IKECHUKWU EZENWANKWO v. THE STATE (2013)

IKECHUKWU EZENWANKWO v. THE STATE

(2013)LCN/6737(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Tuesday, the 7th day of May, 2013

CA/E/341/2008

RATIO

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF FAIR HEARING

In the case of A. U. Deduwa & Ors. v. The State (supra) at page 15, the Supreme Court had this to say

“There was of course no answer to the criticism of the procedure adopted in this case by the learned trial judge and this court cannot too strongly deprecate the action of a High Court Judge degrading himself to the position of a prosecutor in his own court and at the end of it all purporting to find persons guilty of offences which are not described and no where formulated and dealt with as provided by law…………….” Per MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.

ESSENCE OF THE LAW OF CONTEMPT

The twin elements of contempt of court are therefore, interference and disrespect. The aim of the law of contempt is to situations of this nature protect the dignity of court from any conduct that tends to obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice.

See Adeyemi Candide-Johnson v. Mrs. Esther Edisin (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 129) 659 at 668.

It is essential to the maintenance, and indeed to the very existence, of the legal system of any state that the court should have ample powers to enforce its orders and to protect itself from abuse of itself or its procedure. For this reason, contempt has been part of the legal history as far back as the tenth century. Per MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.

CLASSIFICATIONS OF CONTEMPT

Contempt is commonly classified as civil contempt and criminal contempt. Criminal contempt are also two (a) contempt committed in the face of the court and (b) contempt committed out of court.

The catalogue of criminal contempt in and out of court is not exhaustive however, it includes as in the instant case libels on judges courts or their officers. Per MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.

WHETHER A JUDGE PERSONALLY INVOLVED MAY HEAR THE CASE OF AN ALLEGED CONTEMPT COMMITTED OUTSIDE THE FACE OF THE COURT

See Theophilus Adetola Awobokun v. Toun Adeyemi (1968) NMLR 289. Per MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.

ELEMENTS OF FAIR HEARING

In the case of A. U. Deduwa & Ors. v. The State (supra) at page 15, the Supreme Court had this to say

ESSENCE OF THE LAW OF CONTEMPT

See Adeyemi Candide-Johnson v. Mrs. Esther Edisin (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 129) 659 at 668.

CLASSIFICATIONS OF CONTEMPT

Contempt is commonly classified as civil contempt and criminal contempt. Criminal contempt are also two (a) contempt committed in the face of the court and (b) contempt committed out of court.

The catalogue of criminal contempt in and out of court is not exhaustive however, it includes as in the instant case libels on judges courts or their officers. Per MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.

WHETHER A JUDGE PERSONALLY INVOLVED MAY HEAR THE CASE OF AN ALLEGED CONTEMPT COMMITTED OUTSIDE THE FACE OF THE COURT

See Theophilus Adetola Awobokun v. Toun Adeyemi (1968) NMLR 289. Per MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.

Before Their Lordships

MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADEJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJUJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIMJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

IKECHUKWU EZENWANKWOAppellant(s)

AND

THE STATERespondent(s)

MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the decision of I. M. Onwuamaegbu J. delivered in Suit No. AG/4A/2002 on 29/1/2004 at the High Court of Anambra State sitting at Aguata.
The facts leading to this case arose from Agbiligba village Nanka, a community within the Aguata Judicial Division of the High Court, Anambra State.
The Appellant, Chief Ikechukwu Ezenwankwo is one of the named parties representing his kindred in suit No. AG/4A/2002 which came on appeal from the judgment of the Ajalli Customary Court also in Anambra State.
The case was assigned to High Court No. 2 in Aguata Judicial Division presided over by Hon. Justice Ije Onwuamegbu, Rev. Francis Ezeokafor is also a named party representing his kindred against the kindred of the Appellant in the said suit.
The Appellants side won the case at the customary court.
During the pendency of the case, in the court below, it was alleged that Rev. Ezeokafor was going about in the community boasting that his side has won the case and made the boast to the hearing of the Appellant.
The rumour being peddled is that the presiding judge in the court below has agreed to give judgment in favour of Rev. Francis Ezeokafor and his group after receiving the sum of N200,000.00 (two hundred thousand naira).
On hearing the rumour, the Appellant went to report to one Chief Ezeaso a community leader and a relation of the Administrative judge of Aguata Judicial Division, Hon. Justice Cecelia Uzowulu so that he will bring the happenings in court 2 to the notice of the Administrative judge.
The said Chief Ezeofor advised the Appellant to put the complaint in writing so that he can bring it to the Notice of the Administrative judge and he did so.
It was this note that Chief Ezeofor handed over to the Administrative judge who after reading it handed it over to the presiding judge of Court 2 Hon. Justice Ije Onwuamaegbu.
When the case came up on Tuesday, 16th December 2003, the learned trial judge read out a piece of paper written by I. K. Ezenwankwo, the Appellant and asked him to come out.
After reading the content of the piece of paper, the learned trial judge asked him whether he wrote the note, he answered in the affirmative.
The court then asked for the person who goes by the name Rev. Francis Ezeokafor. The Rev. Okafor also came out.
The learned trial judge then remanded the Appellant and Rev. Okafor in police custody till the 15th of January, 2004 to enable the police to investigate the allegation contained in the paper written by I. K. Ezenwankwo, the Appellant, when the court resumed on 15th January, the learned trial judge adjourned the matter to 29th January 2004.
The police completed their investigation on 12/11/2004 and their report contained at pages 7-9 of the record recommended that both the Appellant Chief Ikechukwu Ezenwankwo and Chief Levi Ezeaso be charged for conspiracy to bring false accusation and slander under Section 153 of the Criminal Code of Anambra State “based upon information they received but failed to test same, and prove please.”
The learned trial judge nevertheless conducted a trial, she took evidence of the investigating police officer one Sgt. Ambrose Odo who she led in evidence.
Under cross-examination, the investigating police office admitted taking statements from the Appellants witnesses and he tendered those statements as Exhibits A, B and C. The statement of the Appellant was tendered as Exhibit D.
At the end of the evidence of the Investigating police officer, the learned trial judge read a review of the evidence and ordered the Appellant to enter into the dock.
From that stage on, relevant extracts from the record of proceedings starting from page 28 are as follows.
Court: Ikechukwu Ezenwankwo can you tell me why I will not punish you for contempt.
Answer by Ikechukwu Ezenwankwo:
“I am particularly sorry over this development by putting this court to scandal by the note I gave to my friend. I have found out from the reactions of this court that the bribe was not given as told me by Rev. Francis Ezeokafor. I am pleading because of my experience with Rev. Francis Ezeokafor. I am alert to what he tells me. I am sorry about this scandal. It is not my intention to cause offence. I am sorry”.
The learned trial judge read out a letter written by the same Chief Francis I. K. Ezenwankwo, which the learned trial judge received on Tuesday 27/1/2004 and contained at page 30 of the Record.
The letter contained at page 30 of the Record is as apologetic as the plea of the accused/appellant reproduced from page 28 of the Record. The letter ended by saying “I hereby state that I have absolute confidence in your court and have no cause to doubt the integrity of the court”
The learned trial judge, after the lengthy review of the facts, circumstances and impressions concluded the decision at page 31 of the Record thus:
“…I have taken into consideration the passionate appeal for leniency by counsel to the contemnor Ikenna Egbuna Esq., and hereby commit the contemnor Ikechukwu Ezenwankwo to prison for ONE MONTH to purge himself of his contempt of this court”
Dissatisfied with this decision, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal containing (3) three grounds of appeal in this court on 30/1/2004.
Appellant’s brief of argument dated 22nd August 2008 was filed on 26tn August 2008.
On 4/7/2011, this Honourable Court granted an order to hear this appeal on the Appellant’s brief alone, the Respondent having failed to file his brief.
Learned counsel for the Appellant nominated 2 (two) issues for determination.
(i) Whether or not the learned trial judge was right to try the Appellant BREVI MANU when the alleged contempt was not committed in the face of the court.
(ii) Whether or not the trial of the Appellant was in accordance with the principle of fair hearing.
On Issue No. 1, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that contempt are of two kinds, direct and constructive. That direct contempt are those committed in the immediate view and presence of the court (such as insulting language or acts of violence) or so near the presence of the court as to obstruct or interrupt the due and orderly course of proceedings. These, according to counsel are punishable summarily. They are called “criminal” contempts but that term is better used in contrast with “civil contempts”.
