Edict, No. 19 of 1984 as Amended by Business and Professional Premises Registration (Amendment) Edict No. 11 of 1996 together with Business and Professional Premises Registration or Renewal fees Regulations 1996 are not inconsistent and incompatible with the provisions of Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Decree No. 21 1998.
(b) Whether the Business and Professional Premises (Registration) Edict, No.19 of 1984 as amended by Business and Professional Premises Registration (Amendment) Edict No. 11 of 1996 together with Business and Professional Premises Registration or Renewal fees Regulations of 1996 are not null and void to the extent of their inconsistency and incompatibility with provisions of Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Decree No. 21 of 1998.
The lower court answered the questions raised for determination in the negative and accordingly dismissed the originating summons. Dissatisfied with the decision, Appellant filed a notice of appeal dated 14th of May, 2003.
In line with the rules of this court, Appellant filed its brief of argument on the 8th of May, 2007 but deemed properly filed on the 20th of September, 2007 while the Respondents brief of argument was filed on 25/3/08 but deemed properly filed and served on the 2nd of April, 2008.
At the hearing of the appeal learned Counsel for the parties adopted and relied on their respective briefs of argument.
Appellant distilled two issues for determination from the five grounds of appeal filed in the amended noticed deemed properly filed on 20/9/07. The issues are stated hereunder:
(1) Whether the provisions of Business and Professional Premises (Registration) Edict No. 19 of 1984 as amended by Business and Professional Premises Registration (Amended) Edict No. 11 of 1996 had not been repealed/abrogated by Taxes and levies (Approved List for Collection) Decree No. 21 of 1998
(2) Whether the learned trial Judge can question the competence of the lawmaker in making Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Decree No. 21 of 1998.
The Respondents distilled two issues for determination thus:
(i) Whether the Provisions of Business and Professional Premises (Registration) Edict No. 19 of 1984 as amended by Business and Professional Premises Registration (Amendment) Edict No. 11 of 1996 together with Business and Professional Premises Registration or Renewal fees Regulation are repealed or abrogated by the Provisions of Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Decree No. 21 of 1998
(ii) Whether the trial Court was not right in dismissing the Plaintiff’s reliefs having answered the questions posed by the Plaintiff in the negative.
I have considered the issues raised by the Appellant and the Respondents. The issues formulated by the parties are substantially the same although couched differently. I will adopt issue one formulated by the Appellant’s counsel as it is more relevant to the determination of the appeal; while issue two will be subsumed in issue one.
Issue One
Whether the Provisions of Business and Professional Premises (Registration) Edict No. 19 of 1984 as amended by Business and professional Premises Registration (Amendment) Edict No. 11 of 1996 together with Business and Professional Premises Registration or Renewal Fees Regulations had not been repealed/abrogated by the Provisions of Taxes and Levies (Approved List for collection) Decree No. 21 of 1998.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the superiority of a Decree or an Act of the National Assembly over an Edict or a State Legislation is beyond dispute. He referred to the case LABIYI VS ANRETIOLA (1992) 8 N.W.L.R Part 258 page 139 at 162 para C-F. He submitted that the two Edicts i.e. Business and Professional Premises (Registration) Edict No. 19 of 1984 as amended by Business and Professional Premises Registration (Amendment) Edict No. 11 of 1996 were laws made prior to the promulgation of Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Decree No. 21 of 1998. He contended that upon the promulgation of Decree No. 21 of 1998, all the provisions of the Oyo State Edicts i.e. Edict No. 19 of 1984 and Edict No. 11 of 1996 that are inconsistent and incompatible with the Decree are repealed/abrogated by implication based on the hierarchy of laws in Nigeria. It therefore follows that as at 29th May, 1999 when the 1999 Constitution came into effect, the existing law on regulating fees payable on Business and Professional Premises was Decree No. 21 of 1998.
He submitted that the area of inconsistency and or incompatibility between Decree No 21 of 1998 and the Edicts relate to the amount payable on Business Premises Registration and Renewal. The provisions of the Decree as regards the amount payable for Registration and Renewal of Business and Professional Premises had rendered the provisions of the Oyo State Edict void to the extent of its inconsistency and incompatibility with the Decree. He referred to the cases of EZEEKAFOR VS. EZEILO (1999) 9 N.W.L.R Part 619 pages 513 at 531 paras G-H and the OLU OF WARRI VS. KPEREGBEYI (1994) 4 N.W.L.R Part 339 page 416 at 439 paras F-E
Learned counsel for the Appellant went further to state that there is no doubt that Decree No. 21 of 1998 was promulgated to stem the wave of indiscriminate and punitive Taxes and Levies States and Local Governments were charging individuals and corporate bodies. State Governments and local Governments go to the extent of employing “Tax Consultants” to demand and collect taxes/levies in every crude and unorthodox manner. The Decree was therefore promulgated to curtail and eliminate the indiscriminate manner taxes were levied and the illegal and unorthodox manner they were collected. He concluded that there had been implied repeal of the Oyo state Edicts in the amount payable for registration and renewal of registration of business and professional premises. Learned Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.
