Charles Umezinne V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C. 

At the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, the appellant, [as accused person], was charged with sundry offences under the Counterfeit and Fake Drugs and Unwholesome Processed Foods (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Cap 34 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and under the Foods Drugs and Related Products (Registration Etc), Cap 133, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. Emeka Oji, the Chief Legal Officer of the respondent, at the time, on behalf of the Attorney General of the Federation, signed the Charge Sheet.

On February 16, 2016, the appellant objected to the Charge on two grounds, namely, that the said Charge, which Emeka Oji signed for himself and on behalf the Attorney General of the Federation, was incompetent and irregular. The other ground was that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain it. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, in their respective Rulings, dismissed the objection.

The appellants further appeal to this Court was, equally, greeted with a Preliminary Objection. In the Preliminary

1

Objection before this Court, it was contended that the appeal was incompetent on the ground that the Notice of Appeal was signed by counsel contrary to the stipulation in Order 16 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007, applicable at the time the Notice of Appeal was filed.

At the hearing of the appeal on October 3, 2018, while counsel for the appellant adopted the brief of argument filed on December 1, 2014 and deemed properly filed on June 1, 2017, the respondent’s counsel drew attention to the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on January 20, 2016, argued in the respondent’s brief, paragraphs 2.0 3.10, pages 2 4 of the brief.

ARGUMENTS ON THE OBJECTION

RESPONDENT/OBJECTOR’S SUBMISSIONS

Learned counsel for the respondent adopted the arguments on pages 2 4; paragraphs 3.1 3.10 of the respondent’s brief. Citing Order 16 Rule 4 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007, he submitted that the provision is clear, unambiguous and mandatory. He drew attention to the Notice of Appeal dated October 19, 2006. The said Notice, he pointed out, was signed by Babatunde Kehinde, counsel to the applicant.

2

In effect, he argued, the said Notice was not signed by the accused person.

In his submission, any defect in a Notice of Appeal will render the whole appeal incompetent. Hence, the appellate Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain either the appeal or any interlocutory application based on the said appeal, Olowokere v African Newspapers [1993] 5 NWLR (pt 295) 583; Olanrewaju v B.O. N. Ltd [1994] NWLR (pt 364) 622.

He pointed out that the signing of a Notice of Appeal in a criminal appeal by the appellant himself has always been treated as a fundamental issue of jurisdiction which cannot be waived or compromised by the parties, Uwazurike and Ors v The AG, Federation [2007] 8 NWLR (pt 1035) 1, 17. He submitted that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage in the proceedings, even for the first time, at the Supreme Court. Indeed, the Court can also raise it suo motu, Ejiofodomi v Okonkwo [1982] 11 SC 74; Swiss Air Transport Co Ltd v African Continental Bank Ltd [1971] 1 All NLR 37; Ezomo v Oyakhire [1985] 1 NWLR (pt 2) 195; Galadima v Tambai [2000] 11 NWLR (pt 677) 1; SLB Consortium Ltd v NNPC [2011] 9 NWLR (pt 1252) 317;