Alhassan Auwalu V. Federal Republic of Nigeria & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja delivered on the 20th of April, 2015, dismissing the appellant?s motion to quash the charge against him on the following grounds, shorn of their particulars:
”GROUND ONE:
The learned trial judge erred in law and acted without Jurisdiction when he dismissed the appellant?s application dated 16th March, 2015 and assumed jurisdiction to try the appellant on the charge filed and served before the leave to prefer same was obtained by the Prosecutor.
GROUND TWO:
The learned trial judge erred in law and acted without jurisdiction when after dismissing the Appellant?s objection to quash the charge he ruled that the Appellant should face the two counts on the charge thereby breached the appellant?s right to fair hearing and fair criminal trial.
GROUND THREE:
The learned trial judge erred in law and thereby breached the Appellant’s right to fair hearing when he dismissed the appellant’s application to quash charge against him, when he

1

ruled on the second ground of the objection that it was premature at that stage.
GROUND FOUR:
The learned trial judge erred in law and came to a wrong decision by summarily dismissing the Appellant’s application to quash the charge against him without considering and pronouncing on the grounds that is ground (ii) of the application and submission of counsel.
GROUND FIVE
The learned trial judge erred in law and thereby breached the appellants right to far hearing when he dismissed the appellants application to quash the charge against him, brought under a non-existing law.?

?From these grounds the following issue were formulated for determination for the appellant:
1. Whether the learned trial judge was nor in error, when after misconceiving ground 3 of the Appellant?s Motion on Notice to quash the charge before him by equating “Commencement of Criminal proceedings” with “Commencement of Trial” he assumed jurisdiction to try the Appellant in the face of the overwhelming evidence of fundamental constitutional irregularity in the commencement of the proceedings before him (Ground 1 and 2 of the Notice of Appeal).
2.

2

Was the learned trial judge right in holding that the second leg of the Appellant?s Motion touching on want of prima-facie for him to be tried should await the stage of No-case submission and in any event, on a dispassionate consideration of the totality of the proofs of evidence in support of the charge is any prima-facie case disclosed to warrant the trial of the Appellant? (Grounds 3 and 4).
3. Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 is an existing taw in the face of Section 55 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, Cap C31, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 (Ground 5 of the Notice of Appeal).

The 1st respondent also formulated three issues for determination which are fundamentally the same with those formulated by the appellant and for reasons of clarity and brevity this appeal will be determined on those issues. They are as follows:
a. Whether the trial Court had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter the way it did considering the procedure for commencement of the trial adopted by the prosecution.
b. Whether the

3

Charge and proofs of Evidence before the trial Court disclose any prima facie case against the Appellant to warrant the grant of leave and arraignment of the appellant.
c. Whether the Corrupt Practice and Other Related Offences Act 2000 has been successfully repealed by Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2003.

The 1st respondent filed a Notice of preliminary Objection pursuant to Order 17 Rules 3 and 6 of the Rules of Court and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the following grounds:
1. The appellant filed and served on the respondent a Notice of Appeal intending to challenge the ruling delivered on the 20th of April, 2015 by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Coram Honourable Justice M.B. Idris.
2. The appellant did not first seek leave of the trial Court nor that of this Honourable Court before filing the Notice of Appeal dated April 23rd 2015.
3. That the grounds of appeal numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Notice of Appeal are both mixed law and facts.
4. The Notice of Appeal is arising from an interlocutory decision of the trial Court.
5. That grounds number 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Notice of

4

Appeal dated April 23rd 2015 are incompetent by virtue of non-compliance with Order 17 Rules 3 and 6 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011.

Learned counsel for the 1st respondent formulated a sole issue for determination as:
”Whether the appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated and filed on the 23rd of April, 2013 without leave is competent.”