MARCEL NNAKWE VS THE STATE

CORAM

IAN LEWIS

PARTIES

MARCEL NNAKWE APPELLANTS

THE STATE RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant was charged with four counts of conspiracy, attempted murder and murder. In the course of trial, the 7th Accused person became deceased. The Appellant thereafter by way of motion, challenged the competence of the charge and prayed the trial court to quash the counts 3 & 4 in terms. The Court ruled in favour of the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Respondent, appealed to the Court of Appeal where his appeal was allowed in part. Unhappy with the second part of the decision, the appellant has now appealed to this court.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Whether Chief Afe Babalola, SAN & Co., a private prosecutor, was competent or had authority by the FIAT of the Attorney-General of the Federation to have charged the appellant in Count 4 with the alleged murder of one Emeka Onuekutu. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja has jurisdiction to entertain the offence alleged in Counts 3 and 4 of the Charge preferred against the appellant. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the Attorney-General of the Federation can validly issue FIAT to prosecute the appellant in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in respect of the offences alleged in Counts 3 and 4. Whether the FIAT of the Attorney-General of the Federation dated 10th September, 2004 issued to Afe Babalola, SAN & Co., to prosecute could be used to initiate appellate proceedings without a fresh FIAT:”

RATIONES DECIDENDI

LEGAL REPRESENTATION – THE AUTHORITY TO CHALLENGE LEGAL REPRESENTATION ONLY LIES WITH THE PARTY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTS

“Decided authorities of this court have also held out that where a counsel announces appearance on behalf of a party in any matter, the authority to challenge such representation only lies with the same party.”

PREFERING A CHARGE -COMPETENCE OF A PRIVATE LEGAL PRACTITIONER TO PREFER A CHARGE ON BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION.

” Furthermore, it has also been sufficiently emphasized by this court that the competence or otherwise of a private legal practitioner and his authority to prefer a charge on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Federation cannot be questioned by any other person”.

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL- COURTS DO NOT INQUIRE ON THE AUTHORITY OF A COUNSEL APPEARING FOR A PARTY

“Firstly when or where counsel announces that he is appearing for a party it is now firmly settled that it is not for the court to start an enquiry into his authority and the court never does”

JURISDICTION OF COURT -JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANY STAGE AND WHEN ABSENT IT RENDERS SUCH PROCEEDINGS A NULLITY

“Jurisdiction is the corner stone and bedrock of adjudication; it can neither be compromised nor conferred by consent of parties upon a court. It is constitutional and very fundamental; hence the reason why it can be raised at any stage of a proceeding both at the trial and on appeal even if for the first time in this court. Where a court lacks jurisdiction, any proceeding conducted is in breach and renders same a nullity”.

APPEAL- APPEAL IS A CONTINUATION OF ACTION AND NO NEW ISSUES CAN BE RAISED ON APPEAL

“The law is well settled in plethora of authorities that an appeal is a continuation of the action and that no new issues can be raised on appeal”.

STARE DECISIS – MEANING OF STARE DECISIS

“This is because the principle of stare decisis is well entrenched in our system of judicial adjudication where lower courts in the hierarchy are bound by the ratio decidendi of higher courts”.

JURISDICTION – FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE A COURT ASSUMES JURISDICTION IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL

”The law is trite and has long been settled by this court that for a court to assume jurisdiction in a criminal trial, the following factors must be considered:-
“(i) That ends of justice would better be served by hearing the charge against the accused in that particular court seeking to assume jurisdiction.
(ii)That the accused was apprehended or in custody within the judicial division of the court seeking to assume jurisdiction.
(iii)Accessibility and convenience of the witnesses.” See Usman V. State (1978) 6 – 7 SC 165”.

CASES CITED

Nwambe V. The State (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt. 384) 358|Chinda V. Amadi (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt 767) 505 at 517,|Oredoyin V. Arowolo (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt 114) 172 at 211|Onwudiwe V. F.R.N,. (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt 988) 382 at 425|Emoga V. State(1977) 9 NWLR (Pt. 519) 38|Clement V. Iwuanyawu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 107) 39 at 53 – 54,|Ekperokun V. University of Lagos (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 34) 162 at 193;|Akpan V. State (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 361) 226 at 243 -244

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999,|Criminal Procedure Code Act Cap 491 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (Abuja).|Penal Code Act|

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT