Legalpedia Citation: (2024-05) Legalpedia 83063 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

HOLDEN AT (SOKOTO

Fri May 24, 2024

Suit Number: CA/S/164/2022

CORAM

Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu ,Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ebiowei Tobi, Justice of the Court of Appeal

A.R. Mohammed, Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION

APPELLANTS

1. ALHAJI USMAN MOHAMMED BAKURA
2. BES BELMAN NIG. LIMITED
3. AIR BES BELMAN NIG. LIMITED
4. FEDERAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF NIGERIA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE, FINANCIAL CRIME, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st to 3rd Applicants initiated an action at the Federal High Court in Gusau, Zamfara State, seeking to enforce their fundamental rights to personal liberty, freedom of movement, and the right to acquire and own immovable property. They requested declaratory and injunctive reliefs as well as damages for the alleged violations of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Upon being served with the Applicants’ originating process, the Respondents filed their respective counter-affidavits and a preliminary objection, which was subsequently dismissed.

The lower court ruled in favor of the Applicants. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Appellants filed the present appeal.

HELD

Appeal struck out

 

ISSUES

1. 1. Whether the Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this case in view of the provisions of Section 46 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and Order 11 Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, considering the fact that the alleged infringement complained about occurred in Abuja and Sokoto?

2. 2. Whether the learned trial judge did not occasioned a miscarriage of justice by holding that the Economic and financial Crimes Commission does not have powers to trace and seize properties suspected to be proceeds of crime before approaching the Court for interim forfeiture?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

RESPONDENT – THE TRADITIONAL ROLE OF A RESPONDENT IN AN APPEAL

The traditional role of the Respondent in an appeal is to defend the decision appealed against. If however, the Respondent wishes to depart from that role by attacking or challenging the judgment or ruling in anyway, he is enjoined to file a cross–appeal, because the purpose of cross-appeal is to correct an error which is standing in the way of a Respondent in the main appeal. Thus, where as in this case the Respondent has not cross appeal, he cannot attack the decision appealed against. See ADEFULU V. OYESILE (1989) 5 NWLR (PT. 122) 377, DANGANA V. USMAN & ORS (2012) LPELR – 7811 (SC), EYEMI V. ONAH & ORS (2021) LPELR – 55842 (CA) and OBI V. INEC & ORS (2007) LPELR – 24347 (SC). – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JCA

CROSS-APPEAL – THE PURPOSE OF A CROSS-APPEAL

The traditional role of the Respondent in an appeal is to defend the decision appealed against. If however, the Respondent wishes to depart from that role by attacking or challenging the judgment or ruling in anyway, he is enjoined to file a cross–appeal, because the purpose of cross-appeal is to correct an error which is standing in the way of a Respondent in the main appeal. Thus, where as in this case the Respondent has not cross appeal, he cannot attack the decision appealed against. See ADEFULU V. OYESILE (1989) 5 NWLR (PT. 122) 377, DANGANA V. USMAN & ORS (2012) LPELR – 7811 (SC), EYEMI V. ONAH & ORS (2021) LPELR – 55842 (CA) and OBI V. INEC & ORS (2007) LPELR – 24347 (SC). – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JCA

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – THE COURTS WITH JURISDICTION TO HEAR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ISSUES

A Community reading of the above reveals indisputably that both Federal High Court and the High Court of State, inclusive of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja have concurrent jurisdiction on matters of breach or likely breach of any of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Chapter IV of the Constitution. JACK V. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE MAKURDI (2004) 5 NWLR (PT. 865) 208, OLUTOLA V. UNILORIN (2004) 18 NWLR (PT. 905) 416, OGUGU V. STATE (1994) 9 NWLR (PT. 366) 1 and IHIM V. MADUAGWU (2021) 5 NWLR (PT. 1770) 584 at 621. – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JCA

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – THE COURTS WITH JURISDICTION TO HEAR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ISSUES

A Community reading of the above reveals indisputably that both Federal High Court and the High Court of State, inclusive of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja have concurrent jurisdiction on matters of breach or likely breach of any of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Chapter IV of the Constitution. JACK V. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE MAKURDI (2004) 5 NWLR (PT. 865) 208, OLUTOLA V. UNILORIN (2004) 18 NWLR (PT. 905) 416, OGUGU V. STATE (1994) 9 NWLR (PT. 366) 1 and IHIM V. MADUAGWU (2021) 5 NWLR (PT. 1770) 584 at 621. – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JCA

JURISDICTION – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN DETERMINING GEOGRAPHICAL JURISDICTION

There is no contention between the parties in this case, as regards the concurrent jurisdiction between Federal and State High Courts. The only area of difference relates to where the cause of action arose as to confer the jurisdiction on a Court as provided for in the Constitution or the Statute that created it. To determine that, recourse has to made to the originating processes only. Where as in the present case, the action is commenced by a motion on notice, the processes to be examined are the reliefs sought, grounds upon which the reliefs are sought and of course the affidavit setting out the facts upon which the application is made.

It was held in a litany of cases that where a statute or the Constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria sets out conditions for the activation or invocation of Court’s jurisdiction, a Plaintiff’s failure to comply, abide or follow the statutory conditions or procedural steps will deny the Court’s competence to proceed in the proceedings. MAINSTREET BANK CAPITAL LTD V. NIGERIA REINSURANCE CORPORATION PLC (2018) 14 NWLR (PT. 1640) 423. – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JCA

JURISDICTION – WHERE A PLAINTIFF FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS FOR THE ACTIVATION OF A COURTS JURISDICTION

There is no contention between the parties in this case, as regards the concurrent jurisdiction between Federal and State High Courts. The only area of difference relates to where the cause of action arose as to confer the jurisdiction on a Court as provided for in the Constitution or the Statute that created it. To determine that, recourse has to made to the originating processes only. Where as in the present case, the action is commenced by a motion on notice, the processes to be examined are the reliefs sought, grounds upon which the reliefs are sought and of course the affidavit setting out the facts upon which the application is made.

It was held in a litany of cases that where a statute or the Constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria sets out conditions for the activation or invocation of Court’s jurisdiction, a Plaintiff’s failure to comply, abide or follow the statutory conditions or procedural steps will deny the Court’s competence to proceed in the proceedings. MAINSTREET BANK CAPITAL LTD V. NIGERIA REINSURANCE CORPORATION PLC (2018) 14 NWLR (PT. 1640) 423. – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JCA

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – DUTY OF A PARTY WHO COMPLAINS OF A BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

In ABIA STATE UNIVERSITY V. ANYAIBE (supra) it was held that a party who complains of a breach of his Fundamental rights must commence the form of action prescribed by the Constitution specifically seeking the Constitutionally provided remedy. – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2. Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009

3. EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004
   

   CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT