Instance(s) Where a Court Can Raise Issues Suo Motu and Determine It Without Hearing Parties

CASE TITLE: IGP v. ACHI (2024) LPELR-61781 (SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 23RD FEBRUARY, 2024

PRACTICE AREA: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on raising issues suo motu.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, delivered on the 13th day of January, 2022, which set aside the decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, delivered on the 16th day of June, 2015.

The respondent herein, Felix Ngozi Achi, was arraigned along with two others before the trial Court on a 3-count charge. The first count charged him with conspiracy to commit armed robbery.  The second count charged the respondent with armed robbery. The third count also charged the respondent with armed robbery.

The respondent as well as the other two defendants pleaded “Not Guilty” to the 3-count charge, by reason of which the trial Court proceeded to trial. At the trial, the appellant fielded four (4) witnesses, namely PW1-PW4, and tendered several exhibits. The facts that emerged from the prosecution were that on the 25th day of October 2012, between 12.00 midnight and 1.30 am, a gang of armed robbers invaded the residence of PW4 by the name of Rev. Father Paul Onah, at Saint Michael’s Catholic Church, Garaku, Lafia, Nasarawa State, and robbed him of several valuables. The armed robbers also robbed his neighbor, Rev. Father Simon Chia Aweli, of several valuables. The respondent and the other two defendants testified in their defence. Thereafter, parties addressed the trial Court after which the trial Court adjourned for judgment.

By its judgment delivered on the 16th day of June 2015, the trial Court convicted the respondent on counts 1 and 2 of the 3-count charge and sentenced him as follows: a term of imprisonment in respect of the first count and a sentence to death in respect of the second count.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal vide a Notice of Appeal filed on the 13th day of March, 2017. It is worthy of note that although Ground One in the Notice of Appeal before the Court of Appeal complained that the trial Court erroneously assumed jurisdiction over the case when the offence for which the respondent was charged were allegedly committed in Nasawara State, no issue was formulated in respect of that ground. Accordingly, no submissions were made by either party as to whether or not the trial Court lacked jurisdiction over the case.

However, the Court of Appeal, by its judgment delivered on the 13th day of January 2012, raised suo motu the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the charge and resolved same against the appellant. Being an intermediate appellate Court, the lower Court still considered the appeal on its merit and held that the appellant failed to establish the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and robbery beyond reasonable doubt.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The appeal was determined on:

“Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were correct in law to raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Trial High Court to hear and determine the charges preferred against the respondent suo motu and further proceeding to resolve same suo motu without affording the appellant any opportunity to be heard on such a fundamental issue which did not arise from any of the issues submitted by any of the parties, for the determination of the Justices of the Court of Appeal.”

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was found unmeritorious and was therefore, dismissed.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL – GROUND(S) OF APPEAL – Instance where grounds appeal will be held to be of fact or mixed law and fact; whether leave of Court is required to appeal against same and effect of failure
• COURT – RAISING ISSUE(S) SUO MOTU – Whether a Court can raise an issue suo motu and determine it without hearing parties
• COURT – RAISING ISSUE(S) SUO MOTU – Instance(s) where a court can raise issue(s) suo motu and determine it without hearing parties
• JURISDICTION – APPELLATE JURISDICTION – Whether an appellate court can exercise jurisdiction over a matter where the lower Court(s) lacks jurisdiction
• COURT – RAISING ISSUE(S) SUO MOTU – Whether a Court can raise the issue of jurisdiction suo motu and determine it without hearing parties

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol