Alhaji Musa Alubankudi V. Attorney-general of the Federation & Anor (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

CHUKWUMA-ENEH, J.C.A. 

In the Federal High Court, Lagos, the plaintiff/appellant by originating summons raised two questions for determination to wit:

“1. Whether by virtue of section 9 of the Special Tribunal (Miscellaneous Offences) Act, Cap. 410, Laws of the Federation, section 20 of Recovery of Public Property (Special Military Tribunals) Act, Cap 389, Laws of the Federation, 1990, the provisions of the Tribunals (Certain Consequential Amendments e.t.c) Decree 62 of 1999, the coming into effect of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the effect of the non-confirmation of the:

(i) Decision of the Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal holden at Lagos, which decision was delivered by the said tribunal on the 12th day of September, 1997 in charge No. MOT/L/95: Federal Republic of Nigeria, v. I. Alhaji Musa Alubankudi 2. Alhaja Gbemisola Alubankudi Saliu and 3. Alhaja Ronke Alubankudi; and

(ii) The decision of the Special Appeals Tribunal holden at Lagos on 3rd November, 1998, in appeal No. SAT/WO/394/97: Alhaji Musa Alubankudi v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, as the two decisions affect the plaintiff was that the decisions are a nullity.”

In its judgment of 26th May, 2000 of the said Federal High Court presided by Belgore, C.J., the originating summons was dismissed.

The facts of this matter are substantially agreed by the parties. The plaintiff/appellant with his two wives were arraigned before the defunct Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal on two charges of dealing in heroin, a narcotic drug. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 7 years and further ordered to forfeit to the Federal Government of Nigeria all his properties; the wives were however acquitted and discharged on all the counts. The matter went on appeal to the now defunct Special Appeals Tribunal. And again the appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed and the forfeiture of the appellant’s properties confirmed by the said tribunal. The appellant had since served his term. It is after serving his term that the appellant instituted this action contesting the regularity of the decisions of the Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal and the Special Appeal Tribunal against their non-confirmation by the confirming authority of the sentence passed on him as required by law. Hence the two questions raised in the originating summons for determination by the trial court.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Federal High Court on the matter, the plaintiff/appellant has now appealed against the same and had raised four grounds of appeal by the amended notice of appeal filed on 9th July, 2001. The parties have filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument. The appellant has raised the following four issues as arising for determination:

Issue One

“From ground one, the issue that arises is: whether the lower court was right in holding that the case of Governor of Oyo State v. Folayan (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.413) 292 is not applicable to this case.

Issue Two

From ground two of the grounds of appeal, the issue that arises is whether the lower court was right in holding that the only part of the decisions of the Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal and the Special Appeals Tribunal that required confirmation was the sentence.

Issue Three

The issue that arises from ground three of the notice of appeal is whether the lower court was right in holding that the decision in question no longer requires confirmation due to the promulgation of Decree 62 of 1999.