Lpelr-46631(Ca)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
REGISTERED TRUSTEE OF SYNAGOGUE CHURCH OF ALL NATIONS v. STATE & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-46631(CA) In the Court of Appeal In the Lagos Judicial Division Holden at Lagos ON FRIDAY, 16TH NOVEMBER, 2018 Suit No: CA/L/408C/2018 Before Their Lordships: BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL Justice, Court of Appeal JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR Justice, Court of Appeal TOBI EBIOWEI Justice, Court of Appeal Between THE REGISTERED TRUSTEE OF SYNAGOGUE CHURCH - Appellant(s) OF ALL NATIONS (2018) LPELR-46631(CA)And 1. THE STATE OF LAGOS 2. JADNY TRUST LTD. 3. HARD ROCK CONSTRUCTU ENGINEERING CO. - Respondent(s) 4. OLADELE OGUNDEJI 5. AKINBOLA FATISEGUN RATIO DECIDENDI 1. ACTION - COMPETENCE OF AN ACTION/A SUIT: Importance of competency in an action "In law competence is the soul and spirit of adjudication, whether in civil or criminal proceedings in the Courts. See Madukolu V. Nkendilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. See also Efiok V. Govt. of Cross Rivers State (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 593) 1993 @ p. 2003."Per GEORGEWILL, J.C.A. (P. 23, Paras. C-D) - read in context 2. APPEAL - ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION: Effect of issue(s) for determination not distilled from or related to ground(s) of appeal "Finally on the myriads of challenges to the validity of Count one is the issue of whether it is in the name of 'Lagos State' or 'State of Lagos' that the Appellant ought to be prosecuted before the Court below? It was brilliantly contended that the proper nomenclature is 'Lagos State' which is the State created on 27/5/1967 by virtue of the State (Creation and Transitional Provisions) Decree No 14 of 1967 as a component part of Nigeria and not the 'State of Lagos' which is unknown to law. This question or issue appears to be a very interesting one and truly very tempting to be considered head long on the merit in this appeal as alluring as it was presented by the Appellant, but the question is this: from which of the eight grounds of appeal in the amended notice of appeal is this issue arising from in this appeal? An appeal is not an all comer issues affairs but rather one founded on and inextricably tied to the grounds of appeal and issues properly arising there from. Thus, any issue not arising from a valid ground of appeal is both irrelevant and a mere meddlesome interloper or busy body and thus dead on arrival, indeed as dead as 'dodo'. ?I shall therefore, not dissipate any energy on an issue, though appearing so interesting and alluring but has no bearing to any of the grounds of appeal in this appeal and thus irrelevant. It is better such an issue is left for another day when it would validly arise in an appeal to be properly and competently considered and pronounced upon by the Court but until then this issue, being irrelevant in this appeal, is hereby discountenanced in its entirety as going to no issue at all."Per GEORGEWILL, J.C.A. (Pp. 32-34, Paras. D-A) - read in context 3. APPEAL - INTERFERENCE WITH FINDING(S) OF FACT(S): Instances when an appellate Court will not interfere with findings of fact of the lower Courts "The Court below was therefore right when it held that the 1st Respondent did make out a prima facie case against the Appellant on Count 1 necessitating its being called upon to enter upon its defense if it so wishes. In my finding there is nothing perverse or erroneous in the totality of the findings, conclusions and decision of the Court below in this regard. In law, an appellate Court has no business interfering with the correct findings of a trial Court even where the reason adduced and relied upon by the trial Court to arrive at the correct findings turns out to be wrong. See Alhaji Ndayako & Ors. V. Alhaji Dantoro & Ors. (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187 @ p. 198, where Edozie, JSC., had pronounced with finality on this vexed issue, thus: "An appellate Court is only concerned with whether the judgment appealed against is right or wrong not whether the reasons given are right or wrong. Where the judgment is right but the reasons given are wrong, the appellate Court does not interfere. It is only where the misdirection has caused the Court to come to a wrong conclusion that the appellate Court will interfere...." See also Abaye V. Ofili (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 134; Ukejianya V. Uchendu 18 WACA 46."Per GEORGEWILL, J.C.A. (Pp. 62-63, Paras. F-E) - read in context 4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - POWER(S) OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Whether there are limitations on the power of the Attorney General I have considered the submission that the offence as laid in Count 1 is incompetent for failure to serve notice of contravention on the Appellant. In my finding, having considered the submissions of both counsel, Count 1 does not require any proof of service of notice of contravention to be competent as in my view such a contention would at best rather go to the issue of proof beyond reasonable doubt of the offence alleged under Section 75(1) of the Urban and Regional Planning and Development Law. It is thus an issue completely irrelevant at the stage of considering a no case submission. It must await a consideration of proof of the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt, which can only arise at the conclusion of the substantive trial before the Court below. I cannot therefore, but agree with the submission of the learned DPP, since nothing by way of legislation and or settled principles of law in judicial authority has been shown to the contrary by the Appellant, that in law the constitutional powers of the Attorney General to institute 34 criminal proceedings cannot be hindered by any law or statute of the State. I hold therefore, that there is nothing in Section 75(1) of the Urban and Regional Planning Law amounting to any pre-condition that could impede the exercise of the powers of the Attorney General of Lagos State to institute criminal proceedings in the Court below against the Appellant. See Section 75 (1) of Urban and Regional Planning Development law of Lagos State. See also Olatunbosun V. State (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1382) 167; Okpa V. State (2017) LPELR - 42205(SC) I have looked(2018) at the provisions of Section LPELR-46631(CA)75(1) of the Urban and Regional Planning and Development Law by which provision the offence charged under Count 1 was laid and I find that it was properly laid against the Appellant upon compliance with all due process and conditions precedent and the question of whether they have been proved beyond reasonable doubt or not or would succeed or not is not an issue for determination at the stage of a no case submission. All that the law requires is that an offence and its punishment must be prescribed in a written law. I therefore, see no merit in all the Appellant's submissions 35 that the offence charged under Count 1 is incompetent when on the contrary it was properly laid in line with the provisions of Section 75(1) of the Urban and Regional Planning and Development Law. Consequently, I hold that Count 1 is valid. See Mohammed V. The State (2012) LPELR - 9694 (CA). See also Attorney General of the Federation V. Clement Isong (1986) 1 QLRN 75.Per GEORGEWILL, J.C.A. (Pp. 34-36, Paras. A-B) - read in context 5. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - CHARGE(S): When objection for any formal defect on the face of a charge should be made and taken "Now, one of the major reforms of the new regime of the system of administration of criminal justice in Lagos State is the provision of the law limiting the time for raising objections bordering on validity of a charge or information before the Court. Thus, a Defendant may raise any objection to the validity of the charge or information at any time before Judgment provided however, any such objection, except as it relates to jurisdiction, shall only be considered along with the substantive issue and the ruling thereon made at the time of delivery of the Judgment. It follows therefore, that objections shall not be taken or entertained by the Court during trial on the ground that the charge is imperfect or erroneous, which is now intended to checkmate frivolous preliminary objections that had hitherto littered the paths of criminal trials with unwanted thorns. See Fabian Obodo V. The State (2016) LPELR - 356(CA)."Per GEORGEWILL, J.C.A. (Pp. 24-25, Paras. C-A) - read in context 6. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE -OFFENCE UNKNOWN TO LAW:Whether an offence and its punishment must be prescribed by a written law "I have already reproduced the provision of Section 75(1) of the Urban and Regional Planning and Development Law, by which provision the offence charged under Count 1 is both defined and the punishment prescribed. That is all the law requires that an offence and its punishment must be prescribed by a written law. I therefore, see no merit in the Appellant's submissions that the offence charged under Count 1 is unknown to law as not being in any written provision and punishment prescribed by law. The offence charged under Count 1 is known to law and is an offence created, defined and punishment prescribed by Section 75(1) of the Urban and Regional Planning and Development Law. Consequently, I hold that Count 1 is valid.