CHIEF OLISA METUH & ANOR Vs FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ORS
April 12, 2025EDWARD NIKAGBATE V JOSEPH OPAYE & ANOR
April 12, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2018-02) Legalpedia (SC) 31916
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Feb 9, 2018
Suit Number: SC.517/2015
CORAM
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KUDIRAT MOTONMORIOLATOKUNBU KEKERE-EKUN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
WALTER WAGBATSOMA APPELLANTS
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant in this appeal and four other Defendants were arraigned, on information, before the High Court of Lagos State for the offences of obtaining money by false pretense under Section 1 of the Advanced Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006; forgery and uttering under the Criminal Code, Cap. C17, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 2003 and conspiracy to commit the said offences. Sequel to their non-guilty plea, the case went to trial. At the end of the Prosecution’s case, the Appellant and the other Defendants, by their No Case Submission, contended that the Prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case against them; worse still, that the said High court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case having regard to Sections 251 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (amended) and Section 1, 2 and 19 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, [AJA]. In its ruling, the High Court dismissed the No Case Submission, and held that it had the requisite jurisdiction to try the offences of obtaining property by false pretenses, forgery, uttering and conspiracy. It proceeded to strike down the provisions of Section 19 of the AJA. The Appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, was unsuccessful. The lower court, however, found that, in striking down Section 19 of the AJA, the ruling breached the Appellant’s right to fair hearing. It, nevertheless, declined to set aside the ruling of the trial court. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the lower court, the Appellant has approached this court.?
HELD
Appeal Allowed?
ISSUES
Having regard to the lower court’s finding that the trial court breached the principle of fair hearing in striking down Section 19 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, whether the lower court was not in grave error and so acted without jurisdiction when it thereafter failed to set aside the trial court’s Ruling? Having regard to the clear provisions of section 251 (1) (a), (g), (n), (s) and (3) of the Constitution, Section 8 (1) of the Federal High Court Act (FHC Act), Sections 1, 2, 19 and 25 of the AJA vis-a-vis the information preferred against the appellant at the trial court, as well as the evidence adduced by the Prosecution, whether the lower court was not in grave error in holding that the trial court rightly assumed jurisdiction on the Information dated 20th July 2012? Whether the lower court was not in error when it failed to be bound and to follow the decision of this Honourable Court in George v FRN [2014] 5 NWLR (pt 1399) 1 and its own decisions in Okey Nwosu v FRN – Appeal No: CA/L/601/11 delivered on 21st November, 2013 and Akingbola v FRN – Appeal No: CA/L/490/14 delivered on 31st December, 2014??
RATIONES DECIDENDI
OBITER DICTUM- MEANING OF AN OBITER DICTUM
“In Omisore and Anor v Aregbesola and Ors [2015] 15 NWLR (pt 1482) 205, this court [per Nweze, JSC] explained that:
In Legal Theory, an obiter dictum, in contradistinction to the ratio decidendi of a case, is a Judge’s passing remarks which do not reflect the reasoning of the court or ground upon which a case is decided, Paton and Sawyer, “Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dictum in Appellate Courts” (1947) 63 LQR 461, 481; Rupert Cross, “The Ratio’1in 20 MLR 124-126; A.. G, Karibi-Whyte, “The Tyranny of Judicial Precedents”, in (1990) Vol.3 No. l Cal. LJ; P. U. Umoh, Precedent in Nigerian Courts (Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishers Ltd, 1984) 208;Nwanna v FCDA and Ors (2004) LPELR 2102 (SC) 12, F-6; Yusuf v. Egbe [1%7] 2 NWLR (pt. 56) 341; Amob v Nzegwu [2013] 12 SCNJ 91.”
ISSUES RAISED SUO MOTU – DUTY OF COURTS WHERE IT RAISES AN ISSUE SUO MOTU
“It cannot be otherwise for it is now settled that, where a court raises an issue suo motu, the parties must be afforded the opportunity of offering arguments on it, Odiase v Agho (1972) 3 SC 71; Adegoke v Adibi (1992) 5 NWLR (pt 242) 410; Atanda v Lakanmi (1974) 3 SC 109; Kraus T. Org, LtdM UNICAL (2004) 25 WRN 1, 17. A violation of this canon is an invasion of the right to fair hearing, Oje v Babalola (1991) 4 NWLR (pt 185) 267; Ugo v Obiekwe (1989) 1 NWLR (pt 99) 566. It has, actually, been elevated to a miscarriage of justice, Owosom Sunmonu (2004) 30 WRN 93, 106-107, Ojo v Anibire (2004) 5 KIR (pt 111) 1205, 1207; Wilson v Wilson {l969) ALR 191”.
