Category: Law

This article borders on the territorial jurisdiction in criminal trial. The Court, per NGWUTA JSC, in Dariye v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2015) LPELR-SC.252/2013 defined territorial jurisdiction as a ‘geographic area within which the authority of the Court may be exercised and outside which the Court has no power to act’.

The general principle of law is that criminal trials are territorial because courts are only concerned with criminal matters that are committed in their state. This principle is reflected in the Latin maxim lex non velet extra territiorum which means that a law is not valid outside its territory. Similarly, offences in a state are created by laws of the House of Assembly of that state. Thus, a state cannot make laws for another state.

In the South, this general principle has been statutorily provided for in section 12A of the Criminal Code: whereby the provisions of any law of a State the doing of any act or the making of any omission is constituted an offence, those provisions shall apply to every person who is in the State at the time of his doing the act or making the omission. This is equally similar to what is obtainable in the Northern region of Nigeria by virtue of section 4(1) of the Penal Code

Just like every other general principle in law, this principle also has exceptions. The first exception – by virtue of section 12(2)(a) – is that where several elements of the crime are committed in different states, or where several offences are committed in different states, those states all have the jurisdiction to try the matter.

Painting a scenario, if an accused stole in Ibadan and on the same day travelled to Ado-Ekiti where he committed the offence of murder and was apprehended, the State High Court of either states has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the offences. In order to prevent double jeopardy, what is obtainable in practice is that the charge sheet usually contain the two offences in brought before that Court.

Thus, in the celebrated case of Patrick Njovens &Ors. v. State (1973) LCN1727(SC), on or about the 13th day of April, 1971 at a place between Ilorin and Bacita in the Kwara Judicial Division, one Felix Dumeh, and three others committed the offence of robbery. The accused Patrick Njovens and others sometime in April, 1971 at Ibadan having previous knowledge of the plan to commit the said offence abetted the said Felix Dumeh and others in the commission of the said offence by intentionally aiding, encouraging, and instigating the commission of the said offence by agreeing with Felix Dumeh and others and promising on oath to conceal the said offence when committed and by taking no action to prevent its commission. The defence counsel argued that the Kwara State High Court has no jurisdiction to try the accused persons under the Penal Code. The Supreme Court while interpreting section 4(2) of the Penal Code held that the Kwara State High Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the accused persons.

Similarly in Mbah v. The State (2014) 235 LRCN 1, the first attempt on the life of the victim took place in October, 2001 in Abuja and the last and final attempt was carried out in 2003 at Aguru, Anambra State.
This Court held that the 2003 attempt on the life of the victim in Anambra State was a continuation of the earlier attempt of 2001 in Abuja and that the FCT High Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the accused.

What then happens if, from our scenario, the accused subsequently enters into a separate state where no element of the offence occurs, for instance, Ondo State, and was arrested? Can the prosecution charge him for those prior committed offences at the Ondo State High Court and will the Court have the requisite jurisdiction? The answer is in the affirmative. The authority is based on section 12A(2)(b) of the Criminal Code which provides that if that act or omission occurs elsewhere than in the state, and the person who does that act or makes that omission afterwards comes into the state, he is by such coming into the state guilty of an offence of the same kind and he’s liable to the same punishment, as if the act or omission had occurred in the state and he had been in the state when it occurred.

However, it is noteworthy that if the offence is only recognized under Penal Code, criminal liability won’t exist under the Criminal code upon the commission of the offence. Hence, in the locus classicus case of Aoko v Fagbemi (1961) 1 ALL NLR 400, the Court held that the husband who committed adultery in the North which is an offence by virtue Section 387 and 388 of the Penal Code, cannot be held guilty under the Criminal Code because adultery is not an offence in the South.

Thank you for reading🤗. See you next week.

Kindly subscribe to the mailing list below, if you haven’t. Thank you, once again.

It is a well-settled principle of law, having received judicial pronouncements in a plethora of cases, that where an issue is governed by a general and specific provision, the latter will prevail. Jack v University of Agriculture Makurdi 2004 LPELR-SC.262/2000, Ibori v Ogburu (2004) 15 NWLR (PT.895) 154, etc.

Putting it into a context, while the code of conduct of every University stipulates that students shall dress moderately and reasonably, each Faculty of Law’s code of conduct – brochure or prospectus – as it may be called, states that the regulatory dress of all Law students in Nigeria shall be White on Black (Grey or Blue). Hence, a law student who though dressed moderately by putting on a pink blazer cannot rely on the general provision of the University’s code of conduct because his/her Faculty already anticipates this occurrence and provides the mandatory Black on White. Hence, the specific provision will prevail.

Relating this example to legal matters, section 251(1)(P) of the Constitution states that action by or against any agency of the Federal Government shall commence at the Federal High Court. However, the combined effects of section 46(1) of the Constitution and Order 1 Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rule 1999, state that if the issue involves a breach of a Fundamental Human Rights, the State High Court, just like the Federal High Court, has concurrent jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter. Hence, while section 251 gives a wide blanket that issues involving the federal agency should be instituted at the Federal High Court, section 46, though recognizes this right, specifically provides and prevails when it centers on Fundamental Human Right issues.