Learned counsel for the Respondents in its brief submitted that an Edict can only be declared null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with a Decree if the Edict and Decree are legislated upon the same subject matter. He referred to LABIYI VS. ANRETIOLA Supra. According to learned Counsel, the provisions of Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Decree No. 21 of 1998 is an existing law but with modification in line with section 315 0f the 1999 Constitution. The Decree would therefore be an Act of the National Assembly while Edict would be a Law of the House of Assembly He referred to the case of A.G FEDERATION VS. A.G. ABIA STATE (NO.2) (2002) 6 N.W.L.R. Part 764 pages 542 at 620 para which says that:
“an existing law is any law and includes any rule of law or any enactment or instrument whatsoever which is in force immediately before the date when the section comes into force or which having been passed or made before that date come into force after that date.”
Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the provisions of Taxes and Levies (Approved List for collection) Decree No. 21 of 1998 is an existing law being modified under the Exclusive and concurrent Legislative List but has nothing to do with Business/Professional Registration/Renewal. The Provisions of Edict No. 11 of 1996 is very clear and unambiguous. The Legislation is in respect of Business and Professional Premises Registration. It is therefore submitted that non-inclusion of same under Exclusive and Concurrent legislative lists made it an issue under residuary legislative power of the House of Assembly. Learned Counsel submitted that the provisions of Business and Professional Premises Registration
(Amendment) Edict No. 11 of 1996 together with Business and Professional Premises Registration or Renewal Fees Regulation 1996 are not repealed or abrogated by Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Decree No. 21 of 1998. He submitted that a repeal of statute must be by a clear language and cited the case of K.L.M AIRLINES VS. KUMZHI (2004) 8 N.W.L.R Part 231 at 242 para H 18 where the Court had this to say:
“A repeal of a statute must be done by clear words or language in a subsequent statute. Consequently the Court will not presume that a statute has been repealed.”
Learned Counsel for the Respondents urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondents.
The best way to address the meaning and application of a statute or its provisions is to look at the very words of the provision. See ADISA VS. OYINWOLA (2000) 10 N.W.L.R. Part 674 page 116 at 202. Again the established principle of law in the interpretation of a statute is to give the legislative provision its plain and natural meaning. see ATUYEYE VS. ASHAMU (1987) 1 N.W.L.R Part 49 at 267 where the learned jurist Karibi-Whyte J.S.C had this to say:
“In construing the provisions of a statute where the words are clear and unambiguous, it is the words used that govern”
See also the cases of AWOLOWO VS. SHAGARI (1979) 6-9 AT 51; ATTORNEY GENERAL OGUN STATE VS. ALHAJA A. ABERUAGBA & ORS (2002) 2 W.R.N at 52; (1985) 1 N.W.L.R Part 3 at 395.
The cardinal principle of interpretation of words in a statute is that where the words of a statute are clear, the Court must give effect to the literal meaning. However if the literal meaning may result in ambiguity or injustice, a Court of law which is as well a Court of justice may seek internal aid within the body of the statute or external aid from statutes in pari materia in order to resolve the ambiguity or avoid doing injustice. See MOBIL OIL (NIG) LTD VS. F.B.I.R. (1977) 3 SC at 53; OSAWARU VS. EZEIRUKA (1978) 6 & 7 SC at 135.
I now pause to state that the words of the two laws are very much clear and admit no argument. The bone of contention in this case and the question is which of the two laws i.e. the Business and Professional Premises (Registration) Edict No. 19 of 1984 as amended by Business and Professional Premises Registration (Amendment) Edict No.11 of 1996 and the Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Decree No. 21 of 1998 takes precedence over the other.
In determining the issue raised it is necessary to examine the powers of the National Assembly as well as the State Assembly.Section 3 (3) & (4) of the Constitution provides as follows:-
Section 3 (3) The power of the National Assembly to make Laws for the peace and good government of the Federation with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List shall save as otherwise provided in this constitution be to the exclusion of the Houses of Assembly of States.
(4) In addition and without Prejudice to the Power conferred by subsection (2) of this section the National Assembly shall have power to make laws with respect to the following matters that is to say:-
(a) any matter in the Concurrent Legislative List set out in the first column of Part II of the second schedule to this constitution to the extent prescribed in the second column opposite thereto; and
(b) any other matter with respect to which it is empowered to make law in accordance with the with Provision constitution.
