Adeyemi Candide-johnson V. Mrs. Esther Edigin (1990)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ACHIKE, J.C.A.

On 22nd December, 1987, at the Chief Magistrate Court No.8, Kano, presided over by Her Worship, Mrs. Esther A. Edigin, Ag. Chief Magistrate, Grade 2, Mr. Adeyemi Candide-Johnson appeared in that court as counsel to the accused in the case of Commissioner of Police v. Obong Etukurem, KA/70CB/87. Consequent to what transpired at the said court, Her Worship ordered the detention of Mr. Candide-Johnson for a couple of minutes at the cell. Having obtained prior leave of the Court by Ex parte Motion, Mr. Candide-Johnson, as applicant, moved the Federal High Court Kano by Motion on Notice for redress for the breach of his fundamental rights on the grounds set out in the copy of the Statement in support of the application. The amended Statement in its paragraph 4 contained the following reliefs:

“1. An order to remove the purported second proceedings of the 22nd day of December, 1987 for the purpose of the said proceedings and the purported order of commitment (sic) and all such other orders affecting the liberty of the applicant, being quashed.

2. An order that the respondent make full apology in writing to the applicant.
3. Damages for deprivation of liberty.”

The application was supported by an affidavit and exhibits used in the motion ex parte as well as a further affidavit to which was attached a certified record of the proceedings, Exhibit ACJ “A” The application was opposed by an eighteen paragraph counter-affidavit deposed to by Her Worship, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, which was supported by yet another affidavit deposed to by one Idris Abubakar, the clerk of Court to the Chief Magistrate’s Court No.8, Kano.

After due consideration of affidavit evidence of the parties including submissions of counsel, Kolo, J., of the Federal High Court, Kano Division dismissed the application in its entirety in a Ruling handed down on 3rd May, 1988. It is against this ruling that the applicant, hereinafter referred to as appellant, has appealed to this court having filed four grounds of appeal.

Parties duly filed and exchanged briefs of argument. At the hearing before us, Mr. J. B. Majiyagbe, S.A.N., appearing with D. I. Daneji, Esq., adopted appellant’s brief and adumbrated briefly. The learned Senior Advocate first drew attention to pages 62 and 63 of the record of proceedings which were originally omitted but subsequently added as forming part of the record of proceedings. Furthermore, learned counsel drew attention to the concession made at page 38 of the record of proceedings on behalf of the respondent by her counsel. Specifically, at page 38, lines 9 to 12, counsel stated:

“I shall finally urge the court to dismiss this application in so far as it relates to grounds 4(2) & 4(3) while we concede to grounds (4(1) that that part of the record be quashed accordingly as it relates to the detention.”

Mr. A. B. Mamoud, learned Ag. Director of Civil Litigations, appearing with Tijani Yahaya, ADCL, for the respondent, adopted respondent’s brief and also made a brief further oral submission. Learned counsel stressed that there was no conviction of appellant by the respondent but rather he was detained as a result of the altercation. He further submitted that “if appellant was not insisting on apology and damages (i.e. reliefs 4(2) and 4(3) he had no objection to the matter being quashed.”

He finally referred to respondent’s brief at page 1 which, according to him, indicated the only questions for determination in this appeal.

The learned Senior Advocate in reply submitted that section 315 of the C.P.C. did not apply to the case in hand and cited Agbegende v. Ilorin Native Authority (1968) N.M.L.R. 144 and Richardson on the Annotated Notes on the Penal Code in support of his contention. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent (Magistrate) had signed off the sitting of the day before the altercation between her and the appellant ensued – refers to page 62 of the record – and cites Prophet Malim Sheriff Kafola v. Commissioner of Police (1973) 9 – 11 S.C. 110 in support.

Mr. Mahmoud interpolated by referring to section 91 of the Kano State Magistrate’s Court Edict 1986, No.8 of 1987 as affording ample immunity to the respondent and also cites Egbe v. Adefarasin (1985) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.3) 549, particularly the lead judgment of Karibi-Whyte, J.S.C., wherein it is shown that there is no difference today between the immunity enjoyed by the Magistrate and a Judge of the High Court. Counsel concluded by referring to section 115 of the High Court Law of Kano State which protects Judges of the superior court as being in pari materia to section 91 of the Kano State Magistrate. Court Edict and urged us to dismiss the appeal.

Mr. Majiyagbe finally concluded by referring to pages 18 to 21 of appellant’s brief and said that it adequately answered the submission of Mr. Mahmoud, placing reliance on Ransome- Kuti v. A.G. of Federation (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.6) 211, and accordingly urged that the appeal be allowed.

Both parties in their briefs respectively set out three and five issues for determination. With due respect to learned counsel, but in order to promote greater degree of clarity, I shall examine this appeal under four issues:

1. Whether the conduct of the appellant in the proceedings in the case before the learned trial Magistrate (the respondent) was contemptuous.
2. Whether the act or order of the respondent was protected under any law.
3. Whether having regard to the evidence before the trial Judge his findings were perverse or supportable.
4. Whether the rights enshrined under chapter IV of the 1979 Constitution were available to the appellant.

It is proposed to deal with these issues in the above order.