md←→ previous / next
Before Their Lordships
MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ITA GEORGE MBABA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ITA GEORGE MBABA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
FELICIA AHUKANNA Appellant(s)
AND
THE STATE Respondent(s)
…………………….A…………………….
TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is the Judgment in respect of the appeal of the appellant against the decision of the Abia State High Court sitting at Umuahia delivered on 9/2/2017.
On 14/12/2016 the appellant filed a motion on notice at the lower Court praying for an order of Court and granting her bail.
The learned trial Judge after hearing the parties on the application gave a ruling and struck out the application. His lordship held inter alia thus:-
Upon perusal of the motion paper, affidavit and further affidavit of Applicant, as well as the counter affidavit of Respondent, the exhibits annexed, inclusive of the ruling of Honourable Justice E.O. Enwereji presiding over the High Court of Justice Omoba, dated 8th February, 2016, one thing stands clear and that is, that to his application is the same as the one brought before Hon. Justice Enwereji in respect of which he gave his ruling on the 8th day of February, 2016 which is Exhibit C before this Court.
It is settled law that a Court cannot over rule or vary the decision of another Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. It is my opinion that the Honourable Justice E.O. Enwereji gave a considered ruling on Applicant’s application for bail based on the same ground of ill health, at the end of which the application was refused and dismissed.
It is my opinion that if I should consider the application before me which is to admit the Applicant to bail, it will be tantamount to sitting on appeal over the Ruling of the High Court Omoba presided over by Hon. Justice E. O. Enwereji. See the case of NWOGU v. AJOKU (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 541) ratio where the Court stated inter alia.
Thus in the absence of statutory authority, a Court has no power to set aside or vary the other of another Court of co-ordinate or concurrent jurisdiction. No Court can therefore sit on appeal over decision of Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
Continuing in the said case of NWOGU v. AJOKU supra the Court stated:
In the realms of jurisprudence and having regard to the nature of our judicial set up, it is heretical for a judge to purport to sit on appeal and hiding under one subterfuge, or the other to squash the decision of another exercising no less of equal powers and authority.
See also the case of IGWE v. KALU (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt. 787) 436 at 453-454 where the Supreme Court stated that Courts of record have the inherent jurisdiction to set aside their judgment/decision/order on the following circumstances.
(1) when the judgment is obtained by fraud or deceit of one or more of the parties.
(2) the judgment is a nullity
(3) the Court was misled into giving judgment under a mistaken belief that the parties consented to it.
(4) judgment was given in the absence of jurisdiction.
(5) the proceeding adopted was such as to deprive the decision of judgment of the character of legitimate adjudication.
(6) where there is fundamental irregularity.
It is obvious that none of the above listed conditions exists in the ruling on the previous application of the Applicant before the High Court Omoba.
In the absence of these conditions and in view of the authorities cited above, I decline to entertain this application as it will in my opinion be tantamount to this Court sitting on appeal over the ruling of a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
In view of all the foregoing, this application is therefore struck out.
Miffed by the decision, the appellant appealed via her Notice of Appeal filed on 20/2/2017 challenging the decision on two grounds as follows:-
GROUND ONE
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that, if I should consider the application before me which is to admit the Applicant to bail, it will be tantamount to sitting on appeal over the ruling of the High Court Omoba presided over by Hon. Justice E.O. Enwereji.
The learned trial Judge after hearing the parties on the application gave a ruling and struck out the application. His lordship held inter alia thus:-
Upon perusal of the motion paper, affidavit and further affidavit of Applicant, as well as the counter affidavit of Respondent, the exhibits annexed, inclusive of the ruling of Honourable Justice E.O. Enwereji presiding over the High Court of Justice Omoba, dated 8th February, 2016, one thing stands clear and that is, that to his application is the same as the one brought before Hon. Justice Enwereji in respect of which he gave his ruling on the 8th day of February, 2016 which is Exhibit C before this Court.
It is settled law that a Court cannot over rule or vary the decision of another Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. It is my opinion that the Honourable Justice E.O. Enwereji gave a considered ruling on Applicant’s application for bail based on the same ground of ill health, at the end of which the application was refused and dismissed.
It is my opinion that if I should consider the application before me which is to admit the Applicant to bail, it will be tantamount to sitting on appeal over the Ruling of the High Court Omoba presided over by Hon. Justice E. O. Enwereji. See the case of NWOGU v. AJOKU (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 541) ratio where the Court stated inter alia.
Thus in the absence of statutory authority, a Court has no power to set aside or vary the other of another Court of co-ordinate or concurrent jurisdiction. No Court can therefore sit on appeal over decision of Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
Continuing in the said case of NWOGU v. AJOKU supra the Court stated:
In the realms of jurisprudence and having regard to the nature of our judicial set up, it is heretical for a judge to purport to sit on appeal and hiding under one subterfuge, or the other to squash the decision of another exercising no less of equal powers and authority.
See also the case of IGWE v. KALU (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt. 787) 436 at 453-454 where the Supreme Court stated that Courts of record have the inherent jurisdiction to set aside their judgment/decision/order on the following circumstances.
(1) when the judgment is obtained by fraud or deceit of one or more of the parties.
(2) the judgment is a nullity
(3) the Court was misled into giving judgment under a mistaken belief that the parties consented to it.
(4) judgment was given in the absence of jurisdiction.
(5) the proceeding adopted was such as to deprive the decision of judgment of the character of legitimate adjudication.
(6) where there is fundamental irregularity.
It is obvious that none of the above listed conditions exists in the ruling on the previous application of the Applicant before the High Court Omoba.
In the absence of these conditions and in view of the authorities cited above, I decline to entertain this application as it will in my opinion be tantamount to this Court sitting on appeal over the ruling of a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
In view of all the foregoing, this application is therefore struck out.
Miffed by the decision, the appellant appealed via her Notice of Appeal filed on 20/2/2017 challenging the decision on two grounds as follows:-
GROUND ONE
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that, if I should consider the application before me which is to admit the Applicant to bail, it will be tantamount to sitting on appeal over the ruling of the High Court Omoba presided over by Hon. Justice E.O. Enwereji.
…………………….B…………………….
Continue reading FELICIA AHUKANNA v. THE STATE
You have read the opening. Unlock the full library once and it stays unlocked - one payment, no subscription, the same library as the app.
- All 725 Laws of the Federation, A to Z
- 916 full judgments and 269 case collections
- 8,046 legal principles and 124 rules of court
- 343 drafts, with the Draft Builder
- The Law Dictionary - 31,442 terms
- Law School notes and 2,082 MCQs
Every Act, case collection and principle beginning with A, B or C is free to read in full, without unlocking - the same boundary as the Android app.