DESTRA INVESTMENTS LTD.Vs FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & 1 ORS

CORAM

SUPREME COURT

JUSTICE,

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE,

DAUDA SIDI BAGE

SUPREME COURT

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE,

EJEMBI EKO JUSTICE,

PARTIES

1. DESTRA INVESTMENTS LTD. APPELLANTS

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant and 2nd Respondent were arraigned before the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja for the offences of Money Laundering contrary to section 1, 15(2)(d)(6) and 17(b) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition)Act 2011(as amended). At the conclusion of the Prosecution’s case, the Appellant and 2nd Respondent made a no case submission which was dismissed by the trial court. They entered their defence and thereafter filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain Counts 1 and 2 of the charge on the ground that the counts contained the issue of award of contract for which the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain. The trial judge after listening to the arguments of counsel deferred the ruling on the preliminary objection to be considered along with the substantive issue at the time of delivery of judgement. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, the Appellant without seeking leave to file this interlocutory appeal, filed same to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, which suo motu struck out the appeal without hearing the address of the parties. The lower court held that if the appeal is competent, the Federal High Court has jurisdiction over money laundering offences and there was nothing wrong in the trial court considering the preliminary objection with the substantive issues at the delivery of judgement as the law allows applications to be taken along with the substantive case hence, a further appeal to this court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

Whether the court below was right in holding that a Judge is free to adopt any method that suited him in the determination of the preliminary objection on jurisdiction including deferring the ruling on the preliminary objection on jurisdiction to be considered along with the substantive issues and that such decision to defer the ruling did not occasion any injustice to the appellant as the appellant has not shown any injury suffered by deferring the matter.? Whether the court below was right in striking out the appeal on the ground that the grounds of appeal question an interlocutory decision on the exercise of discretion of the trial court which are at best grounds of mixed law and fact which require leave and as no leave was sought and obtained, the grounds of appeal are incompetent.? Whether the appellant has not been denied its right of fair hearing, thus occasioning a miscarriage of justice, when the court below raised, suo motu, the issue of the incompetence of the grounds of appeal, decided on it and indeed struck out the appeal based on that issue without affording the parties including the appellant the opportunity to address it on that issue.? Whether the court below has not misapprehended the charge and issue before it when it held that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to try the appellant of the offences of Money Laundering when the issue before the court below is whether the trial court has jurisdiction to receive evidence in proof of simple contract award which is an ingredient of counts 1 and 2 of the charge which the prosecution must prove to sustain the counts.? Whether the court below was right when it held that there is nothing wrong in considering the preliminary objection with the substantive issue at the delivery of judgement as the law allows applications to be taken along with the substantive case.