UDE JONES UDEOGU v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ORS
(2019)LCN/13152(CA)
In The Court docket of Enchantment of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 24th day of April, 2019
CA/L/1064C/2018
RATIO
JURISDICTION: CONDITIONS TO BE MET BY THE COURTS IN ORDER TO HAVE JURISDICTION
The case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR, 341, (1962) 1 ALLNLR, 587, has laid the inspiration and the reference level within the administration of justice in Nigeria on the precept of legislation for the circumstances to be met or glad earlier than a Court docket of legislation can validly and competently, have the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate over a trigger or matter introduced earlier than it. The well-known assertion by Bairamian, FJ (as he then was) within the case, which has remained the guiding mild on the problem, is as follows: –
Put briefly, a courtroom is competent when:- (1) it’s correctly constituted as regards numbers and {qualifications} of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one motive or one other; and (2) the subject material of the case is inside jurisdiction, and there’s no function within the case which prevents the Court docket from exercising its jurisdiction; and (3) the case comes earlier than the Court docket initiated by due technique of legislation and upon achievement of any situation precedent to the train of jurisdiction.
See additionally later circumstances of A. G. Anambra State v. A. G. Federation (1993) 6 NWLR (302) 692; Barclays Financial institution Ltd v. CBN (1976) 1 ALLNLR (Pt. 1) 409; Rossek v. ACB Ltd (1993) 10 SCNJ, 20, (1993) 1 NWLR (312) 382; Atser v. Gachi (1997) 6 NWLR (510) 609; Gani v. UBA, Plc (2000) 15 NWLR (689) 116. These circumstances are to be glad conjunctively or collectively as circumstances precedent earlier than Court docket of legislation may be mentioned to be competent and possess the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate over a case and the absence of any of the circumstances would deprive the Court docket of the authorized competence to adjudicate over a case.PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: EFFECT OF LACK OF JURISDICTION ON A COURT OR MATTER
The consequence of the absence of or defect within the jurisdiction of a Court docket to adjudicate over a case is now elementary in our judicial jurisprudence and administration to require reference to any judicial authorities for it, however to easily say that it renders any and all proceedings carried out; from the start to the top, null, void and of no authorized consequence, irrespective of how in any other case properly and brilliantly carried out. To finish all righteousness and the report, Ajao v. Alao (1986) 5 NWLR (45) 802; Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (supra); Cardoso v. Daniel (1986) 2 SC, 491; Adisa v. Oyinwola (2000) 10 NWLR (674) 116; AGF v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd (1999) 5 SC (Pt III) 54, would suffice.PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: MEANING TO BE GIVEN TO PLAIN, CLEAR , PRECISE AND UNAMBIGUOUS WORDS
These provisions are plain, clear, exact and unambiguous to require any glosses or interpolations of interpretation since they’re to be construed actually; giving the phrases employed by the legislature, their extraordinary, pure and plain meanings with a view to give impact to the specific intention of the lawmaker, considering, acknowledged ideas of legislation on the interpretation of constitutional provisions. SPDCN Restricted v. F.B.I.R. (1996) Eight NWLR (466) 256, Knight Frank & Rutley Nigeria Restricted v. A.G. Kano (1998) 7 NWLR (556) 1, A.G.F. v. A.G. Abia State (2001) 11 NWLR (725) 689, Dapianlong v. Dariye (2007) Eight NWLR (1036) 332.PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA Justice of The Court docket of Enchantment of Nigeria
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU Justice of The Court docket of Enchantment of Nigeria
JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR Justice of The Court docket of Enchantment of Nigeria
Between
UDE JONES UDEOGU – Appellant(s)
AND
1. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
2. ORJI UZOR KALU
3. SLOK NIGERIA LIMITED – Respondent(s)
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Main Judgment): The Appellant was arraigned earlier than the Federal Excessive Court docket, Lagos (Decrease Court docket) with the Appellants in Appeals Nos.CA/L/1061C/2018 and CA/L/1043C/2018 on the cost No. FHC/ABJ/CR/56/2007 for offences of Cash Laundering and Conspiracy opposite to the Cash Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004 and Legal Code Act, 1990. On the shut of the proof by the prosecution, every of the Appellants made a no-case to reply submission, which was over-ruled by the Decrease Court docket within the Ruling delivered on 31st July, 2018 and so they had been referred to as upon/ordered to enter their defence to the offences they had been charged for. By the requirement of procedural legislation, every of them needed to file a separate enchantment towards the choice of the Decrease Court docket with which they aren’t glad though they’re tried collectively and single Ruling was delivered in respect of the identical proof adduced the prosecution towards them, collectively.