Thank you for reading. See you next week😍.

This week’s analysis discusses the effect of affixing proof of payment of Nigerian Bar Association stamp and seal on legal documents where the actual stamp and seal is not yet available.

In Law, Rule 10(1) and (2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007, states that:
(1) A lawyer acting in his capacity as a legal practitioner, legal officer, or adviser of any Government department or ministry or any corporation, shall not sign or file a legal document unless there is affixed on any such document a seal and stamp approved by the Nigerian Bar Association.
(2) For the purpose of this rule, “legal documents” shall include pleadings, affidavits, depositions, applications, instruments, agreements, deeds, letters, memoranda, reports, legal opinions, or any similar documents.

Failure to comply with this requirement makes the document so signed or filed deemed not to have been properly signed or filed. Ss(3).

By necessary implication, the rationale for the requirement of the stamp and seal hinges on authenticity. It is meant to check and prevent the infiltration of quack lawyers in the Nigerian legal space and to ensure that legal practitioners who file processes in court have their names on the Roll of Legal Practitioners.

The use of the stamp and seal in the legal profession became mandatory from April 1st, 2015 following the resolution of the NBA NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (NEC) meeting held on November 14th, 2014 at Uyo, Akwa Ibom State. An example of the NBA stamp is pictorially shown below. The red stamp is for those in the Public Practice while the green stamp, for those in the Private Practice.

Generally, the NBA stamp and seal is given to all lawyers upon the payment of the NBA dues. However, there are administrative lacunas where the delivery of the stamp and seal is scheduled for a later date despite paying the fees. What should then be the fate of the lawyer? wait, watch and lose a potential client? It cannot be. It shouldn’t be unless you want SAPA to score a-30 yard screamer.

Hence, there are plethora of judicial authorities which support the flexibility of Rule 10 by allowing the attachment of the NBA stamp and seal payment receipt as a substitute pending the delivery of the actual stamp and seal.

In Mutumutu v State, (2019) LPELR-CA/PH/17CR/2018, the Court per JOMBO-OFO held that: ‘regarding the question of use of receipt as evidence of payment for the NBA stamp/seal, it is my considered view that production of such evidence is as good as payment for the said NBA stamp/seal.’

Also, the Court of Appeal per Ogakwu, in Today’s Cars LTD v Lasaco Assurance PLC (2016) LPELR (41260) 1 at 5-7 gave an elaborated elucidation on this issue where he stated as follows: ‘Doubtless, there is no Nigerian Bar Association Stamp and Seal on the Appellant’s Brief. The Appellant has however submitted that its counsel has done all on its part to obtain the Seal and that the failure by the Nigerian Bar Association to issue the Seal should not be visited on the Appellant. The Appellant’s Brief was filed on 27th April 2016. Attached to the Appellant’s Brief is an Access Bank deposit slip showing that the Appellant’s counsel … paid for the Nigerian Bar Association Stamp in February 2016, a clear two months before the Appellant’s Brief was filed. Now, in these circumstances will it be in consonance with the dictates of justice for the Appellant’s brief to be said to infringe the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007, given the fact that the Appellant’s counsel has done all that is required of him in order to comply with the stipulation of the Rule. I think not. It is my considered view that having paid for the stamp and seal, all that remained was the domestic affair of the Nigerian Bar Association Secretariat and where like in this situation the Nigerian Bar Association Secretariat is tardy, such tardiness cannot be visited on the Appellant as all required to be done on the part of the Appellant’s counsel has been done.’

A similar decision was also held in OLUMIDE & ANOR v. AREMU & ANOR (2019) LPELR-CA/EK/83/2018; REDEEMED CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF GOD (HAGIAZO PARISH) v. AKADIRI & ANOR (2019) LPELR-CA/L/1242/2015, MESHACK v. STATE (2019) LPELR-CA/PH/18CR/2018, etc

Furthermore, the absence of the NBA stamp and seal on a legal document will not be treated as being vital to the case so as to lead to striking out of the case. An attempt to do such would amount to sacrificing substantial justice at the altar of technicality. In Yaki v Bagudu (2015) LPELR (26721) 1 at 6-7 the Supreme Court held that a legal document signed and/or filed without complying with Rule 10 (1) is not null and void or incompetent. This principle is further reiterated by Kekere Ekun, JSC in the case of Nyesom v Peterside & Ors (2016) LPELR-SC.1002/2015 where the learned justice opined that: With regard to the lack of NBA stamp and seal on the petition, I refer to the recent decision of this Court in Gen. Bello Sarkin Yarki v. Senator Abubakar Atiku Bagudu in SC.722/2015 delivered on 13/11/2015 when this Court held that the failure to affix the approved seal and stamp of the NBA on a process does not render the process null and void. It is an irregularity that can be cured by an application for extension of time and a deeming order.’

In conclusion, the presentation of the evidence of payment for the NBA stamp and seal in lieu of the actual stamp and seal will fulfill the requirement of Rule 10(1) of the Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007.

Kindly subscribe to the blog’s email subscription below. Thank you for reading. See you next week.❤