OYEBANJI OLAITAN STEVE & ORS V. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIME COMMISSION

CORAM

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA

MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS

MUSLIM SULE HASSAN

PARTIES

OYEBANJI OLAITAN STEVE

TAIYE OMONIYO OLUWALEKE

RISIKAT TAIMIYU TITILAYO

FAUSA TUNI

JOSHUA KISABO

APPELLANTS

1. OYEBANJI OLAITAN STEVE

2. TAIYE OMONIYO OLUWALEKE

3. RISIKAT TAIMIYU TITILAYO ………… APPELLANTS

4. FAUSA TUNI

5. JOSHUA KISABO

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, FINANCIAL CRIME, JUDGMENT

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The case of the Appellants was that the 1st to the 4th Appellants are dealers of Agro and livestock products based in Lagos, and the 5th Appellant was their business partner based in Kaduna. The 5th Appellant was ill and couldn’t conduct business as usual so the 1st – 4th appellant asked for their money to be returned. He couldn’t transfer the money and decided to make use of a cargo cargo delivery man at the Kaduna International Airport for onward delivery to the 1st to 4th Appellants in Lagos. He informed the cargo delivery man that the bags of money contained newspapers as opposed to money but they were later discovered to contain money. The cargo man couldn’t explain how the money came about and left same with the Respondents.

The respondents on the other hand had received reports that money being proceeds of crime was being moved. They took the money to CBN and approached the court for order of forfeiture demanding the owners of the money to come and show reasons why the money should not be forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria.

The Trial Court entered judgment for the Respondent against the Appellants, ordering the 1st to 4th Appellants to forfeit the sum of 49,000,000.00 (Forty Nine Million Naira). Aggrieved they made the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether in the light of Section 17 (1) (3) and the advance fee fraud and other fraud related offences Act LFN 2006 the lower court was right to order for pleadings instead of Criminal trial which involve filing of charges against the Appellants.

2. Whether the lower court was right to attached value to Exhibits PLF 1 – 10 whereas it initially discountenance same

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PROCEDURE – WHERE AN APPLICATION IS ORDERED TO BE MADE BY WAY OF MOTION ON NOTICE

But a community reading of the provisions of Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Matters Act under which the Respondent commenced this action clearly shows that the provision for forfeiture of unclaimed property or proceeds of crime is by way of a motion which will commence with an exparte motion before the motion on notice is filed after 14 days or such other time the court may give.

Where an application is ordered to be made by way of motion on notice, to my mind, that is purely a civil procedure. More so, Section 17 (6) clearly spelled it out that the order for forfeiture shall not be based on a criminal conviction. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with the procedure adopted by the trial court in ordering the forfeiture of the unclaimed sum of N49,000,000 to the Federal Government. If anything, I would say that the trial court was very magnanimous to allow the filing of pleadings and calling of evidence which clearly shows the justice of the matter. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

EVIDENCE – ONCE A DOCUMENT IS REJECTED

The law is clear that once a document is rejected, it does not form part of the record of the court and same cannot be relied on or referred to anymore. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

JUDGMENT – PARTY MUST SHOW THE INJUSTICE THE DECISION OF A COURT OCCASSIONED HIM AND THE REDRESS SOUGHT FOR

Secondly, I agree with the Respondent that the mere reference to the Statement of Account by the trial Court did not occasion any miscarriage of justice to the Appellant as it is settled law that a party must show the injustice the decision of a Court occasioned him and the redress he/she is seeking. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA