Legalpedia Citation: (2024-02) Legalpedia 80285 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Feb 23, 2024

Suit Number: SC.CR/1322/2022

CORAM

John Inyang Okoro Justice

Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju Justice

Tijjani Abubakar Justice

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice

PARTIES

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

APPELLANTS

FELIX NGOZI ACHI

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The respondent herein, Felix Ngozi Achi, was arraigned along with two others before the trial Court on a 3-count charge.

The accusation against the Respondent is that on the 25th day of October, 2012, at Saint Michael’s Catholic Church, Garaku Lafia in the Lafia Judicial Division triable in the Maitarna Judicial Division of the Federal Capital Territory, the Respondent conspired to commit armed robbery and eventually robbed Rev. Father Paul Onah of his Honda CRV with Reg. No. BWR-22-AG, the sum of N2, 700. 00 cash, and one blackberry phone and Rev. Father Simon Chia Aweli in the sum of N180, 000. 00 cash, HP Laptop, Sony Tape Recorder, and other items while armed with guns and other dangerous weapons and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6 (b) and 1(2)(a) respectively of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap R11, LFN 2004.

The respondent as well as the other two defendants pleaded “Not Guilty” to the charges by reason of which the trial Court proceeded to trial.

By its judgment, the trial Court convicted the respondent and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment in respect of the first count and a sentence to death in respect of the second count.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the respondent appealed to the lower Court. However, the lower Court, by its judgment raised suo motu the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the charge and resolved same against the appellant. Being an intermediate appellate Court, the lower Court still considered the appeal on its merit and held that the appellant failed to establish the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and robbery beyond reasonable doubt.​

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court, the appellant then appealed to this Court hence the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were correct in law to raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Trial High Court to hear and determine the charges preferred against the respondent suo motu and further proceeding to resolve same suo motu without affording the appellant any opportunity to be heard on such a fundamental issue which did not arise from any of the issues submitted by any of the parties, for the determination of the Justices of the Court of Appeal?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

GROUND OF APPEAL – DETERMINING IF A GROUND OF APPEAL IS ONE OF LAW, FACT, OR MIXED LAW AND FACT – WHETHER LEAVE IS REQUIRED FOR APPEALS ON GROUNDS OF FACTS OR MIXED LAW AND FACTS – CONDUCT OF COURTS WHERE A GROUND OF LAW EXISTS AMONG MULTIPLE GROUNDS OF APPEAL

Any matter to be decided on evidence and inference therefrom is a matter of fact, while an appeal on point of law limits consideration of the appeal to such questions as to whether facts admitted or held proved, justify, or permit a particular decision or disposal of the case before the Court. A ground of appeal would qualify as one of law where it is evident that the lower Court misunderstood the law or misapplied the law to the facts that are already proved or admitted. If the ground of appeal complains of the manner in which the lower Court evaluated the facts before applying the law, the ground would be of mixed law and fact. The determination of a ground as one of fact is much easier. See C.O.P. v, Ogor [2022] 14 NWLR (Pt 1849) 49; State v. Omoyele [2017] 1 NWLR (Pt 1547) 341; Abidoye v. Alawode [2001] 6 NWLR (Pt 709) 463; NEPA v. Eze[2001] 3 NWLR (Pt 701) 606; Ezeobi v. Abang [2000] 9 NWLR (Pt 672) 230; Ojemen v. Momodu (1983) 1 SCNLR 188; Ojukwu v. Kaine (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt 691) 516; Ogbechi v. Onochie (No. 2) [1986] 2 NWLR (Pt 23) 484.

Clearly, the above quoted ground of appeal is unquestionably a ground of facts or ground of mixed law and facts and there is no running away from the required leave to validate such ground of appeal and any issue distilled therefrom. The reason is simple as where as in this instance, the seeking and obtaining of leave to appeal constitute a condition precedent for the exercise of the right to appeal, failure to so seek and obtain the mandatory leave renders such ground of appeal incompetent. However, it must be stated clearly, that where in multiple of grounds there exists only one ground of law, it can sustain the appeal, as an appeal on any ground of law is of right and requires no leave to be sought and obtained to appeal. – Per J. I. Okoro, JSC

SUO MOTU – CONDUCT OF COURTS WHERE ISSUES AN ISSUE IS RAISED SUO MOTU – EXCEPTIONAL CASES WHERE THE COURT CAN RAISE ISSUES SUO MOTU AND RESOLVE SAME WITHOUT INVITING THE PARTIES TO ADDRESS IT

Admittedly, the general principle of law is that on no account should a Court of law raise an issue, suo motu, which is not in the contemplation of both parties or their counsel in their grounds of appeal or submissions therefrom and not a sham issue, no matter how clear it may appear to be, and proceed to resolve it without affording the parties or their counsel the opportunity of addressing the Court on the issue so raised, Adegoke v. Adibi [1992] 5 NWLR (pt 242) 410, (1992) 6 SCNJ 136.

