The Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal & Anor. V. Nwammiri Ekpe Okoroafor & Anor (2001)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

EJIWUNMI, J.S.C

In this appeal which emanated from the Court of Appeal (Lagos Division), questions with regard to whether the Lagos High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over inferior tribunals, such as the Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal that was set up under and by virtue of Decree No. 20 of 1984 (as amended) have been raised.

The matter apparently came before the Court of Appeal in this manner. The respondents to this appeal were pharmacists. On the 29th June, 1989 they were arrested and detained upon an allegation that they were involved in the manufacture of fake and adulterated drugs. Later, on the 15th September, 1989, they were brought before the Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal where they were charged with possession of adulterated drugs. They were then remanded in prison custody from that date, namely 15th September, 1989. They were so remanded in prison custody until the 15th of November 1990, when bail was granted to them.

The respondents upon the advice of their counsel, and upon the belief that appellants and the Tribunal have not proceeded with the trial of the allegation levelled against them in accordance with the law that set up the offences and Tribunal decided to move to the High Court for reliefs.

For that purpose, the respondents filed an application at the High Court, pursuant to Order 53 rule 2 of the Lagos State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1972 for the following reliefs.

“(1) An order of Prohibition directed against the respondents herein and prohibiting the said respondents from trying the charges comprised in charge No. MOT/140/89 (The Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nwammiri Ekpe Okoroafor and Another).

(2) An order of Certiorari to remove into this Honourable Court, for the purpose of their being quashed, the entire proceedings comprised in charge No. MOT/140/89 (Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nwammiri Ekpe & Another).

(3) And for such further consequential order(s) as this Honourable Court may consider appropriate to make in the circumstances.”

The grounds upon which the reliefs were sought read thus:

(1) A fundamental condition precedent for exercising jurisdiction (to wit: – service of the statutory summons to appear on the accused persons) has not been complied with.

(2) A fundamental condition precedent to jurisdiction to wit:

(a) The applicants were brought before the Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal in respect of the aforementioned charges for the first time on September 15, 1989.

(b) Section 44(1) of the Special Tribunal (Miscellaneous Offences) Decree 20 of 1984 (as amended by Decree No. 27 of 1986) requires that proceedings in respect of offences shall be concluded by the tribunal within 14 days of its first sitting.

(c) A period of over one year and six months has elapsed since the said September 15, 1989, but prosecution has not, and is yet to commence in respect of the aforesaid charges.