n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

REV. FR. Nweke V. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (2019) CLR 3(n) (SC)

Judgement delivered on March 8th 2019

Brief

  • Federal High Court
  • EFCC
  • Affidavits and motions
  • Jurisdiction
  • Abuse of court process
  • S. 8(a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related offences Act 2006
  • S.1(1)(b) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related offences Act 2006
  • S. 3 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related offences Act 2006
  • S. 14 of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006
  • S. 14 of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006
  • S. 1 of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006
  • S. 6 of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006
  • S. 7 of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006
  • S. 12 of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006
  • Section 1 (1) (b) (1) of the Dishonoured Cheques (Offences) Act 2007
  • Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 6 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act 2004
  • Section 7 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act 2004
  • Section 7(2) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act 2004
  • Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 272 of the 1999 Constitution

Facts

The Appellant alongside one Rev. Dr. E. C. Obiorah were arraigned at the Federal High Court Awka on offences bordering on conspiracy, obtaining by false pretence contrary to Sections 8(a),1(1) (b) and 3 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related offences Act, 2006. They were also charged with issuance of dud cheque, an offence punishable under Section 1 (1) (b) (1) of the Dishonoured Cheques (Offences) Act Cap DII Law of the Federation of Nigeria 2007. The Appellant and his co-accused were arraigned before the trial Court on 4th February 2011 for their plea. The charges were read to them but they refused to enter their plea. The matter was adjourned to a later date but before that date, the appellant and his co-accused filed a notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court on the following grounds:

  • 1
    The respondent has no competence and authority to institute the proceedings;
  • 2
    The arrests and detentions of the applicants upon which this proceeding is predicated is unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful;
  • 3
    This charge is brought in bad faith and is a malicious criminalization of the applicants in order for the respondent's EFCC to collect private debts from the applicants in favour of the complainants;
  • 4
    The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter which is malicious conversion of a private debt collection exercise into criminal offences;
  • 5
    The arrests, detentions, undertakings and bail bonds and arraignment notices founding this proceedings, the instant charge and entire proceedings, were commenced and continued in contempt of the orders of Courts of competent jurisdiction, in suit No A/MISC.155/2008, suit No. A/MISC.53/2009 and suit No. FHC/AWK/157/2009;
  • 6
    The present proceedings, including the charge filed herein, constitutes an abuse of Court process;
  • 7
    The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the person of the applicants.
  • 8
    The respondent has no probable or reasonable cause to bring this charge against any of the applicants.
  • 9
    The entire proceedings being instituted herein are incompetent.
  • 10
    The institution and continuation of the proceedings are unconstitutional, null and void."

This was backed up with an affidavit. The Respondent herein filed a counter affidavit of 18 paragraphs and a written address.

On 11th November, 2011, the learned Trial Judge delivered his ruling on the preliminary objection and held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The preliminary objection was thus dismissed. Dissatisfied with the dismissal of his objection, each accused filed notice of appeal at the Court below challenging the decision of the trial Court.

The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 2nd June, 2016 wherein the appeal succeeded partially and the Court below set aside the ruling of the learned trial Judge. It ordered that the case be remitted to the trial Court for trial de novo before another Judge.

Further being dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court, the appellant has appealed to this Court

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to try the Appellant on the...

Read More