According to a report by PM News , a Court of Appeal sitting
in Lagos has quashed the 22-count charge brought against
the former Managing Director of Intercontinental Bank Plc,
Dr. Erastus Akingbola by the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission (EFCC). The EFCC had alleged that
Akingbola stole N47.5 billion belonging to the bank. The
report below...
Ruling on Akingbola’s application on jurisdiction, the
court presided over by Justice Amina Augie held that
the High Court of Lagos State presided over by
Justice Lateef Lawal-Akapo lacked jurisdiction to
entertain the suit filed against him by the commission
Justice Augie said it amounted to miscarriage of justice for
the lower court to have dismissed Akingbola’s application
challenging its jurisdiction on the matter.
“The appeal is meritorious and allowed,” she declared.
“I am convinced that the lower court refused to align itself
with the decision of this court in Nwosu’s case,” she further
held.
Akingbola and his co-defendant, Bayo Dada, had filed two
separate applications challenging the jurisdiction of the
court to hear the 22-count charge filed against them by the
EFCC.
But, the lower court, in its ruling on 2 May, 2014 dismissed
their applications.
Justice Lawal-Akapo had then held that the charges
preferred against the defendants were within its
competence and jurisdiction to determine.
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the high court, Akingbola and
Dada approached the Appeal Court, praying that the trial
court’s decision be set aside.
Delievering the judgement, Justice Augie declared that the
lower court fell into serious error by not abiding by the
decision on Nwosu’s case adding, “it is most unfair and is
an injustice”.
According to her, the lower court has no option than to
follow the decision of the higher court on Nwosu’s case.
“The point must be made that the decision of this court in
Nwosu’s case was based on proof of evidence.”
The judge noted that all the charges against the defendants
arose out of capital market transactions.
“Only federal high court is conferred with the exclusive
jurisdiction to try cases of capital market transaction,” she
stressed.
The appellate court held that the lower court owes it a duty
to compare and contrast the documents cited by parties.
“It is its duty to examine materials brought before him. It is
the role of the judge to do justice in adjudicating all the
cases brought before him.
“One sided justice would amount to injustice and favouring
one side.
“The proof of evidence was there but the trial judge at the
lower court accused the defendants of not furnishing him
with the documents.
“He has failed in his duty.”
Justice Augie further held that the appeal filed by the
defendants has nothing to do with evidence, noting that the
lower court failed to go through argument canvassed before
it assumed jurisdiction on the matter.
She emphasised that the issue of jurisdiction should not
have been toyed with by the lower court.
“I agree with the appellant that the lower court ought to
have gone through the proof of evidence.
“There is no way a charge of stealing can stand without
going through the proof of evidence,” she declared.
in Lagos has quashed the 22-count charge brought against
the former Managing Director of Intercontinental Bank Plc,
Dr. Erastus Akingbola by the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission (EFCC). The EFCC had alleged that
Akingbola stole N47.5 billion belonging to the bank. The
report below...
Ruling on Akingbola’s application on jurisdiction, the
court presided over by Justice Amina Augie held that
the High Court of Lagos State presided over by
Justice Lateef Lawal-Akapo lacked jurisdiction to
entertain the suit filed against him by the commission
Justice Augie said it amounted to miscarriage of justice for
the lower court to have dismissed Akingbola’s application
challenging its jurisdiction on the matter.
“The appeal is meritorious and allowed,” she declared.
“I am convinced that the lower court refused to align itself
with the decision of this court in Nwosu’s case,” she further
held.
Akingbola and his co-defendant, Bayo Dada, had filed two
separate applications challenging the jurisdiction of the
court to hear the 22-count charge filed against them by the
EFCC.
But, the lower court, in its ruling on 2 May, 2014 dismissed
their applications.
Justice Lawal-Akapo had then held that the charges
preferred against the defendants were within its
competence and jurisdiction to determine.
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the high court, Akingbola and
Dada approached the Appeal Court, praying that the trial
court’s decision be set aside.
Delievering the judgement, Justice Augie declared that the
lower court fell into serious error by not abiding by the
decision on Nwosu’s case adding, “it is most unfair and is
an injustice”.
According to her, the lower court has no option than to
follow the decision of the higher court on Nwosu’s case.
“The point must be made that the decision of this court in
Nwosu’s case was based on proof of evidence.”
The judge noted that all the charges against the defendants
arose out of capital market transactions.
“Only federal high court is conferred with the exclusive
jurisdiction to try cases of capital market transaction,” she
stressed.
The appellate court held that the lower court owes it a duty
to compare and contrast the documents cited by parties.
“It is its duty to examine materials brought before him. It is
the role of the judge to do justice in adjudicating all the
cases brought before him.
“One sided justice would amount to injustice and favouring
one side.
“The proof of evidence was there but the trial judge at the
lower court accused the defendants of not furnishing him
with the documents.
“He has failed in his duty.”
Justice Augie further held that the appeal filed by the
defendants has nothing to do with evidence, noting that the
lower court failed to go through argument canvassed before
it assumed jurisdiction on the matter.
She emphasised that the issue of jurisdiction should not
have been toyed with by the lower court.
“I agree with the appellant that the lower court ought to
have gone through the proof of evidence.
“There is no way a charge of stealing can stand without
going through the proof of evidence,” she declared.
No comments:
Post a Comment