Jolly Tevoru Nyame V. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MARY U. PETER-ODILI, J.C.A.

By way of an application dated and filed on the 10th October, 2007, the Appellant prayed the trial High Court presided over by Hon. Justice A.A.I. Banjoko for the following orders:-

“(1) AN ORDER quashing all the 41 count charges preferred against the Accused person with the leave of this Honourable Court obtained on the 13th July, 2007 for failure to disclose a prima facie case against the Accused person and for want of jurisdiction and competence by this Honourable Court to adjudicate on this case as constituted.

(2) AND FOR SUCH further or other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and just to make in the circumstance of this case.”

On the face of the motion paper the Appellant listed 16 (sixteen) grounds for making the application which can be summarized as follows:-

(i) That since none of the proceedings, offences or elements thereof originated at the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, and then by the provisions of Section 257 (1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution, the Federal Capital Territory High Court clearly has no jurisdiction to entertain the case.

(ii) That following (i) above only the Taraba State High Court sitting at Jalingo has the requisite jurisdiction to try the case as constituted against the accused person in accordance with section 272 and 299 of the 1999Constitution since all the offences and elements thereof originated in Taraba State.

(iii) That the mere insertion of the words ”at Abuja” in all the 41 count charges is a mere embellishment by the Respondent. On the basis of the fact that you cannot place something on nothing and expect it to stand and in view of the overwhelming evidence in the proof of evidence witnesses statements and documentary exhibits, the insertion of the words “at Abuja” cannot in itself, clothe the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja with territorial jurisdiction.

(iv) That in the foregoing premises, the mere entry or presence of the Appellant into or within the Federal capital Territory without more is not enough to confer jurisdiction on the trial court to hear and determine the case.

(v) That in respect of the offences of accepting gratification in respect of Official Act, Obtaining a valuable thing without consideration as a public servant. Misappropriation and Criminal Breach of Trust contrary to Sections 115,119,309 and 315 respectively of the Penal Code Law for which the Appellant was being charged, no prima facie case has been disclosed against him in the proof of evidence, witnesses, statements and entire documentary exhibits attached to the charge sheet dated 13th July, 2007.

(vi) That the Respondent-Federal Republic of Nigeria- not being the owner of the monies for which the Appellant was being charged, has no locus standi to prosecute the charges thus depriving the trial court of jurisdiction to try the case.

(vii) That in the absence of due consideration of the entire charges viz-a-viz the proofs of evidence and documentary evidence placed before the trial court on the 13th July, 2007, the jurisdiction of the trial court was not properly invoked when leave was granted on the same 13th July 2007.

In respect of the application and grounds above stated, the trial court, High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in a considered ruling refused to decline jurisdiction to try the Appellant on the 41 count charges even though the entire offences originated at Jalingo, Taraba State. Also the court refused to discharge the ppellant for reason of non disclosure of a prima facie case against him in the proof of evidence attached to the charges dated 13th, July, 2007.

The Appellant being dissatisfied with the Ruling of the trial court appealed to this court vide a Notice of Appeal filed on the 26th November, 2007 and the grounds without particulars are stated as follows:-