A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has faulted the manner Magistrate M. A. Sadeeq handled the case involving a lawyer and ex-staff of Afe Babalola’s law firm in Abuja, Mrs. Bridget Emengo
The High Court of the FCT, in a judgment on an appeal by Mrs. Emengo, held that the lower court erred in refusing to strike out the charge against appellant after holding that his court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
Mrs. Emengo’s appeal was against a November 11, 2021 ruling by Magistrate Sadeeq of the Magistrate Court of the FCT in Wuse Zone 6, who held that his court lacked the jurisdiction to try Mrs. Emengo for the offences of conspiracy, perjury and defamation contained in a charge brought against her by the police.
The police had filed the charge against her shortly after she sued her ex-employer and some principal officers of the firm before the National Industrial Court to challenge the manner she was relieved of her employment.
Based on the charge, the police arrested Mrs. Emengo, detained her for days and later arraigned before Magistrate Sadeeq.
She pleaded not guilty to the charge, applied for bail and and challenged the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the charge against her via a notice of preliminary objection.
She claimed among others, that her arrest and arraignment before the magistrate court was intended by the defendants in her suit before the Industrial Court to prevent her from prosecuting the case.
Mrs. Emengo argued that the police’s decision to charge her with defamation based on the averments supporting her suit before the Industrial Court was not supported by any known law.
On November 11, 2021, Magistrate Sadeeq, rather than determine the merit or otherwise of the objection by Mrs. Ebengo, declined jurisdiction to entertain the charge, but decided to transfer it to the court’s registry for reassignment, a decision the defendant appealed against before the High Court of the FCT.
In its judgment on Mrs. Emengo’s appeal, a two-member panel of the High Court of the FCT, held that Magistrate Sadeeq was wrong to have on his own raised and determined the issue of his court’s jurisdiction without hearing from parties in the case.
Justice A. I. Akobi, in the lead judgment, held that Magistrate Sadeeq was equally in error to have transfered the charge to the court’s registry for reassignment having found that his court lacked the jurisdiction to try the defendant/appellant for the offence charged.
Justice Akobi, who was supported by Justice A. Y. Shafa, said: “l agree in its entirety with the submission of the appellant, which is the law, that a citizen of this country can only be tried, convicted and sentenced for an offence created and known to law.
“Thus, no citizen ought to be subjected to trial, conviction and sentence for any alleged offence not created by law.
“What a judge or magistrate should do when such situation present itself, is to strike out the charge or First Information Report (FIR) as the case may be for offending section 36(8) and (12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.
Read Also: 2023 Aare Afe Babalola Football League: Defending champions in good start
“I, therefore, hold that the appellant or any other citizen of Nigeria cannot be intimidated by way of criminal allegation for exercising his tight to access the court.
“In the instance case, the lower court approbate and reprobate by admitted having jurisdiction to hear the FIR and then turned round to decline jurisdiction and sent the case file for re-assignment to court with jurisdiction.”
On the appellant’s contention that Magistrate Sadeeq was wrong to raise the issue of jurisdiction suo motu (on his own), Justice Akobi held that the position of the law was that jurisdiction, being a threshold issue, could be raised at any stage of proceedings.
He added: “Bearing in mind the right of the parties to fair hearing provided for in Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, a court may raise the issue of jurisdiction suo motu, but must give the parties an opportunity to be heard in respect thereof.
“Failure to call on the patties to be heard on the issue suo motu raised by the court as in this case is a breach of fair hearing guaranteed under section 36(1)} of the Constitution.
“In the light of the above, I hereby hold that the lower court err in law when it raise the issue of jurisdiction suo motu, proceeded to make an order based on it, without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard. That is a breach to their fundamental right to fair hearing.”
On the appellant’s contention that the magistrate erred in referring the charge for reassignment, Justice Akobi held there was no known law that permits a magistrate court to refer a case, in respect of which it lacked jurisdiction, for reassignment.
Justice Akobi said: ” The only exception that may arise, in my own view, is where a statute, creating the court, allows for the court to transfer a matter it has no jurisdiction to another court with jurisdiction.
“In this case, I am not aware and unable to lay my hands on any statutory or judicial authority permitting the lower court to transfer a case before it which he declines jurisdiction to hear to the registry for reassignment to a court of competent jurisdiction and I am not refered to any authority to justify the action of the lower court.
“What the lower court (magistrate court) would have done, after declining jurisdiction to hear the FIR, was to strike out the FIR to afford the prosecution another opportunity of coming before a court with competent jurisdiction to try the case.
“The law is that once a court declines jurisdiction to entertain a suit or matter in both criminal and civil matter, the only step it can take in that circumstance is to make an order striking out the suit.
“Any other order or pronouncement made by the court, after declaring that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit, will be null and void and of no effect.
“In the light of the above, this appeal succeeds and I make the following orders:
• An order setting aside the ruling of the lower court dated the 11th day of November 2021 on which it assumed jurisdiction over the FIR without proper examination of the proof of evidence.
• An order setting aside the ruling of the lower court dated the 11th day of November 2021 wherein it suo motu declined jurisdiction to entertain the offence of perjury in the FIR without first hearing from the parties.
• An order setting aside the order of the lower court sending the case file to the registry after declining jurisdiction to be assigned to a court of competent jurisdiction.
• This case is hereby sent back to be heard by another magistrate.”