Legalpedia Citation: (2023-07) Legalpedia 37902 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

Mon Jul 3, 2023

Suit Number: CA/K/207/2021

CORAM

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa JCA

Mohammed Baba Idris JCA

Muslim Sule Hassan JCA

PARTIES

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION

APPELLANTS

1. MUSA ABUBAKAR 2. NABILA ABUBAKAR 3. ADNAN ABUBAKAR

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

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

SUMMARY OF FACTS

An interim order was given in respect of the property of the Respondents who were plaintiffs at the trial court. By the order, the Appellants were required to commence a criminal or civil suit in regard to the property of the plaintiffs and this was to be done within 14 days of the said order after which the order was to abate and the property to revert back to the plaintiffs. The Appellants however failed to commence a suit against the Respondents and yet continued to detain/hold the property in question against the Plaintiffs' from the 18th day of March 2016 till 2020 after the interim order of forfeiture granted by the Federal High Court of Nigeria Abuja judicial division in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/426/2015 elapsed, abetted, and seized to have any effect. The plaintiffs claimed that this amounts to a violation of the Plaintiffs’ rights as donated to them by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended to acquire and own property.

The learned trial Judge delivered judgment in favour of the Respondents against the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the said judgment of the lower Court, the Appellant filed the instant appeal.

The Respondents herein were equally dissatisfied with aspects of the judgment of the lower Court and cross-appealed.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

Cross-Appeal allowed

ISSUES

1. Whether the trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the ruling delivered by the Federal High Court (Coram Justice A. R. Mohammed) on 3rd March, 2016?
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the Appellant breached the Respondents’ right to own property under Section 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Section 26 (1, 2, and 3) EFCC Act; having regard to the weight of evidence produced before the lower Court?
3. Whether the award of damages of Two Million Naira (N2,000,000.00) against the Appellant in favor of the Respondent was not arbitrary and unwarranted in the entire circumstances of this case?
4. Considering the facts and circumstances leading to the suit coupled with the finding of the lower Court declaring the action of the Cross Respondent of continuous holding of the Cross Appellants’ properties as illegal and unconstitutional, whether the lower Court was right in refusing to grant an order of perpetual injunction against them?
5. Whether the lower Court has the requisite jurisdiction to grant an order/relief not asked for by any party then turn round to grant an order/relief asked for in the alternative?
6. Whether the damages of Two Million Naira only is adequate considering the evidence before the lower Court?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

JURISDICTION – MEANING AND IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION

The issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental as it goes to the competence of a Court or Tribunal.

If a Court is not competent to entertain a matter or a claim or suit, it is a waste of valuable time for the Court to embark on the hearing and determination of the suit, matter or claim. It is therefore, an exhibition of wisdom to have the issue of jurisdiction or competence determined before embarking on the hearing and determination of the substantive matter. See the case of OLOBA VS. AKEREJA (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 84) 508 AT 520 C – E.

In other words, jurisdiction is the life wire, the bedrock and foundation of all judicial and quasi–judicial proceedings, and anything done in its absence is simply a nullity. See the case of JUMANG SHELIM AND ANOR VS. FWENDIM GOBANG ​ (2009) 12 NWLR (PT. 1156) 435. It is clear from the argument of the parties that the jurisdiction of the trial Court is under contest due to a ruling of the Federal High Court delivered by A. R. Mohammed, J., on the 3rd day of March, 2016 and as it is the law, where the issue of jurisdiction arises as to whether or not a Court can entertain a suit, it is to the Plaintiff's suit that reference must be made to find an answer. See the case of C. G. G. (NIG) LTD VS. OGU (2005) 8 NWLR (PT. 927) 366. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

INTERIM ORDER – MEANING AND EFFECT OF AN INTERIM ORDER

It is to be noted that an interim order is not an open restriction order but one for a short period of time and preservatory in nature and it is not intended to be a temporary victory to be used against the adverse party indefinitely and as in this case, when the Appellant refused to comply with the interim order of Court to take action within 14 (fourteen) days of making the order, the interim order cannot be extended indefinitely as it is good as vacated, after the 14 (fourteen) days of the lifespan in the opinion of this Court. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

JURISDICTION – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN DETERMINING JURISDICTION

It is trite that even though the jurisdiction is donated by the claim before the Court, the jurisdiction of a Court or Tribunal is not something you employ a searchlight to discover. It must be plain for all to see. See the case of OBI VS. INEC (2007) 11 NWLR (PT. 1046) 565 AT 669 E. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

FORFEITURE – CONDITIONS FOR AND PROCESS OF FORFEITURE

Section 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) provides:

“No moveable property or any interest in an immovable property shall be taken possession of compulsorily and no right over or interest in any such property shall be acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria except in the manner and for the purposes prescribed by law that among other things –

(a) Requires the prompt payment of compensation therefore and

(b) Gives to any person claiming such compensation a right of access for the determination of his interest in the property and the amount of compensation to a Court of law or Tribunal or body having jurisdiction in that part of Nigeria. (Underlining mine for emphasis) Further, Section 26(1, 2 and 3) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment ETC) Act Cap E1 LFN 2004 provides that:

“(1) Any property subject to forfeiture under this Act may be seized by the Commission in the following circumstances–

(a) The seizure incidental to an arrest or search; or

(b) In the case of property liable to forfeiture upon process issued by the Court following an application made by the commission in accordance with the prescribed rules.