He referred to Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Edition pages 288 to 289.
Counsel submitted that the facts leading to this appeal is an undated and unsigned not at page 1 of the record of proceedings which the said I. K. Ezenwankwo admitted to the court at page 13 of the record that he is the author. Counsel said because this letter is undated, it is not apparent on its face whether or not proceedings have started in court at the time it was written. He submitted that an insight into all this is provided from the statement of Chief Levi Ezeaso the man who handed over the note to the administrative judge. He quoted his statement in full:
“I freely elect to state as follows:
I know Chief I. K. Ezenwankwo (M) and Rev. Francis Ezeokafor (M) because both are members of Nanka Patriotic Union. There was a certain night party which I attended at the house of Hon. Commissioner Ugochukwu Nwankwo (M) of Enugu Nanka late last year 2003 and I met Chief I. K. Ezenwankwo (M) at the party and he told me that, he had called at my house by afternoon period but I was not in-doors that, he will be coming to my house at about 11pm in the night and said that, he had some request to make for me and when I asked him what the request was, he told me that there was a case of Nanka People about Afor Udo market and that some people have gone to court to secure injunction against the Nanka Community interfering with the new market stores they were about putting up in the market and that, I should contact my in-law one Justice Cecelia Uzoewulu (F) “Nee Obijiofor” and intimate her that, the people said that they had seen the judge that will handle the case. He did not mention any of the people name for me.
I told him that, if he wanted me to inform my in law, the judge anything, that it is detrimental to the town and that he should put it in writing, put his name on what he had written. He there and then, scrabble something on a piece of paper to the judge some days later. That’s all the contents of his letter to the judge I personally don’t know”
(pages 19 to 20 of the Record).
Counsel submitted that it was the learned trial judge who brought the appellant’s note to court and then ordered the police to investigate it.
Counsel submitted that assuming though not conceding that the content of the note amounted to contempt of court, it was not committed in the face of the court as to entitle the learned trial judge to summarily try it. That, the learned trial judge recognized the fact that the contempt was not in the face of her court and then ordered police investigations.
The police dully completed investigation and turned in their investigation report. (See, pages 7 to 9 of the Record).
Counsel submitted that the Investigating Police Officer Sgt. Ambrose Odo testified before the court and tendered statements obtained from the witnesses and was cross-examined. That, the conviction of the Appellant was based on these pieces of evidence in the court below.
Counsel submitted that where the judge would have to rely on evidence or testimony of witnesses to events occurring outside his view and outside of his presence in court he should not try the case himself. The matter should be placed before another judge where the usual procedure for arrest charge and prosecution of the offender must be followed.
He referred to the cases of Mrs. Gloria Anya v. Madam Eme Bassey Edem (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt. 913) 345 at 367-368.
A. U. Deduwa & Ors. v. The State (1975) 1 ALL NLR (Pt. 1) page 1.
Counsel submitted that at pages 25-26 of the Record, the learned trial judge held that “Thankfully the investigation by the police revealed that I did not receive the sum of N200,000.00 or any money at all in this case. The investigation also revealed that I did not agree to assist and give judgment to any party as alleged. I commend the police for the quick job done in this matter”.
Learned counsel for the Appellant with humility and respect submitted that the above findings by the learned trial judge was without any basis. He recalled that when the trial court first raised this issue on the 16th day of December, 2003 both the Appellant and Rev. Francis Ezeokafor the person who allegedly bribed his lordship were remanded in prison custody for one month for investigation. That, throughout the police investigation report from page 7 to 9 of the Record, no mention was ever made of Rev. Francis Ezeokafor.
That throughout the conduct of the prosecution which was conducted personally by the learned trial judge no mention was made of Rev. Francis Ezeokafor.
Counsel submitted that it is to avert situations of this nature that the Supreme Court warned in the case of A. U. Deduwa v. The State (supra) at page 16 as follows:
“The power to commit is not retained for the personal aggrandizement of a judge or who ever mans the court, the powers are created, maintained and retained for the purpose of preserving the honour and the dignity of the court and so the judge holds the power on behalf of the court and by tradition of his office he should eschew any type of temperamental out-burst as would let him lose his own control of the situation and his own appreciation of the correct method of procedure”.
He urged us to hold that the learned trial judge was wrong to have tried the Appellant Brevi Manu when there ought to have been a trial before another judge.
Contempt of court may be described as any act or conduct which interferes with the course of justice and tends to bring the authority and admits fraction of law into disrespect.
The twin elements of contempt of court are therefore, interference and disrespect. The aim of the law of contempt is to situations of this nature protect the dignity of court from any conduct that tends to obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice.
See Adeyemi Candide-Johnson v. Mrs. Esther Edisin (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 129) 659 at 668.
It is essential to the maintenance, and indeed to the very existence, of the legal system of any state that the court should have ample powers to enforce its orders and to protect itself from abuse of itself or its procedure. For this reason, contempt has been part of the legal history as far back as the tenth century.

Contempt is commonly classified as civil contempt and criminal contempt. Criminal contempt are also two (a) contempt committed in the face of the court and (b) contempt committed out of court.
The catalogue of criminal contempt in and out of court is not exhaustive however, it includes as in the instant case libels on judges courts or their officers.

In line with the principles of fair hearing, when as in the instant case, an alleged contempt is committed ex-facie curiae, that is outside the face of the court, a judge who is personally involved should not hear the case but some other judge.
See Theophilus Adetola Awobokun v. Toun Adeyemi (1968) NMLR 289.
In the instant case there is no gain saying that the events that led to the alleged contempt occurred primarily outside of the presence of the court and because it involves an allegation of bribery against the trial judge, it is not arguable that the learned trial judge was personally involved. It thus accords with the constitutional and natural law principle of fair hearing and the established rule in contempt cases that such a judge shall not try the contempt case himself. Nemo Judex in causa sua.
See Mrs. Gloria Nya & Ors. v. Madam Eme Bassey Edem (supra) A. U. Deduwa & Ors. v. The State (supra).
The learned trial judge seemed to have appreciated his invidious position when he remarked at page 25 of the Record that:
“In dealing with this matter I realize that I am both the complainant and judge and have therefore cautioned myself on the need to exercise grave restraint. However, my job has been made very easy by the admission of Ikechukwu Ezenwankwo that he actually wrote the letter/petition which I referred to the police for investigation…..”.
In the instant case, I do not think the admission of the appellant contemnor made a difference in terms of the need for the learned trial judge to have desisted from personally trying the case. The learned trial judge was involved and it was just not a case of contempt ex-facie curie but one in which there was an allegation of bribery against his lordship.
In the case of A. U. Deduwa & Ors. v. The State (supra) at page 14, the Supreme Court further held that “where the judge would have to rely on evidence or testimony of witnesses to events occurring outside his view and outside of his presence in court, it cannot be said that the contempt is in the face of the court. In such cases, a judge should not try a contempt in which he is involved…”
At page 16 of the same case, the Supreme Court emphasized that:
“The power to commit is not retained for the personal aggrandisement of a judge or whoever mans the court, the powers are created, maintained and retained for the purpose of preserving the honour and the dignity of the court and so the judge holds the power on behalf of the court and by tradition of his office he should eschew any type of temperamental outburst as would let him lose his own control of the situation and his own appreciation of the correct method of procedure”.
And earlier on in the case of Boyo v. Attorney General of the Mid-West State (1971) 1 ALL NLR 342 at 352, the apex court warned:
“Whether the contempt is in the face of the court or not in the face of the court, it is important that it should be borne in mind by judges that the court should use its summary powers to punish for contempt sparingly. It is important to emphasis the fact that judges should not display undue degree of sensitiveness about this matter of contempt and that they must act with restraint on these occasions”.
In the instant case, the learned trial judge was wrong in law to have tried the contempt ex-facie curiae against the appellant in his own court when the appellants could properly have been charged before another court.
Issue No.1 is resolved in favour of the Appellant.
On Issue No. 2, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides for the principles to be adopted in all trials particularly criminal trials to ensure that no citizen of Nigeria is deprived of his liberty save in accordance with the law. He said that in the instant appeal all the constitutional safe guards provided for the protection of every citizen was denied the Appellant.
Counsel listed the provision of Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution on presumption of innocence and that of Section 36(6) (a) of the Constitution on the need to inform an accused of the nature of the offence.
He submitted that at the end of the police investigation ordered by the court, the police gave their opinion based on their findings and recommended that Chief Ikechukwu Ezenwankwo (Appellant) and Chief Levi Ezeaso be charged to court for conspiracy to bring false accusation and slander under Section 153 of the criminal code based upon an information they received but failed to test same and prove.
Counsel noted that throughout the proceedings in the court below, there was no charge sheet not to talk of one under Section 153 of the criminal code as recommended by the police.
That up to the time the Appellant was asked to go into the dock, he did not know the nature of the offence against him.
Counsel submitted that in the instant case, the learned trial judge called the investigating police officer to give evidence.
After his evidence and cross examination despite the fact that the Appellant made a statement and called three witnesses who also made statements, the trial judge ended proceedings and gave her Ruling asking the Appellant to go into the dock. That, the Appellant’s counsel objected to this procedure and the learned trial judge answered to this objection at page 25 of the record that:
“In dealing with this matter, I realize that I am both the complainant and judge and have therefore cautioned myself on the need to exercise grave restraint. However my job has been made very easy by the admission of Ikechukwu Ezenwankwo that he actually wrote the letter/petition which I referred to police investigation”.
