Authored By: Chioma Anastesia Nwadialu
Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka
FULL CASE NAME:
MILITARY GOVERNOR, LAGOS STATE & ORS v. CHIEF EMEKA ODUMEGWU OJUKWU
CITATIONS:
(1986) 1 NWLR (pt. 18) 621
COURT:
SUPREME COURT
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
FEBRUARY 14, 1986
BENCH COMPOSITION:
ANDREW OTUTU OBASEKI JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT (PRESIDED)
KAYODE ESO, JSC (READ THE LEAD RULING/JUDGMENT)
MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS, JSC
SAIDU KAWU, JSC
CHUKWUDIFU AKUNNE OPUTA, JSC
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The supremacy of the rule of law and the limits of governmental power are central concerns in constitutional adjudication. These issues are brought into sharp focus in Military Governor of Lagos State v Ojukwu, where the court confronted the use of self-help by a state authority while a matter was pending before it. The decision points out that the rule of law binds not only individuals but also the government, and emphasises the need for respect among the three arms of government, particularly in ensuring compliance with court orders and preserving the authority of the judiciary.
2.0 FACTS OF THE CASE
The landmark case centers on Ojukwu and the Military Governor of Lagos State over a property dispute. The house at No. 29 Queens Drive, Ikoyi, Lagos, originally belonged to Ojukwu, who left it unoccupied for a period of time. The Lagos State Government considered the property abandoned and proceeded to acquire it.
Ojukwu instituted an action at the High Court seeking recovery of the property and an injunction to restrain the government from evicting him and his family.
However, the High Court held that the property had been abandoned and that Ojukwu no longer had a legal interest in it, thereby dismissing his claims.
Dissatisfied, Ojukwu appealed to the Court of Appeal seeking an injunction. While the appeal was pending and a stay of execution was sought by the respondent, the Military Governor of Lagos State forcefully ejected Ojukwu and his family from the property.
In response, the Court of Appeal granted a mandatory injunction against the government. This development led the government to further appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the government, strongly criticizing its actions. The Court condemned the government for resorting to self-help by forcibly evicting Ojukwu while the matter was still pending before the Court of Appeal.
3.0 LEGAL ISSUES
(i) Whether the Military Governor of Lagos State was legally justified in forcibly ejecting Ojukwu and his family from the property at No. 29 Queens Drive, Ikoyi, Lagos.
(ii) Whether the Military Government of Lagos State could lawfully resort to self-help while the matter was pending before the Court of Appeal.
4.0 LEGAL ARGUMENT PRESENTED
4.1 PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT
The petitioner’s argument revolves around a dispute over property ownership. Military Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu concerns a property which Ojukwu asserts rightfully belongs to him. Conversely, the state government contends that the property was abandoned and, on that basis, presumed that Ojukwu no longer retained any legal interest in it. This presumption formed the basis upon which the government justified its forcible takeover of the property.
However, by virtue of section 33 of the 1979 Constitution.[1] Such actions by the state government are unlawful, illegal, and ultra vires, as they violate Ojukwu’s right to fair hearing and the protection of private property. Ojukwu argues that even if the government believed it had a valid claim over the property, it was not legally justified in resorting to self-help by forcibly taking possession. Rather, the government was required to follow due legal process in resolving the dispute.
More specifically, the petitioner contends that the government’s actions were particularly unjustifiable because a notice of stay of execution was still pending before the Court of Appeal. Proceeding in the face of such a pending application amounts to an abuse of court process. This position finds support in Vaswani Trading Co. v. Savalakh,[2] where the Supreme Court held that it is improper for a party to execute a judgment while a motion for stay of execution is still pending.
Furthermore, Ojukwu submits that his forcible ejection from the property while the matter was still before the Court of Appeal constitutes contempt of court. The act undermines the authority and integrity of the judicial process. In Jones v. Securities and Exchange Commission.[3] The court held that once a party is aware of pending proceedings seeking injunctive relief, any action taken in defiance of that process is done at their own risk, and the court retains the power to restore the status quo regardless of the eventual outcome of the case.[4]
4.2 RESPONDENT ARGUMENT
Following the arguments raised by Ojukwu concerning his forcible ejection from his property while the matter was pending before the Court of Appeal, the respondent contended that they were not in contempt of court. They argued that the property in question fell within the classification of abandoned property, thereby granting them the right to repossess it under section 4(2)(a) of the Administration of Abandoned Properties Law of 1969.[5]
Furthermore, pursuant to the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 1 of 1984,[6] the respondent maintained that under the military regime, executive actions were capable of overriding constitutional provisions. On this basis, they asserted that their actions were legally justified, as executive authority under a military government was presumed to possess overriding dominance over constitutional powers.
Beyond this, they argued that the appellant had not come before the court with clean hands, thereby contravening the equitable principle that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands. They asserted that Ojukwu was a trespasser, specifically a land trespasser, with no legal interest in the property.
However, the court rejected these arguments, holding that once a matter is brought before the court, it invokes the authority of the judiciary, which must be respected. The court further emphasized that the existence of a military government does not render the rule of law nugatory, as the legal system upholds the rule of law and not the rule of force.
Moreover, the court held that Ojukwu’s property did not fall within the category of abandoned property, as he remained in active occupation of it.
