ASUQUO EFFIONG ETIM v. THE STATE
(2019)LCN/13911(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 8th day of May, 2019
CA/C/60C/2015
.
Before Their Lordships
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADEJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYAJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPARJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
ASUQUO EFFIONG ETIM Appellant(s)
AND
THE STATE Respondent(s)
RATIO
MEANING OF JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction is the authority of a Court to determine any dispute tabled before it by contending parties, see Dariye v. FRN (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1467) 325; Mbah v. State (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1415) 316. The law compels a Court to treat first an issue of jurisdiction where it germinates in any proceeding. I will pay due obeisance to this legal commandment in order not to insult the law. PER OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
WHEN A COURT ISSUES A SENTENCING BEYOND ITS JURISDICTION
Now, the gravamen of the issue is that the lower Court exceeded its sentencing jurisdiction in the provisions of Sections 451 and 210(f) of the Criminal Code when it sentenced the appellant to five years imprisonment against the maximum two years imprisonment enshrined in them. Admirably, the respondent?s counsel conceded that the lower Court fractured the law in passing the sentence of five years imprisonmenton the appellant. The concession is a commendable act and art of advocacy. It has conserved the scarce juridical space and time which would have been expended in determination of the propriety or otherwise of the sentences. Besides, it has canalised the stubborn issue within a narrow compass. PER OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
THE LEGALITY OR OTHERWISE OF SUBSTITUTION WRONG SENTENCES WITH LAWFUL TERMS
The remnant casus belli in the issue, which the parties were diametrically opposed on, is the legality or otherwise of substituting the wrong sentences with the lawful terms. In this wise, the provision of Section 19(3) of the Court of Appeal Act, Cap. C36, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 comes in handy. Due to its Olympian status on the nagging and decisive point, I will pluck it out, where it is domiciled in the Court of Appeal Act, ipsissima verba, as follows:
(3) On an appeal against sentence or, subject to the provisions of this Act, or on an appeal against conviction, the Court of Appeal shall, if it thinks that a different sentence should have been passed, quash the sentence passed at the trial and pass such other sentence warranted in law (whether more or less severe) in substitution therefore as it thinks ought to have been passed, and if not of that opinion shall, in the case of an appeal against sentence, dismiss the appeal. PER OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
THE LIBERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
This provision is submissive to easy appreciation. To this end, the law mandates the Court to accord it its ordinary grammatical meaning without any embellishments, see FRN v. Osahon (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 973) 361; Nigerian Army v. Aminun Kano (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1188) 429; Agbiti v. Nigerian Navy (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1236) 175; Nyame v. FRN (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1193) 344; Amoshima v. State (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1268) 530; FRN v. Mohammed (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1413) 551; Martins v. COP (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1343) 25. I will use this liberal rule as the beacon in the interpretation of the provisions. PER OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
WHEN A COURT BECOMES FUNCTUS OFFICIO
In the eyes of the law, the lower Court, on delivery of that judgment, became functus officio, a Latin maxim that imports- Task performed without further function vis a vis a matter, see Dingyadi v. INEC (No.1) (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1224) 1;Mohammed v. Husseini (1998) 11/12 SCNJ 136/(1998) 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) 108; Olowu v. Abolore (1993) 6 SCNJ (Pt. 1) 1/(1993) 5 NWLR (Pt.293) 255; Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423; Ihedioha v. Okorocha (2016) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1492) 147; Ngere v. Okuruket ?XIV? (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1559) 440; Akahall & Sons Ltd. v. NDIC (2017) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1564) 194. PER OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal queries the correctness of the decision of the High Court of Cross River State, holden in Calabar (hereinafter addressed as ?the lower Court?), coram judice: Elias O. Abua, J., in Charge No. HC/5C/2013, delivered on 22nd September, 2014. Before the lower Court, the appellant and the respondent were the accused person and complainant respectively.
?The facts of the case, which transformed into the appeal, are amenable to brevity and simplicity. On or about 15th November, 2006, the appellant and four others, at No. 3 Coffee Road, Adiabo village, Calabar accused one Charles Etim Effiong of having power of witchcraft which he used to cause the death of one late Effiong Nsa Ewa who died following the injuries he sustained in a motor cycle accident. Sequel to the allegation, the appellant and the four others went to the premises of Charles Etim Effiong and willfully and unlawfully damaged his buildings and carted away some of his property valued millions of Naira. Following that, Charles Etim Effiong laid a written complaint, through his lawyer, of arson, malicious damage, threat to life, criminal trespass and stealing to the police in Calabar against the appellant and those others. The police duly carried investigation into the allegations contained in the petition. Thereafter, the appellant alongside four others, was arraigned before the
