CORAM

PARTIES

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, JUDICIAL DISCRETION, EVIDENCE LAW, FAIR HEARING, LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case originated from a criminal charge brought against Odera Specialist Clinic (the Appellant) by the Medical Officer of Health of Oshimili South Local Government Council (the Respondent). The Appellant was charged at the Magistrate Court for failing to comply with an Abatement Notice No. 4493 dated November 28, 2017, which required the clinic to recall the team of Environmental Health Officers who were allegedly obstructed from carrying out their legitimate duty of detecting nuisance at the clinic premises. This was contrary to the Environmental Health Officers Registration Council of Nigeria (EHORECON) Practice Guide and punishable under Section 10 and Section 68 of the Public Health Law Cap P.21 Vol.4, Laws of Delta State, Nigeria, 2006.

The Appellant filed a motion and preliminary objection at the Magistrate Court challenging the competence of the charge on grounds that it disclosed no cause of action and that the Respondent had no constitutional authority to inspect or supervise the clinic. However, on December 20, 2017, when the case came up for mention, neither the Appellant nor its counsel was present in court. The Respondent’s representative applied that the motion be withdrawn and struck out for lack of diligent prosecution. The Magistrate granted this application, struck out the motion, and awarded a cost of N5,000 against the Appellant, ordering that the cost must be paid before the Appellant could take any further step in the case.

Dissatisfied with this ruling, the Appellant appealed to the High Court (lower court). While the appeal was pending, the Appellant withdrew its preliminary objection at the Magistrate Court by a letter dated March 21, 2018, and later through an oral application on May 9, 2018. The Respondent filed a preliminary objection at the High Court arguing that the appeal constituted an abuse of court process as there was a similar application pending at the Magistrate Court when the appeal was filed. The High Court sustained this preliminary objection and struck out the appeal, holding that the Appellant should have withdrawn the appeal, addressed the issues at the Magistrate Court, and then filed a fresh appeal if necessary.

HELD

1. The appeal was allowed.

2. The decision of the High Court striking out the appeal was set aside.

3. The decision of the Magistrate Court striking out the Appellant’s motion was also set aside.

4. The Court ordered that the motion challenging the charge at the Magistrate Court be heard and determined on merit by another Magistrate in the State.

5. Parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the reliefs being sought in the Notice of Appeal ought and should be outrightly granted.

2. Whether or not the trial court completely breached the fundamental principles of fair hearing.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT