Can a court grant a prayer not sought by parties? Why would a court refrain from safeguarding its integrity and powers by refusing to penalise a party it established wilfully breached its orders?
These, among others, are questions set for determination in an appeal filed before the Court of Appeal, Abuja by a firm, Bedding Holdings Limited (BHL).
The appeal, particularly, queries a portion of a May 28,2013 ruling by Justice Adamu Bello of the Federal High Court, Abuja, where the judge stayed proceedings in a contempt case initiated against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), its Chairman, Attahiru Jega for failing to obey orders made by the court.
In the ruling, Justice Bello refused applications by INEC, Jega and a contractor with INEC, Emchai Limited, seeking to stay the execution of the court’s judgment of June 5, 2012 pending appeal.
Justice Bello had in the judgment given in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 held among others, that the plaintiff, BHL owns valid and subsisting patent rights over Transparent Ballot Boxes and Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes being used for elections in the country.
Specifically, the court upheld BHL’s claim to being the bona fide patentee and the exclusive owner of the invention named “Transparent Ballot Boxes” on which it was issued certificate of registration patent rights No. RP12994 and registration of industrial designs rights No. RD5946 by the Registrar of Patents on January 12, 1998.
The court also upheld the subsequent certification of an improvement on the invention named “Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes” (with certificate of registration of patent rights No. RP16642 and registration of industrial designs rights No. RD13841 issued on November 27, 2006 which are still valid.
The judge voided the rights over similar inventions purportedly issued later, to three firms – Emchai Limited, Tambco United Nigeria Ltd and Anowat Project and Resources Ltd – by the Registrar of Patent, for being illegal.
Justice Bello granted an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and any other person from utilising or dealing with the patented boxes of the plaintiff “except with the express and prior consent, license and authority of the plaintiff to that effect.”
Rather than abide by the court’s injunction, INEC and Jega deployed the same ballot boxes for the conduct of the Kwara State House of Assembly rerun election on June 30, 2012 in Ilorin Northwest Local Government; governorship elections in two states – Edo (July 10, 2012) and Ondo (October 20, 2012) without the consent of BHL.
These developments informed the contempt proceedings.
Convinced that the contempt proceedings were properly initiated, Justice Gladys Olotu (also of the Federal High Court, Abuja) in a ruling on August 29, 2012 set the contempt proceedings down for hearing and determination expeditiously.
In his May 28, 2013 ruling, Justice Bello equally found that INEC and Jega violated his court’s order, and came down hard on them (INEC and Jega) for acting in disregard of the court’s order.
He frowned at the decision of the electoral body and its Chairman to deploy the same ballot boxes for the governorship elections held last year on July 10 in Edo State and on October 20 in Ondo state without the consent of the plaintiff and in disregard of the court’s subsisting order made on June 5, 2012.
Justice Bello held that it was funny that INEC and Jega would approach his court for an indulgence having willingly disregarded and flouted its order.
“They (INEC and Jega) conducted the elections on July 14 and October 20, 2012 using the same ballot boxes as averred by the plaintiff/respondent (BHL) in its counter affidavit, which has not been denied by the 6th and 7th defendants (INEC and Jega) in the two further and better affidavit, in total disregard to the injunctive order, the execution of which they now seek to stay by their application.
“Since the elections have been conducted, the need for staying the execution of the injunctive order granted by the court has abated, at least for now. “And even if the need for the order for stay of execution has not abated, the defendants by proceeding to conduct the two elections, using the same ballot boxes, the use of which was restrained by the court’s judgment, have soiled their hands and can not therefore seek the indulgence of the court.
“He, who comes to equity, must come with clean hands. The 6th and 7th defendants have not come with clean hands before the court and can not therefore seek for equitable relief of stay of execution of the order in the judgment.
“Consequently, I refuse to grant the application, as granting it will tantamount to the court encouraging further breach of its own judgment order, which subsists until set aside by the Court of Appeal.
“The only order I am mindful to grant pursuant to the omnibus prayer in the motion, is an order staying proceedings in the contempt proceedings initiated by the plaintiff/respondent, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal by the 6th and 7the defendants,” Justice Bello held.
However, the contention of BHL in its appeal, is that Justice Bello had no business staying proceedings in the contempt case having noted that INEC and Jega disobeyed his court’s order.
It also argued that since contempt proceedings are separate proceedings from the cases from which they emerged, they could run separately.
BHL queried Justice Bello’s decision to make the consequential order staying proceedings in the contempt case when no party sought for such order.
It raised four grounds of appeal, the first being that the trial judge erred in law when he made the consequential order of stay of proceedings thereby occasioning a “grave miscarriage of justice.”
BHL also faulted the trial judge decision to stay proceedings even when it found “that prima facie, the 6th and 7th defendants willingly disregarded and flouted the order of the court contained in its judgment of June 5, 2012.”
It contended that the trial judge was in error when he relied on the omnibus prayers in the motions before him to make the consequential order for stay of proceedings in the contempt case, having found that prima facie, INEC and Jega flouted the court’s order.
BHL also argued that the trial court’s decision of May 28, 2013 “is against the weight of evidence.” It therefore prayed the Court of Appeal to set aside the portion of Justice Bello’s decision of May 28 staying proceedings in the contempt case.
The appellant also prayed the appellate court to either set the contempt proceedings down for prompt hearing or remit it back to the Federal High Court for hearing and determination on merit, within one month.
