Aliyu N. Salihu & Ors V. Road Transport Employers Association Of Nigeria & Ors (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA G. MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Kaduna State in Suit No.KDH/KAD/19CA/2005, delivered on 25th May, 2006 by Hon. Justices H. A. L. Balogun and I. Aliyu, sitting in appellate jurisdiction over the decision of the Learned Chief Magistrate No. 2, Ibrahim Taiwo Road, Kaduna, wherein their lordships dismissed the appeal of the Appellants herein against the decision of learned Chief Magistrate, who had earlier held that he had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint brought against the Accused/Appellants and had dismissed their preliminary objection on 14/6/2005.

Appellants were charged at the Chief Magistrate’s Court on 8/4/2005, for criminal conspiracy, trespass and theft, contrary to sections 97, 286, 287 and 343 of the Penal Code Law, Cap 110 Laws of Kaduna State 1991. The Accused/Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. Appellants, as accused persons, filed a preliminary objection to the trial on 5/5/2005, challenging the competence of the complaint.

Their reason was that the Complainants (Respondents) were not competent to file the case, because they were not KDS Excos of the 1st Complainant/RTEAN; that the secretary of the Association was not in possession of the complaints and so the action was not maintenable by them; they also said that the dispute between the parties that led to the filing of the case was leadership tussle and civil.

By the letter contained in a letter-headed paper of Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria, dated 14/3/2005, the 1st to 5th Respondents, as complainants, had filed application for criminal summons to issue against the Appellants and the 6th Respondent (as accused persons). Their allegation was that

“on the 6th March, 2005, the three accused persons conspired and trespass (sic) into the secretariat of the said Association without our consent, they got into the offices open (sic) the doors and made away with the following items:- A Ruck (sic) carpet, office curtain and one enlargement of our National President Kaduna Branch. ”

The substance of the appeal at High Court was that the Chief Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the complaint against the Appellant, as the said complaint did not contain the necessary ingredients and facts which constitute offence of criminal conspiracy, criminal trespass and theft to constitute the offence or the offences alleged and or such facts or information from which the court judiciously and judicially have reason to believe or suspect that an offence (or the offences) alleged has been committed by the accused persons; as such that the trial magistrate court cannot assume jurisdiction over the facts and take cognisance of the complaint of the complainants and proceed with the criminal trial; that the facts or information in the letter of complaint (dated 14/3/2005) was no more than a plain civil claim or complaint.

Of course the court below had held that the learned Chief Magistrate Court was right to hold that it had jurisdiction; that it rightly took cognisance of the complainants’ letter, by virtue of section 143 (d) and (e) of the C.P.C, Appellant filed their Notice of Appeal on 2/8/2006 and raised three (3) grounds of appeal, as per pages 98 to 101 of the Records of Appeal, as follows:

“GROUND 1.

The lower court erred in law, reached a wrong decision and occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice, when it considered the complaint of the respondents, in their application for a criminal summons, a direct criminal complaint, that the facts therein constitute the offences under section 97, 286, 287 and 343 of the penal code law which the Trial Magistrate Court can assume jurisdiction over the Appellants and take cognisance of the alleged offences under section 143 (d), (e) of the C.P.C.; even though the purported complaint does not contain substantial ingredients of the offences.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR OF LAW

a) It is trite law that a trial court can assume jurisdiction over an allegation or allegations of facts, which from the facts it incorporates the necessary ingredient, which constitutes the offences the Accused Persons, are alleged to have committed.

b) The lower Court considered the purported complaint of the respondents to have constituted the offences under sections 97, 286, 282 and 343 of the penal code law even though the complaint did not contain the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged.

GROUND 2: