Alfred Ifeacho Vs Board Of Custom And Excise (1966)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BAIRAMIAN, J.S.C. 

The appellant, who elected to be tried summarily, was tried by Magistrate Ojomo on three counts laid under the Customs and Excise Management Act of 1958, and was convicted on them all. On appeal to the High Court of Lagos, Taylor C.J., allowed his appeal on count 2 but dismissed it on counts I and 3 on 11th October, 1965 (LD/35 CA/65). And from that dismissal he has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Count 1 alleged that on 25 March, 1965 at Apapa the defendant, a disembarking passenger from the M. V. Aureol, failed to declare at the Customs Baggage Hall that he had imported as baggage certain dutiable goods, it was laid under section 66(3).

Count 3 alleged that at Apapa Wharf, in Berth 6, he knowingly and with intent to defraud the Federal Government of the customs duty payable on certain goods chargeable with duty which had not been paid was concerned in carrying them in a car; it was laid under s. 145(a).

The objections made are objections of law. The first, based on section 157, subsection (2), is that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear the charge because neither of the requirements of the subsection was satisfied: (a) the defendant did not specifically consent to be tried for the customs offences charged; or (b) the Board did not sanction the continuation of the proceedings, but this sanction is, according to the argument, required even where the proceedings have been instituted by the Board, as indicated by the concluding words of subsection (4); and, moreover, (c) there was no evidence that the proceedings were instituted by the Board.

It is unfortunate that in the typed copies of the record the signature below the charge was not copied. We have called for the original charge-sheet, which has below the counts a manuscript signature and below that these words in typescript –“J. W. Amoni By the order of the Board of Customs and Excise.” That satisfies the provision in section 166, subsection (1) (a) that-

“An averment in any process in proceedings under the customs or excise laws-

(a) that those proceedings were instituted by the order of the Board shall unless the contrary be proved be sufficient evidence of the matter in question.”

At the trial the defendant’s learned counsel raised no question on that matter.

We now pass to section 157; it reads as follows:

“157. (1) Where by or under any provision of the customs or excise laws a fine or imprisonment is prescribed for any offence such fine or imprisonment shall be enforceable by the ordinary procedure applicable in respect of criminal matters in the place in Nigeria where the proceedings are brought.

(2) A court shall not, except with the consent of the person charged, proceed to hear any charge in respect of an offence under any provision of the customs or excise laws unless the continuation of such proceedings is sanctioned by the Board.

(3) No proceedings shall be instituted except within seven years of the date of the commission of the offence.

(4) Nothing in subsection (2) shall prevent the institution of proceedings for an offence under the customs or excise laws by or in the name of the Attorney-General of the Federation in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of Nigeria in any case in which he thinks it proper that proceedings should be so instituted, or the continuation of proceedings so instituted.”