H. R. H. EZE OLIVER OKORIE & ORS v. SUNDAY CHUKWU & ANOR
(2018)LCN/11980(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 17th day of July, 2018
CA/OW/366/2017
RATIO
APPEAL: APPLICATION TO COMMIT FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT
”This is because the application to commit for civil contempt is in the nature of a criminal charge and the rules relating to criminal charges are therefore applicable. See Yekinni Abbas & Ors vs. Olatunji Solomon & Ors. (2001) 15 NWLR (pt 735) 144. That means that the Appellants’ interlocutors, not the Court, has the responsibility of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the procedure adopted by the trial Court was right, it still had the duty of inviting the Appellants to cross-examine the Registrar on his affidavit before using the content to convict them. That the Court did not do.” PER RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
H. R. H. EZE OLIVER OKORIE & ORS Appellant(s)
AND
SUNDAY CHUKWU & ANOR Respondent(s)
RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment):
In determining the application for committal in suit no. HUM/30/2014, the trial Court relied on his resolution of the affidavits of the contending parties. The trial judge resolved the said dispute by sending his Registrar to visit the property, the subject matter of his injunctive order to find out whether in fact there had been any action by the Appellants infringing the Court’s order.
The said Registrar visited the property and deposed to an affidavit where he averred that the Appellants indeed infringed the said order. The Court on the basis of this affidavit convicted and sentenced the Appellants. This procedure is of doubtful validity. This is because the application to commit for civil contempt is in the nature of a criminal charge and the rules relating to criminal charges are therefore applicable. See Yekinni Abbas & Ors vs. Olatunji Solomon & Ors. (2001) 15 NWLR (pt 735) 144. That means that the Appellants’ interlocutors, not the Court, has the responsibility of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the procedure adopted by the trial Court was right, it still had the duty of inviting the Appellants to cross-examine the Registrar on his affidavit before using the content to convict them. That the Court did not do.
There is merit in this appeal. The conviction and sentence of the Appellants on 31-7-17 is hereby vacated and in its stead is entered a verdict of not guilty.
AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.: I agree.
TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A.: I agree.
Appearances:
V. C. Nwankwo with him A. I. OgbonnaFor Appellant(s)
T. C. Maduakolam KaluFor Respondent(s)
