Legalpedia Citation: (2013-02) Legalpedia (SC) 11941
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Feb 15, 2013
Suit Number: SC.80/2004
CORAM
PARTIES
1. MONSURAT LAWAL
2. KAZEEM ALIMI
3. SAIDI BELLO
4. AKEEM LAWAL
APPELLANTS
SENIOR MAGISTRATE GRADE MR. B. O. QUADRI OF MAGISTRATE COURT OF IBADAN & ORS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Ibadan delivered on 1st July, 2003, in which that Court dismissed the Appellants’ appeal against the ruling of the High Court of Justice of Oyo State Ibadan, dismissing the Appellants’ application for an order of certiorari to quash their conviction and sentence by the 1st Respondent Senior Magistrate Court 4 Ibadan, for the offences of conspiracy, malicious damages and causing grievous bodily harm.
HELD
Appeal allowed
ISSUES
1. Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were not right to have unanimously held that the Appellants ought to have challenged the proceedings and judgment of the 1st respondent by way of appeal rather than by prerogative writ of certiorari?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
FAIR TRIAL – IMPORTANCE OF PRESENCE OF AN ACCUSED PERSON DURING TRIAL.
“It has to be stressed that it is an essential principle of our criminal law and practice in Nigeria that the trial of an accused person for an offence has to be conducted in the presence of the accused and for such purpose trial means the whole of the proceedings including the judgment and sentence. The only exception is where the violent tendencies of an accused person may necessitate the keeping him out of court in the interest of public safety for peaceful conduct of the trial.” – Per M Mohammed JSC
ADDRESS – ADDRESS BY PARTIES OR THEIR COUNSEL -PURPOSE OF.
“The law is trite that addresses by parties or their learned counsel are an integral part of the hearing or trial of the accused person.”
WRIT OF CERTIORARI- ESSENCE OF
“The law is well settled that the prerogative writ of certiorari is available under our 1999 constitution in Section 272 (2) and the various State High Court laws and the State High Court Civil Procedure Rules to empower the various High Courts to act as watch dogs over judicial activities of inferior courts or tribunals. The process is meant to provide a supervisory process to keep in check the excesses and arbitrariness of such courts.” – Per M Mohammed JSC
SUPERVISORY POWER – SUPERVISORY ROLE OF THE HIGH COURT OF A STATE OVER INFERIOR COURTS
“This supervisory power is vested in our High Courts by the various State High Court Laws and High Court Civil Procedure Rules and above all the provisions of Section 272 (1) and (2) of the 1999 constitution which provides:
272 (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 251 and other provision of this constitution the High Court of the State shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue or to hear and determine any criminal proceedings involving or relating to any penalty, forfeiture, punishment or other liability in respect of an offence committed by any person
(2) The reference to civil or criminal proceedings in this section includes reference to the proceedings which originate in the High Court of a State and those which are brought before the High Court to be dealt with by the court in exercise of its appellate or supervisory jurisdiction.
In other words once grounds for bringing application for order of certiorari exists, a person aggrieved by the decision or order of an inferior court or tribunal, can apply for an order of certiorari to issue, even though he has a right of appeal also against the order or decision.” – Per M Mohammed JSC
CASES CITED
Oduwole v. Famakinwa (1990) 4 N.W.L.R. 239 at 251Obodo v. Olomu (1987) 3 N.W.L.R (pt. 59) 111
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE