Chief Joshua Chibi Dariye V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA. J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant had filed an application before the FCT High Court (to be called High Court after now) praying for the following reliefs:-

“i. An order varying the accused Applicant’s conditions of bail by rescinding the condition that the applicant should report to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission every week.

ii. An order directing the release of the Applicant’s International Passport and other travelling documents submitted by him in fulfillment of the bail condition imposed by this Honouruble Court.

iii. An order permitting the Applicant to travel outside the country where he will get medical attention and treatment.

As required by the Rules of the High Court, the application was supported by affidavit evidence. It was opposed by the Respondent who filed a counter-affidavit and so the High court ordered parties to the application to file written addresses to support their respective positions.

After a consideration of the affidavit evidence and addresses of the learned Counsel for the parties, the high Court in its ruling delivered on 10/11/09 granted the 1st but refused the 2nd and 3rd reliefs sought by the Appellant.

Being dissatisfied with the part of the ruling refusing reliefs 2 and 3 contained on the face of the application, the Appellant caused a Notice of Appeal to be filed on the 18/11/09. The notice of appeal contains five (5) grounds upon which the dissatisfaction was premised and from which three (3) issues were distilled by the learned Counsel for the Appellant in the Appellant’s brief filed on 13/1/10. The issues submitted for determination in the appeal at paragraph 3.0.0 on pages 3-4 of the Appellant’s brief settled by G.S. Pwul Esq., are thus:-

“1. Having regard to the fact first the lower Court relied on a warrant of arrest issued by the London Metropolitan Police and Section 19(2)(b),(c) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment Act), 2004 to refuse the Appellant’s application, whether it did not act on extraneous, irrelevant and speculative mutters. (Grounds 1, 2, and 3).

2. In view of the fact that the lower Court failed to take into account or give sufficient consideration to Exhibit “JDA” (letter from JUTH) and other facts in the Affidavit supporting the Appellant’s application, whether it did not ignore or failed to accord sufficient consideration to relevant and material factors. (Ground 4).
3. Whether in refusing the Applicant’s application, the lower Court used its discretion judicially and judiciously having regard to all the materials placed before it. (Ground 5).

The Respondent’s brief of argument prepared by Rotimi Jacobs, Esq., was dated and filed on the 20/10/10 but deemed filed on the 13/10/10 when time was extended by the Court for filing same. A single issue was said to arise for determination in the appeal at paragraphs 3.0 on page 3 of the said brief as follows:-

“Whether the discretion of the learned trial Judge was not properly exercised as to warrant an interference by this Honourable Court”

Before a consideration of what the crucial issue/s fall/s for determination in the appeal, I have observed that the grounds ONE, TWO and FIVE contained in the Notice of Appeal at pages 40-45 of the record of appeal are mere quotation of extracts from the ruling appealed against by the Appellant.

In the case of ALADE v. OGUNDOKUN (1992) 5 NWLR (92) (239) at 52. Salami, JCA (now PCA) had stated the law thus:-

“The requirements of Order 3 rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1981 are not complied with by merely repeating passages from judgment of the trial Court. The Appellant has a duty to supply full and substantial particulars of and nature of error of law or, in appropriate cases, of misdirection alleged in the ground of appeal. It is not sufficient if the grounds of appeal merely assert, as in the instant appeal, that “The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held” and then subjoined by a profuse quotation from the judgment without the particulars or nature of the error. The grounds ate therefore improperly drafted und deserve to be struck out.”