Walter Wagbatsoma Vs Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C.

The appellant in this appeal and four other defendants were arraigned, on Information, before the High Court of Lagos State for the offences of obtaining money by false pretence under Section 1 of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006; forgery and uttering under the Criminal Code, Cap. C17, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 2003 and conspiracy to commit the said offences.

Sequel to their non-guilty plea, the case went to trial. The Prosecutions case was woven around the testimonies of twelve witnesses and seventy-one exhibits. At the end of the prosecutions case, the appellant and the other defendants, by their No Case Submission, contended that the Prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case against them; worse still, that the said High Court (hereinafter, simply, referred to as the trial Court) had no jurisdiction to entertain the case having regard to Sections 251 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as amended) (hereinafter, simply, referred to as the Constitution) and

1

Section 1, 2 and 19 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, [AJA].

In its Ruling, the trial Court dismissed the No Case Submission. It held that it had the requisite jurisdiction to try the offences of obtaining property by false pretences, forgery, uttering and conspiracy. It proceeded to strike down the provisions of Section 19 of the AJA. The appellants appeal to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, (hereinafter, simply, called the lower Court) was unsuccessful. The lower Court, however, found that, in striking down Section 19 of the AJA, the Ruling breached the appellants right to fair hearing. It nevertheless, declined to set aside the ruling of the trial Court.

Aggrieved by the said judgment of the lower Court, the appellant approached this Court entreating it to resolve his three issues couched thus:

1. Having regard to the lower Courts finding that the trial Court breached the principle of fair hearing in striking down Section 19 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, whether the lower Court was not in grave error and so acted without jurisdiction when it thereafter failed to set aside the trial

2

Courts Ruling

2. Having regard to the clear provisions of Section 251 (1) (a), (g), (n), (s) and (3) of the Constitution, Section 8 (1) of the Federal High Court Act (FHC Act), Sections 1, 2, 19 and 25 of the AJA vis-a-vis the information preferred against the appellant at the trial Court, as well as the evidence adduced by the Prosecution, whether the lower Court was not in grave error in holding that the trial Court rightly assumed jurisdiction on the Information dated 20th July 2012
3. Whether the lower Court was not in error when it failed to be bound and to follow the decision of this Honourable Court in George v FRN [2014] 5 NWLR (pt 1399) 1 and its own decisions in Okey Nwosu v FRN – Appeal No: CA/L/601/11 delivered on 21st November, 2013 and Akingbola v FRN – Appeal No: CA/L/490/14 delivered on 31st December, 2014

On his part, learned senior counsel for the respondent, Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, subsumed the above three issues into only one which he framed thus:

Whether the Court of Appeal was not right in upholding the decision of the High Court of Lagos State that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the Information

3

contained in Charge No: ID/115C/2012 bordering on the offences of obtaining money by false pretence under the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006, forgery, uttering and conspiracy under Sections 467 and 468 of the Criminal Code Cap. C17, volume 2, Laws of Lagos State, Nigeria, 2003

The respondents approach notwithstanding, this appeal would be determined based on the issues which the appellant set out above. However, the consideration of issues two and three would abide the determination of the first issue. If this issue [issue one] is resolved in his favour, there would no need broaching the other issues.