Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Metuh V. FRN (2018) CLR 2(b) (SC)

Judgement delivered on February 9, 2018

Brief

  • Right of Appeal
  • Leave to Appeal
  • Appeal as of right
  • Section 242(1) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 241(1) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 241(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 241(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 241(1)(c) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 241(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 241(1)(e) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 241(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 241(2) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 233(2) of the 1999 Constitution

Facts

The appellants in the two appeals stand trial at the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, hereinafter referred to as the trial court, or a seven count money laundering charge. On their arraignment, they pleaded not guilty to the charge. The respondent led eight witnesses through whom several documents were admitted in evidence to establish its case against the appellants. At the close of the respondent's case, the appellants made a no case submission and urged the trial court to discharge them. In a considered ruling delivered on the 9th March 2016, the trial court dismissed appellants' no case submission and ordered them to enter their defence.

Aggrieved by the trial court's dismissal of their no case submission, the appellants separately filed their notices of appeal, containing the same grounds, against the ruling on 23 March 2016 at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, hereinafter referred to as the lower court. The appellants urged the lower court to determine their appeals by resolving the five issues distilled in their respective briefs. The sole issue distilled by the respondent as having arisen for the determination of the appeals which the lower court preferred and resolved in its determination of the two appeals before it reads:

"Whether the trial court was right in holding that the Respondent (prosecution) had made out a prima facie case against the Appellants (Defendants) to warrant their being called upon to enter their defence."

The respondent had earlier filed a preliminary objection against the competence of the appeals and prayed the lower court to determine same on the basis of its lone issue there from that reads:

"Whether the notices of appeal of the appellants against the ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja on the no case submission filed without leave of the court is competent."

Notwithstanding the fact of its upholding respondent's preliminary objection the lower court, being the penultimate court, all the same resolved the lone issue it preferred in the determination of the appeal in favour of the respondent and dismissed the appeals. The court's decision is dated 25 May 2016. The appellants have further appealed to this Court.

  • 1.
    The application to set aside the order should have been refused because of the delay of over two months by the applicant in moving to set it aside.
  • 2.
    Upon all the facts before the Court of Appeal, it was evident that counsel instructed by Messrs. Kehinde Sofola and Company had appeared before the Federal High Court on behalf of D. A. Migliore, A. Mangili and C. Mangili. Consequently, it was quite proper for the Court of Appeal (a different panel) to order, as it did on 17th April, 1985, that service of the notice of appeal be upon Messrs. Kehinde Sofola and Co., in accordance with the provisions of the Court of Appeal rules.
  • 3.
    The Court of Appeal erroneously took the view that the mere fact that service was directed to be effected on the solicitors meant that the solicitors were compelled to act for the parties involved."

Issues

  • Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were wrong when they...
Read More