Briefly, the facts leading to this appeal are thus: - four persons including the Appellant were charged before the Chief Magistrate's Court, Akpap Okonyong in Odukpani Local Government Area of Cross River State on a four-count charge involving conspiracy to effect unlawful purpose e.g. forcible entry on a parcel of land which was in actual and peaceable possession of one Chief Effiong Andong, malicious damage and threat with intent to intimidate. Their trial commenced on the 12th of May 2000. As at 27th October 2000, three witnesses had given evidence for the prosecution. On the 12th of January 2001, the trial Chief Magistrate dismissed the charge for want of diligent prosecution - the prosecuting counsel was absent. Dissatisfied with the order dismissing the charge, the Appellant (Commissioner of Police) before the appellate High Court appealed therefrom to the High Court, Calabar Judicial Division. On 1st August 2001 when the appeal came up for argument before the appellate High Court, an objection was raised to the appearance of one Ukweni to prosecute the appeal on behalf of the Commissioner of Police on the ground that he had no fiat. The appeal was adjourned from that date to 8th November 2001 presumably to take argument on the objection. There is no record of what transpired in the Court on the 8th of November 2001. But on 8th May 2002, the appearance of Ukweni as a prosecutor in the appeal was disallowed by the appellate High Court until evidence of issuance of fiat to him by the Attorney-General was produced. Meanwhile, on the same date (8th May, 2002), the learned Judge presiding over the High Court sitting on appeal struck out the appeal for non-appearance of the Appellant. The Commissioner of Police, as the Appellant, being dissatisfied with this judgment, appealed to the Court below (the Court of Appeal) which after taking arguments of counsel, which, in a considered judgment delivered on the 29th of November 2004, allowed the appeal of the Commissioner of Police, set aside the decision of the High Court, as an appellate Court, demanding for the revalidation of the fiat issued by the Attorney-General of Cross River State so also was the order striking out the appeal was set aside. The Court below finally pronounced that the appeal was still valid and should be relisted and heard by another Judge as the Chief Judge of Cross River State may so assign.

It is the appeal against the said judgment of the Court below that is now before us.