While Section 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:
Section 4 (7) The House of Assembly of a State shall have power to make laws for the peace, or any Part thereof with respect to the following matters that is to say:
(a) any matter not included in the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part II of the second schedule to this Constitution.
(b) any matter included in the concurrent Legislative List set out in the first column of Part II of the second schedule to this constitution to the extent prescribed in the second column opposite thereto, and
(c) any other matter with respect to which it is empowered to make laws in accordance with the Constitution.
In the light of the above provisions of the constitution if the matter covered by Decree No. 21 of 1998 is a matter within the Exclusive Legislative List the Oyo State Edict on that matter is void. Again if the matter is within the concurrent Legislative List the Oyo State Law will be void to the extent of any inconsistency of the Federal Law.
Item No. 59 of the Exclusive Legislative List vests exclusively in the National Assembly the power to make Law on “Taxation of incomes, Profits and Capital Gains except as otherwise prescribed by this Constitution” The Oyo State Edict of 1994 as amended by the 1996 Edict provides in section 3 (1) thereof as follows:-
“No person shall carry on any business unless the business and Professional Premises has been duly registered by the Ministry”
The second Schedule to that law prescribes the fees payable for such registration and for renewal of the registration.
The two legislations are identical on the same subject matter. It is the law that where identical legislations on the same subject matter are validly passed by the legislature at both the Federal and State levels by virtue of their constitutional legislative powers, the law passed by the State legislature will be invalidated on the ground that the Federal legislature has covered the whole field of that particular subject matter. See OSENI VS. DAWODU (1994) 4 N.W.L.R Part 339 page 390 at 406 paras E-G where the Supreme Court had the opportunity to consider the effect of subsequent Federal legislation over a state legislation and stated thus:
“where identical legislations on the same subject are validly passed by virtue of their Constitutional powers to make laws by the National Assembly and a State House of Assembly, it would be more appropriate to invalidate the identical law passed by the State House of Assembly on the ground that the law-passed by the National Assembly has covered the whole field of that particular subject matter.”
Learned Counsel for the Appellant rightly submitted that the superiority of a Decree or an Act of the National Assembly over an Edict or a State Legislation is beyond dispute and Section 1(1) of Decree No. 21 of 1998 makes it abundantly clear that the provisions are made to cover all grounds and for the whole country. Section (1) subsection (1) of Decree No. 21 of 1998 reads:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 as amended or in any other enactment or law, the Federal Government, State Government and Local Government shall be responsible for collecting the Taxes and Levies listed in Part I, Part II and Part III of the Schedule to this Decree, respectively”
The Decree spelt out the taxes and levies collectable by the different strata of Government-Federal, State and Local Governments. Item 7 of part II of the Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Decree No, 21 of 1998 stipulates the Taxes and Levies to be collected by the State Government as follows: 2
Business Premises Registration fee in respect of:
(a) Urban area as defined by each state maximum of
(i) N10, 000.00 for registration
(ii) N5, 000.00 per annum for renewal of registration and
(b) Rural area
(i) N2, 000.00 for registration and
(ii) N1, 000.00 per annum for renewal
On a thorough examination of the Edicts & the Decree, the area of inconsistency and or incompatibility between Decree No. 21 of 1998 and Edicts relates to the amount payable on Business Premises Registration and Renewal. The learned trial Judge in his judgment at page 32 lines 1-5 of the record rightly stated as follows:
“Thus while the Oyo State Law provides N2, 000, 000.00 for registration and N1, 000, 000.00 per annum for the renewal, the Federal Law provides for a fee of N10, 000.00 for registration and N5, 000.00 per annum for renewal of registration in Urban Area”
There is no doubt that the Edict is an existing law. By the provision of Section 315, (1) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 an existing law shall have effect with such modifications as may be necessary to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the Constitution and shall be deemed to be a law made by a House of Assembly to the extent that it is a law with respect to any matter in which a House of Assembly is empowered by the Constitution to make laws. See the case of EDET VS. CHAGOEN (2008) 2 N.W.L.R Part 1070 page 85 at 102-103 paras G-A.
Decree No. 21 of 1998 on the coming into effect of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria became an Act of the National Assembly. The Decree being an Act of the National Assembly is therefore superior to Edict No 11 of 1996.
Section 4 (5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides that:
“If any Law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State is inconsistent with any law validly made by the National Assembly the law made by the National Assembly shall prevail and that other law to the extent of the inconsistency is void”
The provisions of the Decree as regards the amount payable for registration and Renewal of Business and Professional Premises had rendered the provisions of the Oyo state Edict void to the extent of its inconsistency and incompatibility with the Decree on the registration and renewal fees prescribed by the Oyo State Edict for Business and Professional premises. See the cases of OLU OF WARRI VS. KPEREGBEYI (1994) N.W.L.R Part 339 page 416 at 437; MILITARY GOVERNOR ONDO STATE VS. ADEWUNMI (1988) 3 N.W.L.R part 82 at page 280.