ISSUES RAISED SUO MOTU -EFFECT OF WHERE A COURT UNILATERALLY RESOLVES ISSUES RAISED SUO MOTU WITHOUT AFFORDING PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE SAME
“Perhaps, an explanation is necessary here. In the interest of justice, the trial court was entitled to raise issues suo motu, Kraus T. Org, Ltd v UNICAL (2004) 25 WRN 1, 17. However, if it does so and, unilaterally, undertook the resolution of the said issues it raised suo motu without hearing from the parties, it would have erred. This must be so for the law is now, clearly, settled that when a court, for any compelling reason, finds it necessary, and particularly in the interest of justice, to raise a point or issue suo motu, the parties must be given an opportunity to be heard on such a point or issue. This rule applies even with greater force in favour of the party that would be prejudiced as a result of the point raised without the prompting of any of the litigants in the case, Adegoke v Adibi (1992) 5 NWLR (pt 242) 410; Atanda v Lakanmi {1974) 3 SC 109; Odiase v Agho (1972) 3 SC 71; Kraus 7. Org. Ltd v UNICAL (2004) 25 WRN 1, 17.”
ISSUES RAISED SUO MOTU – WHETHER A FAILURE TO AFFORD PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE ISSUES RAISED SUO MOTU BY THE COURT AMOUNTS TO A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
“An infraction of this rule amounts to a flagrant breach of the aggrieved party’s right to fair hearing as entrenched in the Constitution, Oje v Babalola (1991) 4 NWLR (pt 185) 267; Ugo v Obiekwe (1989) 1 NWLR (pt 99) 566, Indeed, it equiponderates to a miscarriage of justice, Owoso v Sunmonu (2004) 30 WRN 93,106-107; meaning, failure of justice, Ojo v Anibire (2004) 5 KLR (pt 177) 1205, 1207 or justice which is not in consonance with the law, Wilson v Wilson (1969) ALR 191 approvingly adopted in Ojo v Anibire (supra) 1214,
RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – STATUS OF PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN BREACH OF A PERSON’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING
“This issue is quite fundamental for it is well settled that-any proceedings conducted in breach of a party’s fundamental right to fair hearing, which is guaranteed by Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, renders the entire proceedings null and void. In Kotoye Vs C.B.N. (19891 1 NWLR (Pt.98) 419 ft 488 C-D it was held thus:
The rule of fair hearing is not a technical doctrine. It is one of substance. The question is not whether injustice has been done because of lack of fair hearing. It is whether a party entitled to be heard before deciding had in fact been given the opportunity of a hearing. The order or judgment thus entered is bound to be set aside. This is because such an order is against the rule of fair hearing, one of the twin pillars of natural justice which is expressed in the maxim: audi alteram partem. See also: A.G. Rivers State Vs Ude & Ors. (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1008) 436: (2006) LPELR-626 (SC) @ 19 B-D;
Odedo Vs P.D.P. (2015)LPELR-24738 (SC)@38-39 C-B; Hon. Justice Titus Adewuyi Oyeyemi (Rtd.) Vs Hon. Timothy Owoeye & Anor, (20171 LPEiR-41903 (SCI @56.”
ISSUES RAISED SUO MOTU – WHETHER IT IS THE FUNCTION OF A COURT TO RAISE ISSUES SUO MOTU NOT CANVASSED IN THE WRITTEN BRIEF OF COUNSEL BEFORE THE COURT
“The law is trite that it is not the function of any court to raise suo motu issues not canvassed in the written brief or oral arguments of counsel before the court to which counsel were not asked to address it on. This court has always frowned at the practice. See Onifade v Olayiwola & ors (1990) LPELR – 2680 (SC), Mojekwu v Iwuchukwu (2004) LPELR – 1903 (SC), Odedo v PDP (2015) LPELR -24738 (SC).”
CASES CITED
OBITER DICTUM- MEANING OF AN OBITER DICTUM“In Omisore and Anor v Aregbesola and Ors [2015] 15 NWLR (pt 1482) 205, this court [per Nweze, JSC] explained that: In Legal Theory, an obiter dictum, in contradistinction to the ratio decidendi of a case, is a Judge’s passing remarks which do not reflect the reasoning of the court or ground upon which a case is decided, Paton and Sawyer, “Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dictum in Appellate Courts” (1947) 63 LQR 461, 481; Rupert Cross, “The Ratio’1 in 20 MLR 124-126; A.. G, Karibi-Whyte, “The Tyranny of Judicial Precedents”, in (1990) Vol.3 No. l Cal. LJ; P. U. Umoh, Precedent in Nigerian Courts (Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishers Ltd, 1984) 208;Nwanna v FCDA and Ors (2004) LPELR 2102 (SC) 12, F-6; Yusuf v. Egbe [1%7] 2 NWLR (pt. 56) 341; Amob v Nzegwu [2013] 12 SCNJ 91.” -PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.CISSUES RAISED SUO MOTU – DUTY OF COURTS WHERE IT RAISES AN ISSUE SUO MOTU“It cannot be otherwise for it is now settled that, where a court raises an issue suo motu, the parties must be afforded the opportunity of offering arguments on it, Odiase v Agho (1972) 3 SC 71; Adegoke v Adibi (1992) 5 NWLR (pt 242) 410; Atanda v Lakanmi (1974) 3 SC 109; Kraus T. Org, LtdM UNICAL (2004) 25 WRN 1, 17. A violation of this canon is an invasion of the right to fair hearing, Oje v Babalola (1991) 4 NWLR (pt 185) 267; Ugo v Obiekwe (1989) 1 NWLR (pt 99) 566. It has, actually, been elevated to a miscarriage of justice, Owosom Sunmonu (2004) 30 WRN 93, 106-107, Ojo v Anibire (2004) 5 KIR (pt 111) 1205, 1207; Wilson v Wilson {l969) ALR 191”. PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C ISSUES RAISED SUO MOTU -EFFECT OF WHERE A COURT UNILATERALLY RESOLVES ISSUES RAISED SUO MOTU WITHOUT AFFORDING PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE SAME“Perhaps, an explanation is necessary here. In the interest of justice, the trial court was entitled to raise issues suo motu, Kraus T. Org, Ltd v UNICAL (2004) 25 WRN 1, 17. However, if it does so and, unilaterally, undertook the resolution of the said issues it raised suo motu without hearing from the parties, it would have erred. This must be so for the law is now, clearly, settled that when a court, for any compelling reason, finds it necessary, and particularly in the interest of justice, to raise a point or issue suo motu, the parties must be given an opportunity to be heard on such a point or issue. This rule applies even with greater force in favour of the party that would be prejudiced as a result of the point raised without the prompting of any of the litigants in the case, Adegoke v Adibi (1992) 5 NWLR (pt 242) 410; Atanda v Lakanmi {1974) 3 SC 109; Odiase v Agho (1972) 3 SC 71; Kraus 7. Org. Ltd v UNICAL (2004) 25 WRN 1, 17.” PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C ISSUES RAISED SUO MOTU – WHETHER A FAILURE TO AFFORD PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE ISSUES RAISED SUO MOTU BY THE COURT AMOUNTS TO A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE“An infraction of this rule amounts to a flagrant breach of the aggrieved party’s right to fair hearing as entrenched in the Constitution, Oje v Babalola (1991) 4 NWLR (pt 185) 267; Ugo v Obiekwe (1989) 1 NWLR (pt 99) 566, Indeed, it equiponderates to a miscarriage of justice, Owoso v Sunmonu (2004) 30 WRN 93,106-107; meaning, failure of justice, Ojo v Anibire (2004) 5 KLR (pt 177) 1205, 1207 or justice which is not in consonance with the law, Wilson v Wilson (1969) ALR 191 approvingly adopted in Ojo v Anibire (supra) 1214, PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – STATUS OF PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN BREACH OF A PERSON’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING “This issue is quite fundamental for it is well settled that-any proceedings conducted in breach of a party’s fundamental right to fair hearing, which is guaranteed by Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, renders the entire proceedings null and void. In Kotoye Vs C.B.N. (19891 1 NWLR (Pt.98) 419 ft 488 C-D it was held thus:The rule of fair hearing is not a technical doctrine. It is one of substance. The question is not whether injustice has been done because of lack of fair hearing. It is whether a party entitled to be heard before deciding had in fact been given the opportunity of a hearing. The order or judgment thus entered is bound to be set aside. This is because such an order is against the rule of fair hearing, one of the twin pillars of natural justice which is expressed in the maxim: audi alteram partem. See also: A.G. Rivers State Vs Ude & Ors. (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1008) 436: (2006) LPELR-626 (SC) @ 19 B-D;Odedo Vs P.D.P. (2015)LPELR-24738 (SC)@38-39 C-B; Hon. Justice Titus Adewuyi Oyeyemi (Rtd.) Vs Hon. Timothy Owoeye & Anor, (20171 LPEiR-41903 (SCI @56.” PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, JSC ISSUES RAISED SUO MOTU – WHETHER IT IS THE FUNCTION OF A COURT TO RAISE ISSUES SUO MOTU NOT CANVASSED IN THE WRITTEN BRIEF OF COUNSEL BEFORE THE COURT“The law is trite that it is not the function of any court to raise suo motu issues not canvassed in the written brief or oral arguments of counsel before the court to which counsel were not asked to address it on. This court has always frowned at the practice. See Onifade v Olayiwola & ors (1990) LPELR – 2680 (SC), Mojekwu v Iwuchukwu (2004) LPELR – 1903 (SC), Odedo v PDP (2015) LPELR -24738 (SC).” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C PRINCIPLE OF FAIR HEARING – STATUS OF A JUDGEMENT OBTAINED AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF FAIR HEARING“It is the law that a judgment obtained against the principle of fair hearing, no matter how well conducted, written and delivered with eloquence, is a nullity. It is not worth more than the paper it is written. See Kotoye v Saraki (1994) LPELR -1708 (SC) (1994) 7 NWLR (pt 357) 414. PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1991 [AJA]
Advanced Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act,2006Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (amended) Criminal Code, Cap. C17, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 2003Federal High Court Act
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT
