SIMON IMEPURUNGU .V. THE STATE
April 4, 2025USMAN MOHAMMED.V. THE STATE
April 4, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2019) Legalpedia (CA) 13392
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Mon Mar 25, 2019
Suit Number: CA/YL/72CN/2018
CORAM
PARTIES
MRS. OKEKE NENE CHRISTIE APPELLANTS
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant as 1st Defendant at the Federal High Court, Yola, Adamawa State, was arraigned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), with El-yadi Motors as 2nd Defendant on a two Count Charge of Conspiracy to obtain money by false pretence from the Government of Adamawa State, contrary to Section 8 (a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 punishable under Section 1 (13) of the same Act and with intent to defraud, obtained the sum of N132,500,000.00 from the Government of Adamawa State under the false pretence that the said sum was to be utilized for the procurement of twenty five (25) units of operational, Toyota Corolla (1.8 litres) 2015 model for the Commissioners of Adamawa State in which only seventeen units (17) out of twenty five (25) were delivered, the sum of N36,050,000.00 for the remaining unsupplied (8) units for her personal benefit, thereby committed an offence contrary to the provisions of Section 1 (1) (b) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 punishable under Section 1 (3) of the same Act. In the lower court’s judgment, it was held that the prosecution failed to establish her case against the Defendants but, ordered that the 1st Defendant (Appellant) be remanded in prison custody for five (5) years or pending the refund of the sum of N36,000,000.00 (Thirty six Million Naira) belonging to the Government of Adamawa State, whichever is earlier. It is against the order of remand without conviction and/or sentence that the Appellant appealed to this court.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether the learned trial judge was right when he assumed jurisdiction to entertain and indeed determine charge no. FHC/YL/107c/2015 Whether the learned trial judge was right when he ordered the remand of the appellant for five years or a refund of the sum of N36,050,000.00 to Adamawa state government after holding that the prosecution has not proved the ingredient of the offences for which the appellant and El-yadi motors were charged. Whether the failure of the learned trial judge to pronounce on the first issue submitted by the appellant’s counsel in her final written address has breached her fundamental right to fair hearing Whether the learned trial judge was right when he held that there was no contract between the appellant and Adamawa state government yet held the appellant and El-yadi motors liable for “wrongful diversion of government money”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONSPIRACY- DEFINITION OF CONSPIRACY
“Conspiracy has been defined as an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act. See: Kayode Vs. State (2016) LPELR – 40028 (SC) P. 32, paragraphs. A – B in State Vs. Salami (2011) LPELR 8252 (SC) PP. 38 -39, paragraphs E–A his Lordship, Muhammad, JSC defined conspiracy thus:
“The general definition assigned to the word “Conspiracy”, in the realm of criminal Law, is that it is an agreement by two or more persons acting in concert or in combination to accomplish or commit an unlawful/illegal act, coupled with an intent to achieve the agreement’s objective.”
Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4th edition, in the Penal Code (PC) of the Northern Region of Nigeria (1963) under which the respondent was charged, Section 96 thereof defines “conspiracy” as follows:
“(1) when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done – a) An illegal act; or b) An act which is not illegal by illegal means”.
See, also Posu & Anor Vs. State (2010) LPELR – 48 63 (CA) P. 34, Paragraphs. E–G, Sheriff Ogunleye Vs. The State (2016) LPELR – 40090 (CA) P.10, Paragraph E.”
–
CONSPIRACY- DEFINITION OF CONSPIRACY- SECTION 8 (A) OF THE ADVANCE FEE FRAUD AND OTHER FRAUD RELATED OFFENCES ACT, 2006
Section 8 (a) of the Act under which the Appellant was charged provides as follows:
8. “A person who –
(a) Conspires with, aids, abets or counsels any other person to commit an offence;”
While Section 1 (1) (b) provides as follows:
(1)“Notwithstanding anything contained on any other enactment or law, any person who by any false pretence, and with intent to defraud.
(a)…….. .
(b)induces any other person, in Nigeria or in any other country, to deliver to any person;”
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – WHETHER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT EXTENDS TO MATTERS OF SIMPLE CONTRACT
“A simple contract where a State Government is involved is not listed in Section 251 of the Constitution as falling within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. In Onuorah Vs. Kaduna Refining & Petrochemical Co. Ltd (2005) LPELR – 2707 (SC) P. 11, Paragraphs. E – G, his lordship Akintan, JSC on whether the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court pertains to cases of simple contract held thus:
“… Since disputes founded on contracts are not among those included in the additional jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s claim. The lower court therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s claim. The lower court therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant claim. The lower court therefore, acted rightly in its decision that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim. See: Seven-Up Bottling Co. Ltd Vs. Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd (2001) 13 NWLR (PT. 730) 469; and Trade Bank Plc Vs. Benilux (Nig.) Ltd (2003) 9 NWLR (PT 825) 416 at 430 & 431”.
The jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as conferred on it by Section 251 of the Constitution (as amended) particularly subsection (3) as it pertains to its jurisdiction in criminal cases and matters does not cover simple contracts or wrongful diversion of government money as was alleged and decided by the trial court. The facts that gave rise to the charge at the trial court were founded on simple contract which the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain.”
–
ACADEMIS ISSUES- ATTITUDE OF COURTS TO ACADEMIC ISSUES
“Recently, the Apex court reiterated the attitude of the courts to academic issues in the case of Ecobank Vs. Honeywell Flour Mill Plc. (2018) – LPELR-45124(SC) P.47, Paragraphs A-F, his lordship Okoro, JSC held thus:
“Courts are not set up to engage its precious judicial time in academic exercise. In Salik V. Idris & Ors (2014)15 NWLR (Pt. 1429) 361 (2014) LPELR-22909 9SC) at paras 39-40, paragraphs F-C, this court made it clear:- “when a Judge restrains himself from deciding issues in a case or the whole case because his effort would amount to an academic exercise, all that his Lordship is saying is that if he decides the suit it would end with hollow victory. A victory with no value whatsoever. A victory that cannot be enforced. That explains why in a plethora of cases it has been said that court should not engage in academic exercise, rather, court should restrict judicial time to determine live issues.” see also, Oyeneye Vs. Odugbesan (1972) 4 SC 244; Adelaja & Ors Vs. Alade & Ors (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt.608) 544; Bhojwani Vs. Bhojwani (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt.457) 663; Bangboye Vs. Unilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290.”
–
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Adamawa State Public Procurement Law, 2013|Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006|Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999|
