Ejusdem generis

It is elementary to remind your lordships that an Act is any law made by the National Assembly and includes any law which takes effect under the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 (as amended). The Act under consideration is an existing law. This is one of the situations in which if a Court of law when faced with what may appear to create a lacunae in a legislation that Court has to, of necessity, revert to the canon of interpretation of statutes. For instance, under the ejusdem generis Rule, construction of general words within the genus of special words which they follow in a statutory provision or in a document is normally resorted to. In other words, where there are general words following particular and specific words, the general words must be confined to things of the same kind as those specified, and that is said to be a question of assumed intention of the statutes see: Scales v Pickering (1828) 4 Bing; 448 at 452 – 453: Cooney v. Covell (1901) 21 NZLR 106 at 108; Fawehinmi v. Inspector General of Police (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.767) 606 at page 689.

I must not fail to mention that the application of the ejusdem generis rule is not a matter of course and this Court has admonished that this rule must not be pushed too far but be applied with caution in the absence of other indications disclosing the explicit intention of the legislature. See: SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA V. FEDERAL BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE [1996] 8 NWLR (Pt. 466) 256. TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.

The ejusdem generis rule is applied where in an Act, there are strong reasons (a) from the history and circumstances connected with its passing, (b) from the structure of the Act itself, to indicate the real meaning of the Legislature, that the rule is one which not only can, but ought to be applied. See: ONASILE V. SAMI & ANOR (1962) LPELR- 25040 (SC); where this Court held as follows: “It is true that the ejusdem generis rule should not be pressed too far: it cannot be applied unless there is a category or class into which things of “the same kind as those specified” can be fitted.
On the other hand, the disjunctive construction should, also, not be pressed too far, or it will produce something totally alien to the context. The aim must be to arrive at the intention of the legislature, and the method indicated by Sankey, J., in A.G. v.
Brown, (1920) 1 K.B., 773, at p. 798, may well be followed; the learned Judge said:- Although therefore the doctrine of ejusdem generis is to be applied with caution, wherein an Act of Parliament there are strong reasons (a) from the history and circumstances connected with its passing, (b) from the structure of the Act itself, to indicate the real meaning of the Legislature, in my view the doctrine of ejusdem generis is one which not only can, but ought to, be applied.” See: also A.G. V. BROWN (1920) 1 K.B. 773. TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.