Economic & Financial Crimes Commission V. Barrister Yakubu Mohammed Naallah & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the ruling of the Kano State High Court, delivered by Hon Justice Wada Abubakar Rano on 27/11/2012. The 1st Defendant, Appellant herein, dissatisfied with the decision, filed a Notice of Appeal on 30/11/12 to this Court.

In prosecution of its appeal the Appellant filed a Brief of Arguments on 9/4/13, dated 5/4/13 and settled by Buhari Mohammed Balarabe Esq of the Appellant’s Legal and Prosecution Department. The Respondents, in spite of service on them of the Appellant’s processes, filed no response, neither did they appear in Court. Following an application by the Appellant’s Counsel dated 25/3/15, filed on 27/3/15, leave was granted for hearing of the appeal based on the Appellant’s Brief alone.

This leave, notwithstanding, this appeal shall be determined on its merits.

Learned counsel to the Appellant formulated four issues for determination, to wit:

1. Whether having regards (sic) to the provisions of Section 257 (r) & (s) of the Constitution of the FRN 1999 as Amended and the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Osakue v.

1

Fed college of Education Asaba (2010) vol.3 (pt IV) M.I.S.C 103; (2010) 10 NWLR (pt 1207) 1. SC; (2010) AEWLR pt. 522 SC 1601; NEPA V. Mr. B. Edegbero & 15 Ors (2002) 12 NWLR (pt.798) @ 79; NIMR v. Akin-Olugbade (2008) 5 NWLR pt.1029 @ p. 68; and A.G Abia State v. A.G Federation (2007) 6 NWLR pt.1079, the trial Court was right in assuming jurisdiction to hear the suit filed by the 1st Respondent against the Appellant which was a suit seeking for injunction and declarations against the executive and administrative actions of the appellant.

2. Whether in the light of the unchallenged and uncontroverted depositions in the Appellants Affidavit attached to its Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 25/1/11 and filed on 31/1/11 particularly paragraph 2 (a)-(I) the lower Court rightly and correctly came to the conclusion that it had jurisdiction.
3. Whether the learned trial judge erred in law when he held that “looking at the Courts record, this Court had already pronounced on this issue raised by the 2nd and 3rd defendants, as per ruling of this Court dated 2/11/10 as I am bound by the said ruling, this application by the 1st defendant is refused”.<br< p=””

</br<

2

4. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in adopting his ruling made on the 2/11/10 without analyzing and scrutinizing the authorities submitted by the Appellant.

For a proper formulation of the issues that arise for determination in this appeal, it is necessary to set out, at this juncture, the facts of this case.

The 1st Respondent, in this case, Yakubu Muhammad Naallah, as Plaintiff before the lower Court, instituted an action against the Appellant, as 1st Defendant, Murtala Yusuf Esq as 2nd Defendant, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents as 3rd and 4th Defendants, seeking, by his Statement of Claim dated 17/11/09, the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that the act of the 1st Defendant in arresting and detaining the Plaintiff is ultra vires the powers of the commission and therefore unlawful.
2. A declaration that the 1st Defendant is not established to assess the professional fees of a Legal Practitioner.
3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from further tampering with the Plaintiffs Constitutional rights under Sections 34, 35, 37 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.<br< p=””

</br<

3

4. An order directing the 1st Defendant to pay the sum of N50,000,000 as special damages to the Plaintiff.

From the Record of Appeal, at the Pre Trial Conference session held on 27/11/12, the Court was informed by the Appellant’s Counsel of the Preliminary Objection filed by them, dated 25/1/11 contesting the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the suit. The 1st Respondent’s Counsel (Plaintiff therein), opposing the bid by Counsel to move the application, submitted to the Court that the Preliminary Objection was an abuse of the Court’s process as the Court had ruled on the same issue previously, urging the Court to strike out the application. The Court held itself bound by its previous Ruling and refused the application. It is against this refusal, that the present appeal has been filed.