5.0 COURT REASONING AND ANALYSIS
The court interpreted the relevant legal and constitutional frameworks by firmly emphasising that the executive has no right to act in a lawless manner, especially in a way that undermines the authority of the courts. Although the Lagos State Government relied on the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 1 of 1984[7] to argue that the executive is supreme under a military regime, the court rejected this argument and reaffirmed that Nigeria is governed by the rule of law and not by force. Therefore, once the jurisdiction of the court has been invoked, the executive cannot take the law into its own hands.
In interpreting section 18 of the Court of Appeal Act.[8] The court held that while the government had applied for a stay of execution, it was improper to simultaneously resort to self-help by forcibly taking possession of the appellant’s property. This conduct was viewed as deceptive and amounting to contempt of court. Justice Oputa emphasised that the government must first purge itself of its contempt before seeking any favourable exercise of judicial discretion.
The court relied on Vaswani v Savalakh[9] where it was established that it is an abuse of court process for a party to take the law into its own hands while seeking relief from the court. Similarly, in Jones v. Securities and Exchange Commission.[10] The court applied the principle that a party who acts despite knowledge of pending proceedings does so at its own peril. These principles directly applied to the actions of the Lagos State Government.
The court rejected the respondents’ argument that the property was abandoned, holding that it did not satisfy the legal definition under the relevant law. It further held that the forceful ejection of the appellant was unlawful, ultra vires, and carried out without any valid court order. The government’s act of approaching the Supreme Court while still in contempt of the Court of Appeal was seen as a serious disregard for the judicial process.
The court’s reasoning progressed from identifying executive lawlessness, to applying statutory and judicial authorities, and concluding that such conduct cannot be justified, even under a military regime.
In balancing competing interests, the court acknowledged the government’s power to take over abandoned property. However, it held that where such actions threaten the rule of law or involve the use of force, the rule of law must prevail. The preservation of judicial authority was considered more important than the government’s proprietary claims.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for a stay of execution and ordered that the property be returned to the appellant.
At this point, the observation of Justice Kayode Eso fits most naturally within the court’s rejection of the respondents’ conduct and its stance on contempt. His Lordship stated that:
“For anyone to flout a positive order of a court and proceed to taunt the court further by seeking a remedy in a higher court while still in contempt of the lower court… it is more serious when the act of flouting the order, the contempt is by the executive.”[11]
This statement reinforces the court’s position that the executive bears an even higher obligation to uphold the authority of the courts, and that its failure to do so strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law.
6.0 RATIO DECIDENDI
The Court held that once a dispute has been submitted to the court, parties are bound to maintain the status quo and must not resort to self-help.
The Supreme Court dismissed the application for a stay of execution on the ground that the Lagos State Government was in contempt of court, having disobeyed a subsisting court order, and was therefore undeserving of equitable relief.
6.1 RELIEF GRANTED
(i) An order of mandatory injunction restoring the applicant to possession/residence of the property.
(ii) An order restraining the respondents from evicting or taking any steps to evict the applicant from the said property.
7.0 CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The case of Military Governor of Lagos State v Ojukwu significantly strengthened the rule of law in Nigeria by condemning executive lawlessness. As stated by Eso JSC, the three arms of government are equal under one constitutional framework and must not act in a way that undermines one another. The Court also addressed the issue of self-help, particularly by the government. It held that resorting to self-help while a matter is pending in court is unacceptable, as it weakens the legal system. In doing so, the Court protected Ojukwu’s right to fair hearing and his right to property, both of which were threatened by the actions of the state.
The decision further clarified that even a military government is not above the law, distinguishing earlier concerns raised in Lakanmi v AG Western Region.[12] Its influence is seen in later cases like Agbai v Okogbue, where courts continued to reject self-help and emphasise reliance on judicial process. This has helped to promote accountability and strengthen public confidence in the judiciary.
However, the strict stance against self-help may create practical challenges. In urgent situations, the government may need to act quickly to protect public interests. This concern is reflected in Kotoye v CBN,[13] where the Court recognised that actions taken after a court order has expired may not attract liability, suggesting that the rule is not absolute.
From a critical perspective, while the Court was right to condemn executive overreach, a more flexible approach allowing limited exceptions in genuine emergencies may have been preferable. Alternatively, awarding damages could have addressed the wrong without potentially restricting necessary state action.
8.0 CONCLUSION
The case of Military Governor of Lagos State v Ojukwu clearly reminds us that the rule of law must be actively observed by all, including military governments. It firmly condemns the use of self-help by state authorities and reinforces the need for a legal system that is fair, orderly, and grounded in judicial process.
9.0 REFERENCE(S):
[1] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 s 33.
[2] Vaswani Trading Co v Savalakh & Co (1972) 1 ANLR (Pt 2) 483.
[3] J Edward Jones v. Securities and Exchange Commission 298 US 1 (1936).
[4] ‘Military Governor, Lagos State & Ors v Chief Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu (SC 241/850) [1986] NGSC 13 (14 February 1986)’ (Nigeria Legal Information Institute)
<https://nigerialii.org/akn/ng/judgment/ngsc/1986/13/eng@1986-02-14> accessed 24 April 2026.
[5] Administration of Abandoned Properties Law 1969 s 4(2)(a).
[6] Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No 1 1984.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Court of Appeal Act Cap C36 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 s 18.
[9] (n 2).
[10] (n 3).
[11] (n 4).
[12] E.O. Lakanmi and Another v The Attorney-General (West) and Others (1971) 1 UILR 201.
[13] Nathaniel Adedamola Kotoye v. Central Bank of Nigeria & Others (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419.
