Lawrence V. Attorney General of the Federation (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA, J.C.A.

This is an interlocutory appeal from the decision of the Federal High Court Lagos delivered on the 8th of October, 2004 refusing an application for transfer of suit No FHC/L/219C/04 to another Federal High Court Judge for hearing and determination on ground of likelihood of bias.

An application for the extradition of the appellant to the United States of America was made by the respondent and same was filed at the Federal High Court Lagos. The matter was assigned to Shuaibu J. for hearing and determination. In the course of hearing the application, the appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the way and manner the trial Judge was handling the matter. Appellant then, filed a motion on notice dated 7th day of October, 2004 praying for an order permitting, allowing and or authorizing the transfer of the suit No FHC/L/219C/2004 from Federal High Court No 8 (Annex) presided over by Shuiabu J. to any other court and/or Judge of the Federal High Court, Lagos. On 7th day of October 2004 the motion was moved by appellant’s counsel. In a considered ruling delivered on 8th day of October, 2004 Shuaibu J. dismissed the application for transfer of the Suit to another Judge on the ground that there was absence of apparent bias or likelihood of same from the facts of this case.

Aggrieved with this decision, appellant lodged his Notice of Appeal dated 11th day of October, 2004 which contained 7 grounds of appeal.

In compliance with the rules of court at the time the appeal was filed both parties filed their respective briefs of argument. Appellant’s brief dated 24th day of February, 2006 was deemed filed and served on 1/11/06. While respondent’s brief dated 8th day of February, 2007 was deemed filed and served on 12/03/07. Appellant’s reply brief was also deemed filed and served on 5/07/07.

When the appeal came up for hearing on 3/10/07 both counsel adopted their respective briefs of argument.

From the seven grounds of appeal filed, appellant distilled two issues for determination as follows:-

2.1 (1) whether having regards to the circumstances surrounding this case, it was proper for the learned trail Judge to preside or continue to preside and adjudicate over the case or refuse to transfer the matter to another Judge in view of the allegation of likelihood of bias against the Judge and apparent loss of confidence in the trial Judge by the Appellant (Grounds 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7).

(2) whether the hearing by the learned trial Judge of the Appellant’s application for transfer in the circumstances of the case particularly in the face of allegation of likelihood of bias made against him does not contravene the principles of natural Justice and therefore a nullity.

(Grounds 2).

The respondent formulated three issues for determination by this court. The issues are:-

2.0 (i) whether having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court was wrong in refusing the Appellant’s application for transfer of the case to another Judge.

(ii) whether the learned trial Judge erred in law when he continued with the matter after it was reassigned to him by the Chief Judge after the courts vacation.

(iii) whether having regards to the circumstances of this case, it can be said that the learned trial Judge was biased against the Appellant to warrant the allegations of bias against the court as contained in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal and brief of argument in the matter.