The Appellants Amended Discover of Enchantment filed on third December, 2018, incorporates 9 (9) grounds from which 4 (4) issued are mentioned to name for dedication
1
within the enchantment, within the Appellant?s Transient filed on the identical date. They’re thus: –
?ISSUE 1: Whether or not Honourable Justice M. B. Idris as a Justice of the Court docket of Enchantment was competent and nonetheless had jurisdiction to proceed the listening to of Cost No. FHC/L/ABJ/CR/56/2017; FRN v. ORJI UZOR KALU & 2 ORS pending earlier than the Federal Excessive Court docket, Lagos Division (Grounds 1 & 2).
ISSUE 2: Whether or not within the circumstances of this case the Realized trial decide was proper when he relied on the testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses to carry that the prosecution has made out a case for the Appellant to be referred to as upon to enter his defence and thereby overruled the No. Case Submission of the Appellant. (Grounds 3, 4, 5 & 7)
ISSUE 3: Whether or not the Realized trial Choose was proper to carry that the Reveals tendered by the Prosecution, notably Reveals B1-B18, D34, 51-68, F58-93, H,J2, L, N1-N50, P33-34, Q1-!30, T and U have established a hyperlink between the Appellant and a few alleged offences and thereby overruled the No Case Submission of the Appellant. (Grounds 6 & 8).
ISSUE 4: Whether or not the Realized trial Choose was proper to order the
2
Appellant to enter his defence in respect of Counts 23, 34, 37 & 30 of the cost which had been based mostly on a repealed laws. (Floor 9).”
For the first Respondent, two (2) points are submitted for determination by the Court docket within the 1st Respondent?s transient filed on 1st February 2019, deemed on seventh February, 2019 within the following phrases: –
?1. Whether or not having regards to the provisions Part 396 (7) of the Administration of Legal Justice Act, 2015, it may be mentioned that Honourable Justice M. B. Idris was not competent to proceed with the listening to of Cost No: FHC/ABJ/CR/56/2017 between FRN v. Orji Uzor Kalu & 2 Ors., merely as a result of his Lordship was elevated and sworn in as a Justice of The Court docket of Enchantment of Nigeria. (See grounds 1 and a couple of of the discover of enchantment).
2. Whether or not the decrease Court docket was not proper in overruling the no case submission filed by the Appellant having regards to the proof adduced by the prosecution earlier than it. (See grounds 3-9 of the discover of enchantment).?
The 2nd and third Respondents didn’t file briefs within the enchantment as confirmed by the discovered Senior Counsel who represented every of them on the listening to
3
of the enchantment.
An Appellant?s Reply transient was filed on fifth February, 2019, deemed on seventh February, 2019, in response to the first Respondent?s transient.
As can simply be noticed, the substance of the Appellant?s Points 2, Three and Four is encompassed within the Respondents? Subject 2 and so the problems raised by the discovered Senior Counsel for the events, solely differ in formulation, however are the identical in substance. I intend to think about the substance of the problems within the dedication of the Enchantment.
Subject 1:
Appellant?s Submissions:
The arguments of Chief Solo Akuma, SAN, for the Appellant, are that Hon. Justice Idris, JCA, who was granted fiat by the Hon. President of the Court docket of Enchantment to conclude the half heard case he tried earlier than his appointment to the Court docket of Enchantment, pursuant to the provisions of Part 396(7) of the Administration of Legal Justice Act, 2015, lacks the jurisdiction and competence to take a seat and train the powers and jurisdiction of the Decrease Court docket to proceed the trial of the Appellant. Counting on Sections 250(2) and 238(2) of the 1999 Structure, Part 64(1) of the Federal Excessive Court docket, Act and
4
the circumstances of Ogbunyiya v. Okudo (1979) NSCC, 77 and Our Line Ltd. v. S. C. C. Nig. Ltd (2009) 17 NWLR (1170) 383, the discovered Silk maintains that together with his appointment and swearing-in as a Justice of the Court docket of Enchantment, the Hon. Justice Idris, JCA had ceased to be a decide of the Decrease Court docket and so the proceedings carried out by him within the Appellant?s case whereas holding that workplace, however the provisions of Part 396 (7) of the Administration of Legal Justice Act, had been a nullity for need of the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate over the case.
