Osude Brothers (Nig.) Ltd V. Miss Veronica Onome Uvieghara & Anor (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling of O. Aina. J of the Federal High Court Benin City delivered on the 6th December 1999 in suit No.FHC/B/P/5/98 upon a Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the ‘Respondents with respect to an application for committal for contempt filed by the Appellant. The facts and circumstances leading to this appeal are briefly set out as follows – The Respondents filed a petition dated 8th January 1998 and filed on the 14th January 1998 in which they sought from the Federal High Court for an order inter alia the winding up of the Appellant. While the petition for winding up of the Appellant was still pending, the Appellant filed a motion on Notice for the committal of the Respondents to prison for contempt of the lower court in allegedly sending a petition to the then Presidential Task force on Financial crimes. It was alleged by the Appellant that while the petition for winding up was still pending in the Federal High Court, the Managing Director of the Appellant Mr. Dominic Uvieghara was apprehended at gun point at his home in Warri Delta State and taken to Lagos by men who claimed to be operatives of the presidential task force on financial crimes, the 2nd Respondent having acted as pointer to them. The petition to the task force was alleged to have been written by the 1st Respondent. All this the Appellant saw as brazen disrespect to the court. The allegations were denied by the Respondents but the Appellant went on to initiate committal proceedings against them. The Respondents then filed a Notice of preliminary objection to the committal proceedings on the ground that due process was not observed in initiating the said proceedings. The lower court heard the application for committal filed by the Appellant and in a considered ruling delivered on the 6th December 1999 dismissed same. Dissatisfied with the lower court’s ruling, the Appellant has appealed to this court by an amended Notice of Appeal dated the 31st May 2000 which can be found at pages 42-45 of the Record of proceedings and is reproduced hereunder

“AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL

TAKE NOTICE that t he Applicant Appellant being dissatisfied with the Ruling of the Honourable Justice O. Aina contained in the Ruling of the Federal High Court, Benin City delivered on 6th December 1999 do hereby appeal tot he Court of Appeal, Benin City upon the grounds set out in paragraph 3 of this Notice of Appeal. AND the Appellant further states that the names and addresses of the persons affected by this appeal are those set out in paragraph 5 of this Notice of Appeal.

2. PART OF THE DECEISION OF THE LOWER COURT COMPLAINED OF: The whole Ruling.
3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL

(i) The learned trial judge erred in law and denied the Appellant fair hearing in failing to consider and reach a determination on the submissions of Appellant’s counsel to the effect that there may be contempt in the face of the court even in circumstances where the judge did not see nor have personal knowledge of the facts allegedly constituting the contempt.

PARTICULARS

(a) The submission on the point were sine-qua-non for determining whether or not the acts alleged against the Respondents amounts to contempt in the face of the Court.

(b) The learned trial judge was enjoined to consider and reach a determination on these submissions.

(c ) The learned trial judge failed to resolve these submissions before holding the acts of contempt alleged against the Respondents were not in the face of the Court.

(d) The contempt alleged was in the face of the Court.

(ii) The learned trial judge erred in law and denied the Appellant a fair-hearing in holding that since the application for committal of the Respondents to prison are not due to acts or conduct in the face of the Court for which summary trial could be ordered by the Court, the procedure adopted by the Applicant (now Appellant) on the authorities available, the Respondents have been formally charged, arrested and prosecuted.

PARTICUALRS

(a) The holding ignored the submission of Appellant’s counsel to the effect that the Court had power to punish summarily even if the contempt is not in the face of the Court.

(b) The submission on this point were a sine-qua-non for determination whether the Court had the power to try the alleged acts of contempt summarily.