Counsel submitted that as provided under the constitution, the Appellant was perfectly entitled to call his witnesses in his defence.
That, even in a situation where he made a confessional statement, the onus of proof still rests on the prosecution and never shifts.
Counsel submitted that the learned trial judge did not consider the statement of the Appellant’s witnesses which were before her. Had she done so, she would have discharged the Appellant as the charge of contempt of court would not have been proved. That, for example, in the statement of Mr. Alex Okoye which was admitted in evidence as exhibit ‘A’ at page 18 of the Record beginning from line 15 to the end he stated as follows:
“The same month of November 2003, some of us from Oka family and some from Obiezekoli family, were together in a confress (sic) conference when I heard from Rev. Ezeokafor telling his brother that they should forget of all the economic trees (sic) stress in the said disputed land. That, he had seen the court, and made everything possible for them to win the case between us and them by all means. That all I know”.
Counsel submitted that Exhibit ‘C’ contained at pages 20 and 21 of the Record is a statement by one of the customary court judges who tried the land suit before it came on appeal before the judge in the court below. He quoted the statement in full.
“I freely elect to state as follows:
I know Chief Ikechukwu Ezenwankwo from Oka village, Agbiligba Nanka when I was a customary court judge in the year 1998 to 2000. A land case between Oka and Obiezekili was brought to us. One Francis Ezezokafor was involved in the land case. He came to my home place, Omogho to influence me to help them by give judgment in their favour. I refused the plea. I told him that I have the policy not to take anything bribe before I give judgment in any matter I give judgment in any before me.
That I give judgment on the merit of the case. The case was later disposed in favour of the Oka people.
I am not aware that they took plea in the High Court, that is all I know in this case”.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that from what could be seen from the record, the learned trial judge rather than accord weight to the statement of the Appellant’s witnesses took offence that the Appellant procured witnesses to make statements in his favour.
Thus, at pages 27 and 28 of the Record, the learned trial judge stated as follows:
“it is pertinent to note that Exhibit D, which is Ikechukwu Ezenwankwo’s statement to the police, he not only admitted writing the letter/petition but sought to justify it. He stated that Rev. Francis Ezeokafor told him that he gave me N200,000.00 bribe and made reference to Suit No. CCA/42/98 where he stated that Rev. Francis Ezeokafor tried to bribe members of the customary court. Mr. Ikechukwu Ezenwankwo even procured witnesses who supported his allegation of bribery. In Exhibit “A”, one Alex Okoye stated he “heard” from Rev. Francis Ezeokafor telling his brothers that, they should forget of all the economics tress (sic) stress in the said disputed land that, he had seen the court and made everything possible for them to win the case between us and that by all means.
In Exhibit C, one Ichie Offor Raphael a customary court judge, stated how Rev. Francis Ezeokafor came to his place; Omogho to influence him to give judgment in his favour.
The inference I draw from Exhibits “A, C and D is that Ikechukwu Ezenwankwo actually means and means to be understood that I was actually given the bribe as alleged and I promised to assist Rev. Francis Ezeokafor and his group and that Ikechukwu Ezenwankwo and his group not get fair hearing and/or justice from me, hence the letter/petition because of the antecedents of Rev. Francis Ezeokafor. The said letter/petition in my view aimed at scandalizing this court and amounts to contempt”.
Counsel submitted that if those witnesses had been allowed to give evidence the truth would have been found or put another way it would have been clear whether or not the Appellant was guilty of contempt of court.
He submitted that as the learned trial judge opted to act as complainant, prosecutor and judge he ought to have ensured that the charge is proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
The trial court said, counsel, must in fulfillment of its duty consider the totality of the evidence before the court, that is aspects which are favourable and those not favourable. It is after such duty that the court comes to a conclusion as to whether or not the case was established beyond reasonable doubt.
He referred to the case of Cyriacus Osidi & Ors. v. The State (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 918) 286 at 311-312.
Counsel urged us to hold that the Appellant was denied fair hearing and to resolve the second issue in favour of the Appellant.
There is no gainsaying that the learned trial judge in this case has fundamentally breached the Fundamental Right Provisions of the Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) relating to fair hearing.
The learned trial judge was in error to have served as a judge in his own cause. He was equally in error not to have charged the Appellant with an offence known to law, the contempt if any not having been committed in the face of the court.
The learned trial judge was equally in error to have deprived the Appellant the opportunity to call his own witnesses in defence.
The right of fair hearing entails not only hearing a party on any issue which could be resolved to his prejudice but also ensuring that that is fair and in accordance with the twin pillars of justice namely audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua.
See Mohammed v. Olawunmi (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 133) 458 at 485, Ogundoyin v. Adeyemi (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt. 730) 403 at 421, Saleh v. Monguno (2003) 1 NWLR (Pt. 801) 221 at 246.

