➥ CASE SUMMARY OF:
Christopher Okwara Mbah V The State (2014)
by Branham Chima (LL.B.)
➥ SUBJECT MATTER(S)
Jurisdiction to try criminal offence;
Patrick Njovens v. State;
Entering of another State gives that court jurisdiction.
➥ CASE FACT/HISTORY
The facts of the case before the trial court (High Court of Justice of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja) are, as herein below stated, briefly: in the month of October, 2001, unknown gun men allegedly invaded the Abuja residence of Dr. (Mrs.) Dorathy Akunyili, ostensibly for the purpose of firing gunshots at her. They did not succeed. Then on the 26th of December, 2003, Dr. [Mrs.] Dora Akunyili was allegedly attacked by gun men at AGULU, Anambra State. Names of persons suspected to have participated in the attempt to assassinate the former Director of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) were given as follows: Francis C. Okoye (a.k.a Ebubedike) Emmanuel Nnamdi Nnakwe (a.k.a. Aboy) Marcel Nnakwe Emeka Orjiakor Christopher Okwara Mbah (a.k.a. Persus) Olisa Emeka Igbokwe (a.k.a. Holy War) and Jude Ugwu (a.k.a. Agada). The Attorney-General of the Federation gave a fiat to the firm of Chief Afe Babalola to prosecute the persons suspected to have participated in the assassination attempt. An ex-parte application was filed accordingly by the said firm for leave to prefer a charge against the suspects for arraignment before the trial court. Leave to prefer the charge was granted.
➥ ISSUE(S)
I. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja has jurisdiction to entertain the offences alleged in counts 3 and 4 of the charge preferred against the appellants?
➥ RESOLUTION(S) OF ISSUES
[APPEAL DISMISSED]
↪️ ISSUE 1: IN RESPONDENT’S FAVOUR.
[THE APPELLANT CAME INTO THE FCT JURISDICTION, AND THUS CAN BE TRIED BY THE FCT HIGH COURT HAVING JURISDICTION
‘Firstly, it is in evidence that all the accused persons including the appellant entered into the jurisdiction of the FCT. PW17, in his testimony, stated as follows: “I know all the accused persons as I have come across them during investigation. 1st accused was forwarded to the SSS by the Police Headquarters, Abuja, he remained with the SSS during the period of investigation and up to the time he was arraigned before this court similarly, the 2nd accused, 3rd accused, 4th accused but 5th accused reported himself to our office at Okar after he was declared wanted from where he was brought to Abuja, which the 8th accused was arrested by the SSS when he tried to distract the SSS from carrying out their duties in the investigation”. This evidence was neither contradicted or denied by the appellant. This means that the appellant and the remaining accused persons, In one way or the other, entered into the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, before they were charged to the FCT High Court to answer the charges preferred against them. In Njoven’s case, this court adopted the submission of learned Director of Public Prosecution that any mode of entry is sufficient for the purpose of the section and that even if the accused persons were kidnapped and brought into the state, they have indeed entered the state within the meaning and intent of the provisions of section 4(2)(b) of the Penal Code.’
‘I think the learned trial judge was carried away by the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents before that Court, who concluded that no elements of the offences were shown to have taken place in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and the High Court in Abuja could not assume jurisdiction over the matter. The Court below, however, per ADEKEYE, JCA. [as she then was] made a finding and held as follows: “Since the four counts on the charge are offences committed in the course of the same transaction and in pursuance of some purpose which is to assassinate pw1. With the community reading of Section 4[2][b] of the Penal Code Cap 532 Laws of the Federation, 1990; Section 134[a],[b], [c] and [d] of the Criminal procedure Act Cap.491 Laws of the Federation 1990, and Section 301 of the 1999 Constitution the honourable Attorney General can validly issue the FIAT dated the 10th of September, 2014 to the Law Firm of Chief Afe Babalola [SAN] & Co. to prosecute the respondent here at the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. I also hold that the Federal Capital Territory High Court Abuja can assume jurisdiction over this matter.” I agree with the Court below in its decision as above. I also agree with the learned Counsel for the respondent in his submission that as counts 1 and 2 of the charge sheet were allegedly committed within the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, there is, therefore, a nexus between counts 1 and 2 and counts 3 and 4. They were all transactions/offences committed in the course of the same transaction and in pursuance of same purpose, which was to assassinate Pw1, Dr. Dora Akunyili. By virtue of the provision of Section 221[d] of the Criminal procedure Code, persons may be charged and tried together who were accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction, and the purpose here, in this appeal, being to kill Pw1. Further, since there is nexus between counts 1 and 2 and 3 and 4, it is clear from the proof of evidence [pages 6-9 and 14 – 16 of Vol. one of the Record of Appeal] of Pws’ 1 and 12 that the offences in counts 1 and 2 were said to have been committed in the Federal Capital Territory Abuja. Thus, the implication is that the offences of conspiracy and attempted murder were all hatched in the Federal Capital Territory Abuja.’]
.
.
.
.
✓ DECISION:
‘In the final analysis, I find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed, hereby, by me. I affirm the decision of the Court below that the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, has jurisdiction to continue to entertain counts 3 and 4 on the charge and complete the case on its merit. Hearing in this Criminal matter should without further delay, continue in respect of the said counts.’
➥ FURTHER DICTA:
⦿ IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
JURISDICTION, it is said, my lords, is the life-wire of litigation. It is the authority which a court has to decide matters before it or to take cognizance of matters presented before it for decision. See: Ndaeyo v. Ogunnaya (1977) 1 SC 11, Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal v. Okafor (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt.745) 295 at p.326 – 327 H – A. Where a court, whether inferior or superior, lacks it, it cannot entertain the matter, civil or criminal, sought to be placed before it for litigation as the defect in jurisdiction is fatal to the proceedings however well conducted and is extrinsic to the adjudication. See; Utih v. Onayivwe (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt.166) 166. Thus, in a criminal matter, the fundamental question to be considered by the trial court at that initial stage of the proceedings, especially where there is objection to the jurisdiction of the court, is not whether the prosecution’s case has merit but whether the accused person is in the right court, In the locus classicus case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR, 341, the ingredients of jurisdiction of a court have, generally, been stated as follows: that a court has the necessary competence to exercise jurisdiction in a cause or matter if: (a) it is properly constituted with respect to the number and qualification of its membership (b) the subject matter of the action is within its jurisdiction; (c) the action is initiated by due process of law; and (d) any condition to the exercise of its jurisdiction has been fulfilled. See also: Utih v. Onayivwe (supra). — Muhammad JSC.
➥ LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:
I.T. Muhammad, J.S.C.
➥ APPEARANCES
⦿ FOR THE APPELLANT(S)
Mr. Ojuwa.
⦿ FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
Mr. Akomalafe.
➥ MISCELLANEOUS POINTS
➥ REFERENCED (LEGISLATION)
➥ REFERENCED (CASE)
➥ REFERENCED (OTHERS)
