DESTRA INVESTMENTS LTD V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & CHIEF OLISA METUH (2018)

Background

Destra Investments Ltd and Chief Olisa Metuh were arraigned before the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, in charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/05/2016 for alleged money-laundering offences under the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011, as amended. The prosecution called eight witnesses, who were cross-examined by the defence, and subsequently closed its case. The accused persons made a no-case submission, but the trial court dismissed it, after which the defence commenced its case.

During the defence stage, Destra Investments Ltd filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain counts 1 and 2. The objection was founded on the argument that the counts allegedly contained, as an ingredient, an issue concerning the award of a contract, and that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to receive evidence relating to that simple contract issue. After hearing counsel, the trial judge elected to defer determination of the objection and consider it together with the substantive issues at the time of delivering judgment.

Destra appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, acting suo motu, struck out the appeal because the grounds challenged an interlocutory decision involving the exercise of judicial discretion and were, at best, grounds of mixed law and fact. The court held that leave was required before the appeal could be filed, but that no such leave had been obtained. It further observed that the Federal High Court had jurisdiction over money-laundering offences and that section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 permitted the preliminary objection to be determined with the substantive case.

Issues

1. Whether the trial court was entitled to defer the ruling on the jurisdictional preliminary objection until judgment in the substantive criminal trial.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to strike out the appeal for failure to obtain leave to appeal against an interlocutory decision based on the trial court’s exercise of discretion.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal’s suo motu consideration of the competence of the appeal, without first hearing the parties, occasioned a denial of fair hearing or miscarriage of justice.
4. Whether the Federal High Court possessed jurisdiction to try the money-laundering counts in question.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that an appeal challenging an interlocutory decision founded on the exercise of judicial discretion requires leave. A ground attacking such a discretionary interlocutory decision is generally a ground of mixed law and fact. Consequently, where an appellant files the appeal without first obtaining the necessary leave, the appeal is incompetent and liable to be struck out.

The Court also affirmed the effect of section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. Once a defendant has pleaded, an objection to the validity of the charge or information may be raised before judgment, but the objection is to be considered along with the substantive issues and ruled upon when judgment is delivered. The provision was designed to promote speedy criminal trials and prevent interlocutory applications and appeals from delaying or frustrating proceedings.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court agreed that the trial judge acted within the scope of the court’s discretion in deciding to determine the preliminary objection together with the substantive case. The objection had been filed after the no-case submission had failed and after the defence had begun. In those circumstances, deferring the ruling did not deprive the appellant of a legal remedy; it merely regulated the order and timing of the proceedings in accordance with the express statutory policy of the ACJA.

The Court rejected the argument that the jurisdictional objection had to be decided immediately in every circumstance. It distinguished cases involving a genuine dispute outside the jurisdiction of the court from the present criminal proceedings, where the charge concerned money laundering and the objection could lawfully be determined at the conclusion of the trial. The Court of Appeal was therefore correct both on the competence of the appeal and on the propriety of the trial court’s procedure.

Although the Court of Appeal raised the issue of incompetence suo motu, the Supreme Court found that no miscarriage of justice resulted. The competence of an appeal concerns the jurisdiction of the appellate court and may properly be examined by the court. The absence of prior hearing on that point did not invalidate the decision in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal striking out the interlocutory appeal. The case was remitted to the Federal High Court in Abuja for the speedy continuation and conclusion of the substantive criminal trial, with an order for accelerated hearing.

Significance

The decision reinforces the statutory objective of speedy criminal justice under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. It confirms that defendants cannot ordinarily interrupt an ongoing criminal trial by pursuing an interlocutory appeal against a case-management decision without obtaining the required leave. It also warns counsel against using procedural filings as roadblocks to the determination of criminal allegations. The judgment stresses that legal representation should serve the rule of law and assist in resolving allegations through due process, rather than unnecessarily stultifying or truncating proceedings.