The State V. Dr. L.e. Williams & 2 Ors (1978)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SOWEMIMO, J.S.C.

On Wednesday 7th December, 1977, we allowed the appeal of the Attorney General of Lagos state and dismissed a cross appeal of the above respondents against the ruling of Bada J. and indicated that we would give our considered reasons later. The three respondents along with three others were charged on an information containing 17 counts of offences under the criminal code of Lagos State. The offences comprise forgery, uttering and stealing.

Before the pleas of the accused persons were taken, Counsel for the 1st accused applied by way of motion to quash counts 1 – 15 of the charge on the following grounds:

“On counts 1,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 and 15 on the ground that the High Court of Lagos State has no jurisdiction to try the counts, it being patent on the face of the charge and the particulars thereof that they are causes or matters arising out of or relating to the Exchange Control Act 1962 and therefore triable only before the Federal Revenue Court as provided in Decree No. 13 or 1973.

“On counts 2,3,4 and 5 on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction on the proof of evidence in their support and the particulars attached to the said offences that the matters were justiciable only before the Federal Revenue Court, Decree No. 13 of 1973.”

Similar applications were made on behalf of the 4th accused and 6th accused.

After the conclusion of arguments of Counsel before the learned trial judge, he gave a considered ruling in which he held that the Lagos State High Court has no jurisdiction to try counts 1, and 6-15, jurisdiction for the trial of such offences being vested in the Federal Revenue Court. With regard to the other counts however, he held that the Lagos State High Court has jurisdiction to try them.

Against that ruling, the learned Attorney General appealed to this court and learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, Mr. Sogbesan, cross appealed, against the portion of the ruling in which the High Court held that it has jurisdiction to try the 1st accused. The 4th and 6th accused also cross appealed and Mr. Sogbesan appeared for them.

The learned Attorney General drew attention to this portion of the ruling of the learned trial judge which reads:

“Section 24 of the Interpretation Act, 1964 provides as follows:

‘Where an act constitutes an offence under two or more enactments or under an enactment and common law, the alleged offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and on conviction punished under any one of the enactments or, as the case may be, either under the enactment or at common law, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.

By virtue of this provision the accused persons could be properly prosecuted for the offences charged under the Criminal code (of Lagos State) in counts 1, 6 to 15 of the information even though they are offences under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1958. The learned trial judge concluded as follows:

“Having held that the documents are connected with the charges in counts 1, 6 to 15 are documents connected with or pertaining to customs and foreign exchange, I hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to try said counts”

The learned Attorney General in his arguments and submissions referred to the nature of the offence of forgery and contended that the classification or character of the document forged only comes into consideration when punishment for special cases is being determined.