METUH v. F.R.N & ANOR

Chief Olisa Metuh (Appelant)

…………………….A…………………….

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appellants in the two appeals stand trial at the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, hereinafter referred to as the trial Court, on a seven count money laundering charge. On their arraignment, they pleaded not guilty to the charge. The respondent led eight witnesses through whom several documents were admitted in evidence to establish its case against the appellants. At the close of the respondent’s case, the appellants made a no case submission and urged the trial Court to discharge them. In a considered ruling delivered on the 9th March 2016, the trial Court dismissed appellants’ no case submission and ordered them to enter their defence.
Aggrieved by the trial Court’s dismissal of their no case submission, the appellants separately filed their notices of appeal, containing the same grounds, against the ruling on 23rd March 2016 at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, hereinafter referred to as the Lower Court. The appellants urged the Lower Court to determine their appeals by resolving the five issues distilled in their respective briefs. The sole issue distilled by the respondent as having arisen for the determination of the appeals which the Lower Court preferred and resolved in its determination of the two appeals before it reads:-
“Whether the trial Court was right in holding that the Respondent (prosecution) had made out a prima facie case against the Appellants (Defendants) to warrant their being called upon to enter their defence.”
The respondent had earlier filed a preliminary objection against the competence of the appeals and prayed the Lower Court to determine same on the basis of its lone issue therefrom that reads:-
“Whether the notices of appeal of the appellants against the ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja on the no case submission filed without leave of the Court is competent.”
Notwithstanding the fact of its upholding respondent’s preliminary objection, the Lower Court being the penultimate Court, all the same resolved the lone issue it preferred in the determination of the appeal in favour of the respondent and dismissed the appeals. The Court’s decision is dated 25th May 2016. The appellants have further appealed to this Court on their respective notices containing five grounds each filed on the 1st day of June 2016.
At the hearing of the appeals, parties having identified their respective briefs adopted and relied on same as their arguments for and against the appeals. The three issues distilled in Appeal No.SC.457/2016 which are identical with those formulated by the appellant in Appeal No.SC.470/2016 read:-
1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were wrong when they struck out the appeal on the ground that all the Grounds of Appeal filed by the Appellant were grounds of mixed law and fact for which prior leave of Court was required by virtue of Section 242(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). Ground 1. (Underlining supplied for emphasis).
2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were wrong when they held that the 1st Respondent established the essential elements of the offences charged and established prima facie case requiring the Appellant to enter his defence. Ground II, IV, V, and VI.
3. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were wrong when they held that the questions raised by the trial Judge were mere rhetoric questions’ and did not case the burden of proof on the appellant.
Ground III.”
The three similar issues distilled by the respondent for the determination of the appeal are:-
A. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were not correct/right in upholding the 1st Respondent’s preliminary objection and consequently striking out the appellant’s Notice of appeal together with all the arguments on the issues raised for being incompetent. Ground 1.
(Underlining supplied for emphasis).
B. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal notwithstanding the striking out of the appellant’s Notice of Appeal on grounds of incompetence and having considered the appeal on the merit, were not correct/right in upholding the ruling of the trial Court, dismissing the appellant’s no case submission and holding that the 1st Respondent had made out a prima facie case and that the appellant had a case to answer. Grounds II, IV, V and VI.
C. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were not correct/right when their lordships held that the questions posed by the trial Court in its ruling on the no case