Contempt of Court Proceeding: An Exception to the Principle of Nemo Dat In Causa Sua

Contempt of Court Proceeding: An Exception to the Principle of Nemo Dat In Causa Sua

Throughout the history of law, the justice is the sole objective of its adoption, application and administration. Thus, In the heart of our laws  rests a two principles of justice otherwise known as twin pillars of natural justice; and one of the Inherent measures deploy  in the examination of a case is the principle of impartiality, which must be reflected in each stage of the process.

Thus, this  article tends to provide a little explication on natural justice, its doctrine,nature of contempt proceedings; and  equally will  provide the answer on why contempt proceedings is an exception to the doctrine of NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA  ,the  Principles which prohibits or restrain a ‘judge from been an umpire in his own case’ or in any matter that he has either pecuniary or personal interest. This doctrine is known as the principle of NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA.

Meaning of Natural Justice

Although, natural justice is a common law creation but it has, for so long and in many decisions, influences the face of Nigerian courts . However, this doctrine can be traced to the naturalist school of thoughts whose central argument on what constitutes law is: right and wrong.  Natural justice are inherent features of every judicial process and any proceedings devoid of such features is nullity.

In the case of Drew v. Drew (1855) 2 Macg 1.8, Lord Cranworth defined natural justice as ‘a universal Justice . similarly,  in Vionet v. Barrett (1885) 55 LJRD 39, Lord Esher MR defined natural justice as ‘the natural sense of what is right and wrong’. 

Re R.N. (An infaot) (1967) (2) B. 617, 530p, Lord Parker C.J provided a more convincing definition of natural justice (based on the view of this writer ). He defined natural justice as ‘a duty to act fairly’ . This involves, fair hearing, equal representation and opportunity accorded to the parties, impartial proceedings and fair judgement.

Doctrine of Natural Justice Under the Nigerian Law

The doctrine of natural justice can be seen in the Nigerian constitution under the shade of section 36 of the 1999 constitution and a meticulous squint at the section will reveal that the entire philosophy of maintaining the provision in the Nigerian  constitution (the pons et origo) is to ensure the court’s ‘ independence’ and ‘impartiality’ . Thus the section reads:

…a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY.(capitalized mine and for emphasis).

Gladly, the court of Appeal in the case of OMOKHODION V. F.R.N. (NO.2) (2005) 10 NWLR (Pt. 934) 581 emphasized that, the principles of natural justice are part of the pillars that support the concept of the rule of law. They are an indispensable part of the process of adjudication in any civilised society.

Thus, following from the above, the supreme court further outlined the two pillars of natural justice which govern justice administration and fair trial in every Nigerian court. Hence,  in the case of Akaolisa v. Akaolisa(2022) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1848) 487 it  held inter alia that: 

” The two cardinal principles of natural justice are “audi alteram partem” which means the court must hear both sides and “nemo judex in causa sua” which means you cannot be a judge in your own cause…” 

Therefore, the court reiterated on the sacred and inviolable nature of natural justice during trial in the case of THOMAS V. F.J.S.C (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1671) 284, it held to that: 

 “…The rule of natural justice is not confined to the cause in which the person is a party but also applies to a case in which he has an interest or is involved in. It underlines the doctrine of reasonable apprehension of bias which is not permitted in law because a taint of bias would destroy the integrity of the proceedings conducted in such a manner”. 

This rule or principles can be summarily termed as  a ‘ rule against bias’ by judicial officers in the conduct of trial.  It emphasis on fair proceedings and presenting equal opportunities to parties to advance their cause. 

 Hence, the court of Appeal in the case of EZE V. UNIJOS (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1593)   indicated strongly that, the rule of natural justice dictates that one should not take any decision without allowing the other party an opportunity to be heard (see also thee case of C.O.P. V. IHEABE (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt. 575) 666) . And once the court is satisfied that there is no infringement of the principles of natural justice against the party  the trial is fair(see the case of CHUKWUMA V. F.R.N(2011) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1264) 391) .

Doctrine of Rule Against Bias (Nemo Judex In Causa Sua)

The Nigerian courts in a copious of its decision emphasized on the prohibition of a person to presides over a matter that he has interest (whether pecuniary or personal ) . This is to preserve the sanctity of the justice administration and judicial exercise. 