This principle of law is in tandem with the fundamental right to fair hearing enshrined under Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered).  ​

This principle was also expounded in the cases of Cole v. Martins [1968] 1 ALL NLR 161; Ifezue v. Mbadugha and Anor [1984] 5 SC 79; and Nigerian Tobacco Co. Ltd v. Agunanne [1995] LPELR-2034 (SC).

Thus, where in the course of composing its judgment, the Court discovers an important issue that was not addressed to by the parties at the time of the hearing, it is duty bound to re-open the proceedings and invite the parties to address it on the discovered issue before it decides the issue, provided the statutory time limit for delivery of its judgment, had not lapsed.

My Lords, the general principle of law that states that an appellate Court, as well as other hierarchy of Courts, should not raise an issue, suo motu, and resolve same without affording the parties or their counsel the opportunity of addressing the Court on the issue so raised, like most legal principles, admits of exceptions. These exceptions have received the imprimatur of this Court in a behemoth of decided cases, namely Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi [2013] 6 NWLR (Pt 1350) 289; Aderibigbe v. Abidoye [2009] 10 NWLR (Pt 1150) 592; Omokuwajo v. F.R.N.[2013] 9 NWLR (Pt 1359) 300; Edevie v. Orohwedor (2022) LPELR- 58931(SC), [2023] 8 NWLR (Pt 1886) 219.

See also Angadi v. PDP (2018) LPELR – 44375 (SC), (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt 1641) 1; Comptoir Commercial and Ind S.P.R. Ltd. v. O.G.S.W.C. (2002) FWLR (Pt 105) 839, [2002] 9 NWLR (Pt 773) 629; M.D. Kolawole and Ors v. A.-G., Oyo and 3 Ors [2006] 3 NWLR (Pt 966) 50.

In the case of Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (supra), this Court, per Rhodes-Viviour, JSC, held at page 310, paragraphs C- G, as follows:

The well laid down position of the law is that when an issue is raised suo motu the parties should be heard before a decision is reached on the issue. This is what procedural fairness entails. See Kuti v. Balogun (1978) 1 SC p. 53; Ogiamien v. Ogiamien (1967) NMLR 246, (1967) SCNLR 311; Adeniji v. Adeniji (1972) 4 SC 10; Iriri v. Erhurhobara (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt 173) 252. But there is an exception to this procedure. There would be no need to call on counsel to address the Court on an issue raised suo motu by the Judge-

1. When the issue relates to the Court’s own jurisdiction;

2. When both parties are not aware or ignored a statute which may have a bearing on the case; or

3. When on the face of the record serious questions of the fairness of the proceedings is evident.

See Comptoir Commercial and Ind S.P.R. Ltd. v. O.G.S.W.C. (2002) FWLR (Pt 105) 839, (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt 773) 629; M. D. Kolawole and Orsv. A.-G., Oyo and 3 Ors (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt 966) 50.

Similarly, and more recently, in the case of Edevie v. Orohwedor (supra), this Court held at page 275, paras D-F, thus:

In any case, it is settled law, that it is not in all circumstances that raising an issue by a Court suo motu and the Court deciding the same without calling on parties to address it is fatal to a judgment based on the said issue or issues raised suo motu. See Angadi v. PDP (2018) LPELR – 44375 (SC), (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt 1641) 1, where this Court held that there would be no need to call on counsel to address the Court on an issue raised suo motu by the Judge in circumstances:

(a) when the issue relates to the Court’s own jurisdiction;

(b) When both parties are not aware or ignored a statute which may have bearing on the case; or

(c) When on the face of the record serious questions of the fairness of the proceedings is evident.

​The law is also well settled that an appellate Court can only exercise jurisdiction in an appeal against the judgment of the lower Court if the lower Court competently exercised jurisdiction over the matter. In other words, an appellate Court downs its tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that the lower Court was without jurisdiction to entertain the matter in the first place. See Aliyu v. A.P.C. [2023] 6 NWLR (Pt 1879) 151; Oni v, Cadbury (Nig.) Plc [2016] 9 NWLR (Pt 1516) 80; Akinbobola v. Plisson Fisko (Nig.) Ltd. [1991] 1 NWLR (Pt 167) 270. – Per J. I. Okoro, JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap R11, LFN 2004
   

   CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT