The Federal Republic Of Nigeria V. Uche Rosemary Ikedinwa & Anor (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the Federal High Court sitting in Ado-Ekiti in Charge No: FHC/EN/6C/2006 – THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA VS. (1) UCHE ROSEMARY IKEDINWA (2) CHIMEZIE IKEDINWA; delivered on 15th July, 2009, wherein the trial court ordered as follows:-

”……that all that property described in Paragraph 1(a) to 1(y) on the applicant’s motion dated 14th April, 2008, be returned to the 1st accused Rosemary Ikedinwa now discharged and acquitted in Charge No:- FHC/EN/6C/2006″.

The appellant dissatisfied with the order of the lower court set out above now appealed to this court.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated two (2) issues for the determination of the appeal. The issues are set out as follows: –

“ISSUE 1:

Whether having regards to the provision of the 1999 Constitution and the NDLEA Act, CAP. N30 Laws of the Federation, 2004, the NDLEA (representing the Appellant in this case) can seize property of a person under investigation and apply to the Federal High Court for an order of forfeiture or attachment without such a party having been arrested. (Grounds 1 & 2).

ISSUE 2:

Was the order of the trial Judge right, that the property seized from the premises of 1st Respondent, Rosemary Ikedinwa be released to her when it was shown that the property belonged to one Godfrey O. Ikedinwa also known as Don Godfrey O. Ikedinwa (1st Respondent’s husband) who was under investigation for the offence of importation of 970 Grammes of Cocaine into Nigeria but now at large in South America. (Grounds 3 & 4).”

The Learned Counsel for the Respondents adopted the two issues formulated for the determination of the appeal by Counsel for the Appellant.

At the hearing of the appeal, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to the Appellant’s brief of argument filed on 4th March, 2013 and deemed as properly filed and served on 4th March, 2013.

He adopted the said Appellant’s brief of argument as his argument in urging that the appeal be allowed.

The Learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand referred to the Respondents’ brief of argument filed on 15th April, 2013. He adopted the Respondents’ brief as his argument in urging that the appeal be dismissed.

ISSUES 1 AND 2 ARGUED TOGETHER