Nemo judex in causa sua simply mean that no person shall be a judge in his own cause and that both sides to a dispute should enjoy equal opportunity to present their cases(see the supreme court case of NWABUEZE V. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE(2018) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1630) 201)

Similarly, the court in the case of UZOEWULU V. EZEAKA (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt. 688) 629 held that it is  inappropriate and not a law  to allow a judge to be a judge  in his own  matter,that would be against the doctrine of natural justice .

Therefore, by this doctrine a judge, arbitrator or any umpire  can not adjudicate a matter which he can benefit from the outcome of the proceedings. For example, a husband-judge ought not to adjudicate on an issue relates to his wife because of their existing marital relationship. Hence ,in the case of   RNHW v. SANA(1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 171) 64 the learned trial Judge being the patron of the plaintiff’s medical centre built on the land which formed the subject-matter of the action is caught by the latin maxim and therefore prevented from adjudicating on the matter.

However, this is not the same as in the contempt proceedings as a judge who issued a contempt order is legally allowed and justified to try the alleged contempnor in his own court, though the judge has an interest in the case. 

Nature of Contempt Proceedings

The Contempt against court of law or judges is part of the laws punishable laws in Nigeria. It can be summarily seen from various rules of courts we have in many high courts, for example, ORDER 35 of the Federal High court ( Civil procedure )rules ,2019 and  ORDER 39  of the Kaduna state High court (Civil procedure) rules, 2007.

In the case of NZIDEE V. KOOTU(2007) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1014) 99 held that Contempt proceedings are sui generis. It cannot be smuggled into another proceedings through the back door. It embodies nature of the civil and criminal proceedings.

Contempt of court can be ex-facie curiae or in facie curiea(in the face of the Court) .the latter  is civil while the former is criminal in nature . Hence, Contempt in the face of the court or contempt in facie curiae is punishable summarily for the sake of maintaining the dignity and the authority of the court. While contempt ex facie curiae being a contempt committed outside the court is criminal in nature and may not be punished summarily .(see the case of Sode v. L.S.D.P.C.(2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 663) 152).

Upon the service of the  order for committal by the judge Against the alleged contempnor (form 48 and 49)  , a time must be given to the contempnor to show cause on why he would not be committed to prison. Thus he reserved all his right to fair trial as was decided by the court in the case of OKEKE V. NWOKOYE(1999) 13 NWLR (Pt. 635) 495 

“The law relating to contempt of court requires a proper and adequate trial which is a sine qua non for the attainment of fair hearing and the rule of law. If a citizen has to go to prison for contempt of court, it should no t be via a stroke of the pen.” 

However, despites the emphasis by thee court on the observance of the principles of fair hearing(i.e AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM and  NEMO  JUDEX in CAUSA SUA)  the Nigerian courts in a plethora of decision decided that the judge that gives the order for committal is the proper venue to try a contempt. To wit;In the case of SHERIFF V. PDP (2017) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1585) 212 held that: 

“Contempt proceedings in facie curia are commenced before the court whose orders were allegedly disobeyed or flouted and not before an appellate court”.

Similarly, in the case of ANAKWENZE V. TAPP  INDUSTRY LTD (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 202) 177

“Contempt of court exists to protect the dignity of the court in order to ensure that justice shall be done. It prohibits acts and words which tend to obstruct the due administration of justice, otherwise the rights and indeed the liberty of individuals would perish. Although the power to punish for contemptuous cases belongs to the court, such power must be used or employed sparingly.”

Therefore, it is a principle of natural justice that a judge who has an interest in a matter before him, must decline his power to adjudicate on the matter in order to maintain fair trial and justice delivery. However, it is only in contempt case that a law allows a judge whose order  has been violated to try such matter in his court, although the principles of fair hearing must not be compromised.

Conclusion

The principle of natural justice , as expatiated above, is a must –observe principles in all trials(whether civil or criminal ) and one of the foremost principles is doctrine of Nemo judex in causa sua, that a judge must not be an umpire in a matter that he has interest however,  with exception of Contempt proceedings.

Contempt proceedings been a trial purposely conducts in order to preserve the dignity of courts and the inherent of powers of judge, can be tried by the judge who grants the order against the contempnor.

Therefore, contempt proceedings is an exception to the doctrine of Nemo judex in causa sua .

---

About Author

Akilu Saadu is a law student from the faculty of law Ahmadu Bello University Zaria with keen interest in litigation . He is a lawglobalhub Ambassador.