He additionally referred to the Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR, 341, locus classicus on the circumstances to be glad earlier than a Court docket can correctly be mentioned to have the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate over a trigger or matter, arguing that the situation on qualification of members was not met within the Appellant?s case since Hon. Justice Idris, JCA was not certified to take a seat as a Choose of the Decrease Court docket appointed in accordance with Part 250(2) of the Structure.
?
In accordance with the discovered SAN, Part 396(7) of Administration of Legal Justice Act derogates from the provisions of
5
Part 250(2) and is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency in empowering an individual apart from as envisaged beneath the Structure, to preside over any matter on the Decrease Court docket, citing SPDC v. Aguwa (2015) 14 NWLR (1480) 403 @ 473 and NOSDRA v. Mobil Prod. Nig. Unlted. (2018) 13 NWLR (1636) 334. Part 494 (1) of the Administration of Legal Justice Act and Part 1(2) (a) of the Federal Excessive Court docket, Act had been referred to and the Court docket is urged to strike down the provisions of Part 396 (7) of the Administration of Legal Justice Act for being inconsistent with the provisions of the Structure.
Within the different, it’s contended that the Hon. President, Court docket of Enchantment who issued or granted the fiat to Hon. Justice Idris, JCA, to take a seat within the Decrease Court docket, lacks the ability to take action since it’s the Chief Choose of the Federal Excessive Court docket that has total management and supervision of the administration of the Decrease Court docket beneath Sections 1(2) (a) and 19 (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Federal Excessive Court docket, Act. Nigercare Dev. Co. Ltd v. Adamawa State Water Board (2008) 9 NWLR (1093) 498 @ 529 on definition of the phrase ?inconsistent? and
6
N. S. I. F. M. B. v. Klifco Nigeria Ltd (2010) 13 NWLR (1211) 307 and Onyali v. Okpala (2001) 1 NWLR (694) 282 on the necessity for statutory energy to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the legislation, had been cited.
In one other vein, it’s submitted that the Appellant?s counsel didn’t consent to the Hon. Justice Idris, JCA persevering with the trial of the Appellant, counting on the assertion of Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC in Abdulkarim v. Incar Nig. Ltd (1992) 7 NWLR (251) 1 @ 16-17 and that even when he did, the legislation in Soyinka v. Oni (2011) 13 NWLR (1264 294; Haruna v. Magaji (1999) 5 NWLR (602) 230 and Menakaya v. Menakaya (2001) 6 NWLR (738) 203 @ 252, is that jurisdiction of a Court docket can solely be conferred by statute and never the consent of the events.
The Court docket is urged to resolve the problem in Appellant?s favour.
?
On Points 2, Three and 4, the submissions of the discovered Silk for the Appellant are to the impact that the Decrease Court docket was in error to overrule the no-case submission made by the Appellant for the reason that proof of the 19 (19) witnesses who testified was not direct, however rumour and so didn’t show all of the important substances of the offences
7
in Counts 23-39 of the Cost with which the Appellant was charged. It’s contended that from the way in which the Counts had been framed, with a view to show the offences therein, the prosecution should: –
?(a) Produce and tender cheques used within the withdrawal of cash from the treasury of Abia State within the designated banks in every rely.
(b) The cheques when produced, tendered and aggregated should give a complete sum of money talked about in every rely.
(c) Produce and tender the precise variety of drafts bought from the designated Banks and the mentioned draft when added up will give the precise quantity in every rely.
(d) Produce and tender tellers or deposit slips used within the lodgments of drafts into the Account of the third Defendant. See testimony of PW6 beneath cross-examination.
(e) Show or present who lodged the drafts into the Account of the third Defendant.?
Judicial authorities together with Kalu v. State (1988) Four NWLR (1990) 503 and Ugbaka v. State (1994) Eight NWLR (364) 568 on the legislation on the burden of proof and Okoro v. State (1988) 1 NWLR (1994) 255; Suberu v. State (2010) 1 NWLR (1176) 494 and Destra Inv. Ltd v. FRN (2017) 2 NWLR (1550) 485 on
8
when a no-case submission might be made and upheld, had been referred to and it’s argued th