The essential elements of fair hearing include easy access to court, the right to be heard including the right to call witnesses in defence, the impartiality of the adjudicating process and more particularly in relation to the instant case, the principle of nemo judex in causa sua.
In the case of A. U. Deduwa & Ors. v. The State (supra) at page 15, the Supreme Court had this to say
“There was of course no answer to the criticism of the procedure adopted in this case by the learned trial judge and this court cannot too strongly deprecate the action of a High Court Judge degrading himself to the position of a prosecutor in his own court and at the end of it all purporting to find persons guilty of offences which are not described and no where formulated and dealt with as provided by law…………….”
I agree with the learned counsel for the Appellant that the procedure adopted by the trial judge in this case as was in the case of A. U. Deduwa & Ors. v. State (supra) was wrong and that there was a breach of the mere important principles of fair hearing in the conduct of the case against the Appellant.

(1) The true test of fair hearing is the impression of the reasonable man who was present at the trial whether from his observation justice has been done in this case.
See Gaji v. The State (1975) 5 S.C. 61, R. N. v. Smith (Winstom) (1975) 61 CR. App. R. 128, Rabbo Damiha v. The state (1995) 9 S.C. N.J. 254, Josiah v. The State (1985) 1 NWLR 125.
In the instant case, no reasonable man would say that the Appellant was given a fair hearing in all the circumstances of the case.
Issue No. 2 is also resolved in favour of the Appellant.
Having resolved the 2 (two) Issues in this appeal, this appeal is meritorious and it is accordingly allowed.
The conviction and sentence of the Appellant – Chief Francis Ikechukwu Ezenwankwo for the offence of contempt of court by Hon. Justice Ijem Onwuamaegbu on 29th January 2004 in Suit No. AG/4A/2002 is hereby quashed.
I make no orders as to costs.

ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A.: I have read before now the judgment of my learned brother, MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE JCA just delivered. I agree with the reasoning therein and the conclusion that the appeal is meritorious. I allow the appeal with no order as to costs.

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A.: I had read a copy of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A. I agree with the reasoning and conclusions therein. I also hold that the appeal succeeds. I also quash and set aside the conviction and sentence of Chief Francis Ikechukwu Ezenwankwo (appellant) for the offence of contempt of Court by the trial Court per Ijem Onwuamaegbu J. on 29th January 2004 in suit No. AG/4A/2002.

Appearances

Chief Ikenna Egbuna with B. N. Eze (Mrs.) and Chuka Anakaogu, Esq. – Appellant.For Appellant

AND

For Respondent