The purport of the Decree or the intendment of the draftsman in charging less for the registration and renewal of businesses is to encourage entrepreneurs to invest and develop the economy of a developing country like Nigeria. The Respondents in the same spirit should encourage entrepreneurs by adopting the provisions of Decree 21 of 1998 for the amount payable on registration of Business and Professional Premises and the renewal of the registration in its Edict to bring it in conformity with Decree 21 of 1998.
Issue one is hereby resolved in favour of the Appellant
Having resolved issue one in favour of the Appellant, therefore issue 2 becomes academic since it is subsumed by issue 1
In the final analysis, the appeal is meritorious, succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The ruling of the lower court delivered on the 17th of April, 2003 is hereby set aside. The originating summons filed at the trial court hereby succeeds. There shall be N30, 000.00 cost awarded in favour of the Appellant against the Respondents.
SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.C.A.: I have read before now the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, M. Fasanmi, J.C.A. The issues raised in the appeal have been dealt with in detail.
I entirely agree with the reasonings and conclusion arrived at that the appeal is meritorious. The appeal is also allowed by me.
I abide by all the consequential order made in the said lead judgment including the order on costs.
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.: I am in complete agreement with the well prepared judgment of my learned brother, Fasanmi, J.C.A., which I had the privilege to read in draft. For the sake of emphasis, however, I desire to put in these few words.
Decree No.21 of 1998 and Edict No.19 of 1984 of Oyo State, as subsequently amended by Edict No.11 of 1996, legislated on the same subject matter succinctly considered in the judgment of my learned brother Fasanmi, J.C.A. Their only area of difference or departure is on the scale of taxes imposed on business/professional premises. The Decree No.21 of 1998 fixed N10, 000 as tax for registration of business/professional premises, and N5.000 per annum as renewal fees; while the Edict No.19 of 1984, as amended by Edict No.11 of 1996, fixed the registration fees at N2 Million and the renewal fees at N1 Million per annum.
It can be seen from above that the Edict has upscale charges or fees in contrast to the Decree with low-scale fees. The Decree No. 21 of 1998 came into force after the Edict No.19 of 1984, as amended by Edict No. 11 of 1996, became Law for Oyo State. Both are extant or existing pieces of legislation inherited by the State legislature for the Edict and the National Assembly for the Decree, respectively, in the present democratic dispensation. By section 4 (5) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (the 1999 constitution), any inconsistency of a State legislation with a Federal enactment renders the state legistration void to the extent of the inconsistency.
Even at the time the Decree and the Edict came into operation during military rule in Nigeria, a Decree was considered superior to an Edict. And, in the event of a clash or inconsistency between them, the Decree prevailed and the Edict voided to the extent of the inconsistency – see Attorney – General of Bendel State v. Chief Agbofodoh and Other (1999) 2 SCNJ III at 144, where Igu, J.S.C., held:
“…it cannot be disputed that in a military regime, Decrees are the supreme laws of the land and other laws including the constitution are inferior thereto. See also Attorney-General of Anambra State v. Attorney-General of Federation (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt.302) 692.”
See also The Attorney-General of the Federation v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd. and Others (1999) 5 SCNJ 324 at 387 per Wali, J.S.C., as follows:
“Section 1 of Decree No. 8 of 1994 clearly stated that the Decree shall prevail over “anything contained in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or any other enactment or law.”
(My emphasis).
Obviously, in my modest view, the Decree No. 21 of 1998 was promulgated to stem the tide of riotous and discordant legislations by state Governments on taxes or charges imposed by them on business/professional premises and remedy the conflicting state laws by preserving a harmonised or uniform/even keel regime of affordable taxes or charges on business/professional premises throughout Nigeria.
The Decree No. 21 of 1998, therefore, covered the field of legislation on the issue of taxes and charges on business/professional houses and rendered the Edict No. 19 of 1984, as amended by Edict No.11 of 1996, impotent and void to the extent of the inconsistency respecting the scale of fees or taxes or charges. And the court below was, in my respectful view, obliged to strike down the hiked charges or taxes of that aspect of the Edict (now Law) to conform to Decree (now Act) No.21 of 1998, and grant the reliefs sought in the originating summons in relation to the scale of fees or taxes or charges on business/professional premises. It did not do so.
Accordingly, I too see substance in the appeal and hereby allow it and abide by the consequential orders made in the judgment of my learned brother, Fasanmi, J.C.A.
Appearances
K. O. OlubajoFor Appellant
AND
F. B. Segun-Olakojo D.C.L&A with A. S. Oyeniran L. O. Ministry of Justice Oyo StateFor Respondent
