Exercise of Discretion and Inherent Powers of Court: Need to be Circumscribed by Law
TFacts he Appellant was charged with various financial and economic crimes, bordering on his activities when he was the Managing Director of the defunct Intercontinental Bank Plc., further to complaints made by the Central Bank of Nigeria. During the pendency of the Charge, a complaint was made to the National Judicial Council and the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, on the conduct of the trial judge. Further to the complaint, the Respondent filed an application, seeking the disqualification of the trial Judge from further adjudicating over the Charge, on the basis of likelihood of bias. The trial Judge, dismissed the application. The Respondent thereafter, filed a Notice of Appeal against the ruling and an application for stay of proceedings pending appeal. Without allowing the Respondent to move its application, the trial Judge ruled and directed that the Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation should disband, sack and debrief the Prosecution team, for what the Judge termed ‘incompetence’ and ‘serial abuse’ of process. The trial Judge, subsequently dismissed the Charge against the Appellant. The Respondent appealed the decision of the trial Court discharging the Appellant, to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal; further to which the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination 1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right, in holding that the trial court denied the Respondent its constitutional right of fair hearing, when the learned trial Judge dismissed the Charge against the Appellant and discharged the Appellant.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right, in holding that there was no basis for the decision of the court of first instance.
Arguments Counsel for the Appellant in arguing issue 1, contended that in determining the veracity of the reason for the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court must consider the entire record of proceedings at the trial Court. The Appellant contended further that, the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the decision of the learned trial Judge, on the ground that the Respondent was not given the opportunity to move its application for stay of proceedings before dismissing the Charge against the Appellant. He contended that the Respondent was given ample time to move the application, but chose not to. He urged the court, to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal, on the ground that it was perverse, because it did not draw from the evidence on record. He relied on INAKOJU v ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1095) 423. He submitted further that, an application to discharge an Accused Person, need not be made by a party before the Court can dismiss the Charge against the Appellant and discharge the Appellant altogether, and that the court has inherent powers to strike out a case for want of diligent prosecution, or for any reason. He relied on NSITF v IYEN (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1412) 323.
In his response on issue 1, Counsel for the Respondent contended that, the learned trial Judge was in grave error of justice, when he launched himself into scrounging for grounds upon which to dismiss the Charges against the Appellant, even when there was no application to do so, before the court. He argued that, the law is that even where the court finds a need to raise a point suo moto, it is not only desirable, but pertinent, to place the point properly before the parties, to enable them address the Court on same. He relied on FRN v MOHAMMED (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 730) 1234 at 1269. He listed the issues that were raised suo moto by the trial Judge, and were resolved by the Judge himself. He concluded that, the trial Court denied the Respondent its right to fair hearing.
On issue 2, it was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that, the trial Judge had several reasons for dismissing the Charge against the Appellant, including the fact that the Prosecution had chosen to embark on a persistent campaign to scandalise the Court. The Court also took note of the fact that, the Appellant was also facing similar charges at the High Court of Lagos State. More so, the trial Judge took into account, the professional incompetence of the Prosecution with regard to the Appellant’s right, and the evidence of abuse of judicial process by the Respondent. The Appellant contended that, what constitutes abuse of court process involves circumstances and situations of infinite variety. He relied on LOKPOBIRI v OGOLA (2016) (Pt. 1499) 328. He concluded that, the Court of Appeal was, therefore, in error to hold that the trial Judge had no basis for its decision. On its part, Counsel for the Respondent submitted on issue 2, that there was nothing on the record to show that the Respondent engaged in any campaign to scandalise the trial Judge, and that conversely, it was the Appellant who inundated the Court with series of applications and needless objections.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale On issue 1, the Supreme Court, relying on ADIGUN v A-G OYO STATE (1987) NWLR (Pt. 53) page 709 held that, the principle of natural justice and fairness, are crucial and sacrosanct in our judicial system and adjudicatory functions, at all levels of the judicial hierarchy. It must, as a matter of constitutional obligation, be observed by all judicial officers. This is because fairness and natural justice require that a party to a cause, or a party who ought reasonably to be a party in the suit, must be given the opportunity to put forward his case or defence freely and fully. The Court stated that, it is quite uncharacteristic of a judicial officer to raise issues as to, and proceed to declare with finality, without hearing or scrutiny, on vital issues such as the competence of the Prosecution’s counsel etc. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal, in its observation, that the Respondent’s Counsel never said or indicated that he was not ready to take the motion, and that he did not expressly state that he had no instructions to argue same. The court observed that, the learned trial Judge allowed emotions or personal feelings as a result of perceived errors, delays and lack of diligent prosecution team, to determine the road he travelled in doing justice. Their Lordships concluded by holding that when a question of fairness arises in a case, the Appellate Court has a duty to scrutinise the proceedings, to see whether the result of the case would have been the same, even if the breach of the principle of fair hearing had not occurred. It is immaterial, if, speculatively, the same decision would have been arrived at had a hearing not been tainted by unfairness. This is because, by its application, a breach of fair hearing leads to the inevitable conclusion that “an unfair method cannot produce a fair result”. The court stated that, the proper thing must be done by sending the case back for retrial or re- hearing. Reliance was placed on IDAKWO v EJIGA (2005) 48 WRN 23.
In determining issue 2, the Supreme Court held that, it is sad to argue that the Charge had been rightly dismissed by the learned trial Judge, due to self- engrossed assumption of scandalising the Court, and all the other reasons argued by the Appellant. The Court held that, assuming it were true that those are the reasons for the decision of the trial Judge discharging the Appellant, it would amount to a Judge sitting in justice over his cause, and a further violation of the principle of natural justice. Their Lordships opined that, judicial discretion and inherent powers of Court, must be exercised in the context of the justice of the particular case. For a judicial discretion to be properly exercised, it must be founded upon the facts and circumstances presented to the Court, from which the court must draw a conclusion governed by law, and nothing else. The Court referred to ARINZE v FIRST BANK NIG. LTD (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 888) 668 at 673. The court went further, stating that the trial judge became a Father Christmas of sorts, by granting orders that the Appellant did not specifically seek, ostensibly in the exercise of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court held that, such practice is most inappropriate, as it has no basis in law or logic, and that it is the duty of the court to entertain and decide a case only on the merit of any application brought before it by any party. The Supreme Court referred to ERIOBUNA v OBIORAH (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt 616) 642. Finally, the Court adjudged the appeal unmeritorious, and affirmed the judgement of the lower Court, which held that the ruling of the trial Court was impromptus and a nullity.
Appeal Dismissed.
Representation F. O. Fagbohungbe, SAN with A. Adeniran for the Appellant
J.B. Daudu, SAN with E.C. Ukala, SAN, O.J. Iheko and A. Adedeji for the Respondent Reported by Optimum Law Publishers Limited (Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR))