Chief Nkereuwem Udofia Akpan V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

REGINA OBIAGELI NWODO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court of Justice of the Federal Capital Territory (hereafter referred to as FCT) at Gudu – Abuja on the 14th of December, 2009 in which the learned trial judge quashed the charges and proof of evidence preferred against the appellant by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

In brief the facts that lead to the present appeal are as follows:

On the 22nd of June, 2009 the trial court granted leave to the prosecuting counsel pursuant to an ex parte application to prefer a charge against the appellant and one Chioma Harriet Unaji. The appellant and Chioma Unaji were charged and arraigned before the court below. Plea was taken, the appellant pleaded not guilty likewise the other accused person. The appellant during trial filed an application dated 17th July, 2009 and filed on 23/07/2009 praying for (a) an order quashing the charges and proof of evidence against the 2nd accused person, an order compelling the EFCC to tender an unreserved apology to him for the wrongful arrest and detention and an order that the apology be published in the full page of three (3) newspapers.

The learned trial judge in a considered judgment delivered on 14/12/2009 held:

“Having found that there is nothing in the proof of evidence linking the 2nd accused with the alleged offence accordingly the charges against the 2nd accused person are hereby quashed.”

The appellant dissatisfied with part of the decision of the court below filed a notice of appeal on 28/11/2009 containing three (3) grounds of appeal.

In line with the practice and procedure of this court the appellant and learned counsel for respondent filed and exchanged briefs of argument. At the hearing of the appeal on 6th of June, 2011, the appellant appeared in person and adopted a brief settled by him filed on 19/04/2010 and a reply brief filed on 21/01/2011. The learned counsel for the respondent Sir Stephen Odiase adopted the respondents brief deemed filed on 17/01/2011

The appellant in his brief distilled three issues for determination. He did not tie the issues to the three grounds of appeal. The issues read thus:

“(a) Whether the learned trial judge was right when he failed to consider and or rule on the prayers for an award of public apology and compensatory damages and thus denied appellants a fair hearing and due recompense on those issues?

(b) Whether the learned trial judge was right when he failed to consider and rule on the twin issues of tendering of public apology and incidental payment of damages to the appellant for wrongful arrest and detention despite issues joined thereon and arguments canvassed on the issues?

(c) Whether the learned trial judge was right when he failed to make the Order directing the respondents to tender an apology to, and compensate, the appellant once the attest and detention of the appellant was found to be an ex facie illegality?” The respondent formulated 2 issues for determination, without connecting each issue to any of the grounds. They read thus:

“1. Whether the lower court was bound to grant all the prayers, reliefs prayed by the Appellant as contained or covered by his Application to quash.

2. Whether the lower court was right to have quashed or stopped the prosecution of Appellant in view of the Proof of Evidence and therefore, stop the respondent from performing her statutory duties.”

The grounds of the appeal from wherein the above issues were formulated have been set out hereunder without the particulars: