Dantsoho Alhassan V. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI, J.C.A. 

This appeal is against the ruling of the Federal High Court, Yola delivered on the 11th day of May, 2015 dismissing the Motion on Notice filed by the Appellant on 18/5/2015 seeking the release of his Mitsubishi Pajaro Jeep with registration No. CL488 JJJ from the custody of the National Drug law Enforcement Agency or the respondents.

?The background facts to this case appeal can be traced to the arrest of the appellant, Dantsoho Alhassan. It was on the 25/8/2011. He was riding in his Mercedes Benz Car with registration No. AU 927ABC when along Ngurof-Numan Road he was forced to halt by a group of officers from National Drug Law Enforcement Agency who demanded to know from the Appellant the contents of the bag he was carrying in the boot of his Mercedes Benz Car. There and then the appellant was arrested along with one other person in the car by the name Abdullahi Adamu (Pw3). At the close of investigation, the appellant and him alone was charged to Federal High Court Yola for being in possession of 7.4 kilogrammes of a substance suspected to be Cannabis Sativa (Indian

1

hemp) contrary to and punishable under Section 19 of the National Drug Law Enforcement Act, Cap N.30 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and prosecuted accordingly. At the close of hearing of his case at Federal High Court, Appellant was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years without an option of fine, in the Judgment delivered at that Court on the 2nd November, 2012 in charge or Suit No. FHC/YL/128c/2011, Coram: Justice S. ,M. Shuaibu. Facts on record reveal that on that same date that Judgment was delivered the Appellant drove himself to premises of the Federal High Court in a Mitsubishi Pajero Jeep but the officers of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency had cause to impound this car upon the appellant being convicted and sentenced for the offence he was charged. Record reveal that the appellant has since served the term of his imprisonment.

After conviction and sentence of the appellant, counsel who prosecuted the case filed a Motion on Notice on the 1st February, 2013 seeking an order forfeiting 2 (two) vehicles belonging to the Appellant to the Federal Government of Nigeria pursuant to the provision of Sections 32 (c),

2

33 (1) (a) and 27 (1) (c) of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act. The vehicle in question are: (i) the Mercedes Benz with Registration Number AU927ABC and, (ii) Mitsubishi Jeep with Registration Number CL 488 JJJ.

Upon the hearing of the application, the Court in a considered ruling delivered on the 14th February, 2013 granted same and ordered the forfeiture of the Mercedes Benz Car to the Federal Government of Nigeria pursuant to Section 27 (1)(c) of the National Drug Law Enforcement Act. As for the Mitsubishi Jeep, an order of interim forfeiture of same was made pending investigation into the source of the procurement of the said vehicle by the appellant. See Respondent?s additional record of Appeal from page 61, particularly at page 65. There was no appeal against the ruling. The same Court had earlier on the 30th January, 2013 refused the application of the appellant seeking for, among other reliefs or prayers, the release of the appellant?s Mercedes Benz Car, V-Boot and Mitsubishi Pajero Jeep to him vide the ruling delivered on the 30th January, 2013, the reason being that to grant the request would over reach on the application

3

filed by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency seeking to forfeit those same vehicles but which application was still pending before the Court.

On 1st December, 2014 the appellant by a Motion on Notice prayed the trial Federal High Court for the release of the same Mitsubishi Pajero Jeep to the Appellant. This application was heard, refused and dismissed on the 11th May, 2015 wherein the Federal High Court in its ruling at page 74 of the record held that the Appellant:
?is bound to explain the source of the vehicle to the NDLEA an having fault (sic) to report, he cannot ask the Court to release the Jeep to him.?

Still not done, the appellant by another Motion dated the 18th May, 2015 prayed the Court below to release to him the Mitsubishi Pajero Jeep. See pages 77 ? 81 of the printed record. At the hearing of this application on the 8th June, 2015 the Court again dismissed same and held thus:
?This was dismissed earlier, the applicant can only go on appeal because I have become funtus offcuor (sic) on the matter. This application is dismissed for being, an abuse of Courts process. The objection of the respondent has

4