FREDERICK O. NEGBENEBOR V. EUDORA O. NEGBENEBOR
August 27, 2025UFOT GEORGE & ORS V. THE STATE
August 27, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1971) Legalpedia (SC) 81114
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri May 28, 1971
Suit Number: SC. 53/1970
CORAM
ADEMOLA, CHIEF JUSTICE NIGERIA
COKER, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MADARIKAN, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
UDOMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
GODWIN MOGBEYI BOYO APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant, counsel to the Ugborodo people drew the attention of the learned trial judge, by a letter, to the fact that his order made was against a standing order of the Supreme Court in the appeal of the same case. The judge demanded an apology for the letter and when counsel failed to render such apology, he was arrested, charged and sentenced for contempt of court
HELD
The Court allowed the appeal setting aside the order made by Atake, J. the trial judge in his ruling that his court was the proper court to try the case of contempt of court in this matter.
ISSUES
As the contempt in this matter was not in the face of the court, was the learned Judge correct in holding that his was the proper court to hear the matter?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF CONTEMPT OF COURT BY JUDGES
In cases of contempt not in the face of the court, there may be cases where the offence should be dealt with summarily, but such hearing must be conducted in accordance with cardinal principles of fair process; and the case must be one in which the facts surrounding the alleged contempt are so notorious as to be virtually incontestible. Where the Judge would have to rely on evidence or testimony of witnesses to events occuring 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. Per Ademola, CJN
THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF CONTEMPT OF COURT BY JUDGES
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 emphasize the fact that Judges should not display undue degree of sensitiveness about this matter of contempt and that they all must act with restraint on these occasions. Per Ademola, CJN
CASES CITED
FSC 207/1959 [1960] NSCC 41
R. v. Gray (1900) 2 Q.B. 36 at p.41
Shandasami v. King Emperor (1945) A.C. 264 at page 268
Mcleod v. St Aubyn (1899) A.C. 549 at p. 561
McKeown v. The Queen (1971) S.C.R. 357 – 492 at page 477
STATUTES REFERRED TO