(2) Whenever property is seized under any of the provisions of this Act, the commission may –

(a) Place the property under seal; or

(b) Remove the property to a place designed by the Commission.

(3) Properties taken or detained under this section shall be deemed to be in the custody of the Commission, subject only to an order of a Court.” Placing the above reproduced provision of the laws together, it is clear that the exercise of forfeiture by the Appellant should be in accordance with the law. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

EVIDENCE – CONDUCTS OF COURTS IN EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – DUTY OF COURTS TO HIGHLIGHT EVALUATED EVIDENCE IN JUDGMENT

There is no set pattern or fixed method of evaluation of evidence by a trial Court. All that is required of the Court is that it must consider the totality of the evidence proffered by either side having regard to the drift of the evidence before it. See the case of ONWUDINJO VS.

DIMOBI (2006) 1 NWLR (PT. 961) 318 AT 338, PARAS. E – F; 339, PARA D. In the course of evaluation of evidence, the learned trial Judge reserves the right to believe a witness in whole or in part on any point in issue. However, it is incumbent that in the course of delivering his judgment, each piece/strand of evidence so evaluated ought to be highlighted, and reasons for the believability or otherwise unequivocally provided. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

DAMAGES – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN AWARDING DAMAGES

The award of damages in any given case is a matter based on the discretion of the trial Court. See the case of HAMZA VS. KURE (2010) LPELR (1351) 1 AT 28 – 29. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

GROUNDS OF APPEAL – WHERE AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION CANNOT BE TRACED TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL

Where an issue for determination cannot be traced to any of the Grounds of Appeal filed, it would be struck out for being incompetent. See ODUSOTE VS. ODUSOTE (2012) 3 NWLR (PT. 1288) P. 478. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

APPEAL – A RESPONDENT’S ROLE IN AN APPEAL

Again, on the other point of argument, it is also trite that a Respondent’s role in an appeal is to defend the judgment of a lower Court and not to assist the Appellant in attacking such judgment and seeking that it be set aside. See the case of LAFIA LG VS. GOVERNOR, NASARAWA STATE (2012) 17 NWLR (PT. 1328) 94, 125, 132 – 133. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

CROSS-APPEAL – MEANING OF CROSS APPEAL

A cross appeal is an appeal brought by the Respondent against the Appellant after the Appellant has already filed an appeal. It is an appeal with a life of its own, even where it has some affinity with the main appeal as they crisscross. See the case of UNITY BANK PLC & ANOR VS. MR. EDWARD BOUARI (2008) 7 NWLR (PT. 1086) 372 AT 413. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

PERPETUAL INJUNCTION – THE AIM OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION AND THE CONDUCT OF COURTS IN CONSIDERING AN APPLICATION FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION

The grant of the prayer for perpetual injunction is a consequential order which should naturally flow from the declaratory reliefs sought and granted by the Court. Where a person’s legal righthas been infringed or invaded and there is a continual invasion or threat of continuance of such an invasion and the legal rights of the parties have been determined in a final judgment, the successful party is entitled to a perpetual injunction. See the cases of E. S. C. S. C. VS. GEOFREY (2006) 18 NWLR (PT. 1011) 293 and HO VS. ABUBAKAR (2013) 12 NWLR (PT. 1261) 323.

The aim of a perpetual injunction is to protect established rights and an actual infringement of that right. It should not be granted to restrain the lawful engagement of a legal right. See U.B.A. VS. OKEKE (2004) 7 NWLR (PT. 872) 393. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

COURTS – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN ADJUDICATION

A Court has no jurisdiction to extend the boundaries of the litigation beyond what the parties have submitted to it or, in other words, set up a different or new case for the parties. See the case of FBN PLC VS. STANDARD POLYPLASTIC IND. LTD (2022) ​ 15 NWLR (PT. 1854) 517. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

DAMAGES – CONDUCT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL TO AWARD OF DAMAGES BY TRIAL COURTS

The award of damages in any given case is a matter based on the discretion of a trial Court. See the case of HAMZA VS. KURE (2010) LPELR (1351) 1 AT 28 – 29. This Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial Court in the absence of proof that same was wrongly exercised – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment ETC) Act Cap E1 LFN 2004

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT