Destra Investments Limited V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria & Anor (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, J.S.C.

The appellant and 2nd respondent were arraigned before the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/05/2016 for the offences of Money Laundering contrary to Sections 1, 15(2)(d)(6) and 17(b) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (as amended). The case proceeded to trial and the prosecution called eight witnesses who were cross-examined by the defence before closing its case. Both the appellant and the 2nd respondent made a no case submission which was dismissed by the trial Court and they commenced their defence before filing the preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain counts 1 and 2 of the Charge on the ground that the counts contain, as one of their ingredients, the issue of award of contract for which the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to receive evidence in proof thereof. After listening to the arguments of counsel the learned trial Judge decided to defer the ruling on the preliminary objection to be considered along with the substantive issue at the time of delivery of judgment. The appellant was dissatisfied with the decision and appealed

1

against it via a notice of appeal dated the 27 day of April, 2016 which was filed on 29 day of April, 2015. The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division suo motu struck out the appeal on 10 May, 2017 without hearing the address of the parties. The lower Court held that the appeal is an interlocutory decision of the trial Court on exercise of discretion, the grounds of which are at best grounds of mixed law and fact for which leave to appeal before the notice is filed and since no leave was obtained before filing, the appeal is incompetent. The Court further held that if the appeal is competent, the Federal High Court has jurisdiction over money laundering offences and there was nothing wrong in the trial Court considering the preliminary objection with the substantive issues at the delivery of judgment as the law allows applications to be taken along with the substantive case.

Chief Tochukwu Onwugbufor SAN appearing for the appellant donated the following five issues for determination of the appeal viz:-

3.01 Whether the Court below was right in holding that a Judge is free to adopt any method that suited him in the

2

determination of the preliminary objection on jurisdiction including deferring the ruling on the preliminary objection on jurisdiction to be considered along with the substantive issues and that such decision to defer the ruling did not occasion any injustice to the appellant as the appellant has not shown any injury suffered by deferring the matter.

3.02 Whether the Court below was right in striking out the appeal on the ground that the grounds of appeal question an interlocutory decision on the exercise of discretion of the trial Court which are at best grounds of mixed law and fact which require leave and as no leave was sought and obtained, the grounds of appeal are incompetent.

3.03 Whether the appellant has not been denied its right of fair hearing, thus occasioning a miscarriage of justice, when the Court below raised, suo motu, the issue of the incompetence of the grounds of appeal, decided on it and indeed struck out the appeal based on that issue without affording the parties including the appellant the opportunity to address it on that issue.

3.04 Whether the Court below has not misapprehended the charge and issue before it when it held that the Federal High

3

Court has jurisdiction to try the appellant of the offences of Money Laundering when the issue before the Court below is whether the trial Court has jurisdiction to receive evidence in proof of simple contract award which is an ingredient of counts 1 and 2 of the charge which the prosecution must prove to sustain the counts.

3.05 Whether the Court below was right when it held that there is nothing wrong in considering the preliminary objection with the substantive issue at the delivery of judgment as the law allows applications to be taken along with the substantive case.