Ar Security Solution Limited V. Economic & Financial Crimes Commission (2018)
LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, hereinafter referred to as the lower Court, in Appeal No. CA/A/306/2016, affirming the ruling of the Federal High Court sitting at Abuja, hereinafter referred to as the trial Court. The ruling of the trial Court dated 22nd April 2016 which the lower Court’s judgment delivered on 25th July 2017 affirmed arose in the course of proceedings in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/1054/2015.
The brief facts of the case that brought about the appeal are hereinunder supplied.
Following its Exparte Originating Summons dated 21st day of December 2015, the trial Court granted the respondent leave to completely freeze the operation of accounts specified in Forms B of the Schedule to the EFCC Act 2004 attached to the summons and further empowered the respondent to receive such information in respect of the frozen accounts from the managers of the banks and/or persons in whose control the designated accounts abide for six months.
Affected by the interim freezing order on its accounts with the Heritage Bank, the appellant applied that the trial Courts
1
order dated 25th January 2015 be set-aside. The appellants application was refused and dismissed by the trial Court.
Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the lower Court on a notice containing five grounds filed on 4th May 2016. The dismissal of the appeal informs appellants further appeal to this Court. Its notice of appeal which contains four grounds spans pages 155-161 of the record was filed on the 15th day of August 2017.
At paragraph 3 of the appellants brief settled by Mazi Afam Osigwe of counsel, the two issues distilled as arising for the determination of the appeal read:
(i) Whether the mere investigation and/or arrest of an person for an offence under Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act discharges the Respondent from the burden of establishing there is prime facie evidence for the attachment or forfeiture of the persons’ property or assets.
(ii) Whether the Court below was right in affirming the trial court’s decision temporarily freezing Appellant’s accounts.
The two issues distilled at page 5 of the respondent’s brief settled by learned counsel Benjamin Lawan Manji Esq. read:-
2
(i) Whether this appeal is not otiose, academic, destitute of any utilitarian value and therefore liable to be dismissed.
(ii) Whether in the circumstances of this case, the lower Court was right in affirming the decision of the trial Court dismissing the appellant’s application as lacking in merit. (Underlining mine for emphasis).
My lords, in my firm and considered view, the determination of this appeal should commence with the resolution of the 1st issue distilled by the respondent for reasons that would eventually unfold. The appellant has reacted to the arguments proffered by the respondent on the issue in its reply brief.
On the issue, learned respondent’s counsel contends that the appeal being devoid of any utilitarian value is liable to be struck out. The order of the trial Court, the appellant urges this Court to set-aside has a specific time frame after which it becomes dead. The order which was made on 25th January 2016, and has a six months time frame, submits learned respondent’s counsel, expired on 25th day of July 2016. Any freezing of the accounts of the appellant beyond 25th July
3
2016, it is further submitted, is not on the basis of the order of the trial Court now sought by the appellant to be set-aside. The appellant by this appeal, learned respondent’s counsel contends, is urging this Court to set-aside an order that ceased to have effect since 25th July 2016, a period of well over a year.
The accounts of the appellant remain frozen, submits learned respondent’s counsel, not on the basis of the trial Courts expired order of 25th January 2016 but by virtue of a subsequent order following the arraignment and trial of the appellant and its directors before a different judge for money laundering. Relying particularly on Kubor & Anor V. Dickson & Ors (2012) LPELR-9817 (SC), Ardo v. INEC & Ors (2017) LPELR 41919 (SC) and Dahiru & Anor V. APC & Ors (2016) LPELR- 42089 (SC), learned counsel urges that this Court declines jurisdiction, the merit of the appeal notwithstanding. The determination of the appeal, it is concluded, will be a waste of the precious time of the Court as same will serve no utilitarian and practical value even to the appellant. The Court, it is submitted, is not an academic
4
institution that answers academic questions. Further relying on Adelaja V. Alade (1999) 6 NWLR (pt 608) 544, Okulate v. Awosanya (2000) 2 NWLR (pt 646) 530 and UBN Plc V. Sepok (Nig) Ltd (1998) 12 NWLR (Pt 578) 439, learned counsel urges that the appeal be struck out.
Responding in the reply brief filed subsequent to the service of the respondent’s brief on the appellant, learned appellant’s counsel argues that respondent’s 1st issue as well as arguments proffered thereon, being incompetent, be discountenanced. The issue, it is submitted, never arose from the decision appealed against. The respondent who has not cross-appealed, it is argued, cannot distill an issue that neither arises from the decision appealed against nor is related to the any of the grounds of appeal. Citing the decisions in Merchantile Bank of Nig Plc & 1 or Linus Nwodo (2005) 10-11 SCM 168; Owners, MV. Gongola Hope V. SC (Nig) Ltd (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt 1056)189 and Briggs V. C.L.O.R.S.N (2005) 12 NWLR (pt 938) 59 in support of his submissions, learned counsel urges that respondent’s incompetent issue be discountenanced.
The issue the appeal raises, learned counsel submits in the
5
alternative, is by no means a dead one as is contended by the respondent. The trial Court had held in its ruling, it is submitted, that the mere arrest of the directors of the appellant absolves the respondent from the duty of establishing a prima facie case against the appellant before being granted an order freezing the latter’s account. The decision still persists and cannot, further contends learned counsel, be said to be dead and academic. The basis for making the order freezing the appellant’s account in the first place is what the appeal questions. Learned counsel insists that the issue being alive needs to be considered and resolved by the Court. He so urges.
Now, the order of the trial Court which affirmation by the lower Court informs the instant appeal, see page 79 of the record of appeal, is dated 25th January 2016 and indeed has a six months lifespan. As submitted by learned respondents counsel, the order has lapsed by 25th July 2016. The record of appeal further bears out learned respondents counsel that the extant order freezing appellant’s account is different from the order the appellant by its appeal wants set-aside.
6
Ignoring these irrepressible facts by the appellant accounts for its dismal outing. A plea by a party that a Court declines from assuming jurisdiction in respect of a matter, where it enjoys same, because doing so is academic and useless is akin to an objection that the Court lacks jurisdiction in the first place. As correctly argued by learned respondent’s counsel, a Court does not proceed in vain. A Court exercises its jurisdiction, where approached, in order to resolve a dispute, address an injury and provide relief. Where as in the instant case the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction would not resolve any dispute and confer any relief arising from the injury occasioned by the dispute between the parties then, indeed, proceeding will be in vain and useless. Lacking in utility, assumption of jurisdiction in that situation should be avoided by the Court. The Court’s proceedings and eventual decision no matter how well conducted and reasoned will come to naught being devoid of any essence to either party in the matter.
Learned respondent counsel’s reliance on the authorities he cited in support of his submissions is apposite.
7
In Dahiru and Anor V. APC & Ors (2016) LPELR-42089 (SC), at page 25 the Court indeed enthused as follows:-
A suit is academic where it is thereby theoretical, makes empty sound and of no practical utilitarian value to the plaintiffs even if judgment is given in his favour. A suit is academic if it is not related to practical situation of human nature Once a suit no longer has live issue for determination such a suit can be said to be academic. Courts should on no account in such an instance spend judicial time… in academic exercise. Courts are to determine only live issues.” (Underlining mine for emphasis).
My learned brother Amina Augie JSC restated the principle more comprehensively in Ardo V. INEC & Ors (2017) LPELR- 41919 (SC) thus:-
“An action becomes hypothetical or raises mere academic point when there is no live matter in it to be adjudicated upon or when its determination holds no practical or tangible value for making a pronouncement upon it; it is otherwise an exercise in futility. When an issue has become defunct, it does not require to be answered and leads to making bare legal postulations which the Court should not
8
indulge in: it is like the salt that has lost its seasoning. And like the salt in that terms, an academic issue or question does not relate to the live issues in the litigation because it is spent as it will not enure any right or benefit on a successful party. (Underlining mine emphasis).
The instant appeal unquestionably falls within the class of cases, this Court in its seemingly endless decisions hold to be academic, hypothetical and defunct upon which any pronouncement would not confer any right or benefit to the appellant. This Court is duty bound to obey and enforce these decisions.
It is true as learned appellants counsel submitted that the issue as raised and argued by learned respondents counsel neither relates to the decision appealed against nor any of the grounds in the extant Notice of Appeal. It is again true that having not cross appealed the respondent is further restricted in the issue it distills as arising for the determination of the appeal. What is overriding though is the very fact that in ignoring the issue so raised, the Court would be proceeding in vain as so far demonstrated. For the
9
reasons adumbrated and the judicial authorities from which the reasons draw, respondent’s objection as constituted in its 1st issue for the determination of the appeal is hereby sustained. In ensuring that the Court does not proceed and pronounce in vain over an appeal that has become defunct, of no practical and utilitarian value, jurisdiction is hereby accordingly declined and the appeal struck out.
SC.696/2017