SLOK (NIG.) LTD. & UDE JONES UDEOGU V. CHIEF JUDGE, FHC & ORS. (2020)

Background

This appeal arose from the transfer of criminal Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/56/2007, Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Orji Uzor Kalu & 2 Ors., from the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court to its Lagos Division. The appellants, who were defendants in the criminal proceedings, challenged the transfer after the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission requested it by letter to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court. The request was based principally on the contention that the alleged offences, or material elements of them, occurred in Lagos and that Lagos was therefore a proper territorial venue.

The appellants commenced proceedings by originating summons seeking declarations that the transfer was void, an order setting it aside, and an order returning the charge to Abuja. They argued that the Chief Judge had failed to comply with section 98(3) and (4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA), which require investigation by an independent body where the Chief Judge exercises the transfer power following a petition. They further alleged that they were denied fair hearing because they were not copied the prosecution’s letter and contended that the request amounted to forum shopping.

The Federal High Court dismissed the suit. It held that no witnesses had been called, no petition alleging wrongdoing or misconduct had been made, and that Lagos and Abia were possible places where the alleged offences were committed. The failure to notify the appellants was treated as an irregularity that caused no miscarriage of justice. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the trial court was wrong or perverse in holding that the Chief Judge complied with section 98 of the ACJA when transferring the charge from Abuja to Lagos.
2. Whether the failure to notify the appellants of the prosecution’s request violated section 98 of the ACJA or their constitutional right to fair hearing under section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
3. Whether the transfer constituted forum shopping and whether the trial court’s treatment of that complaint occasioned a denial of fair hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court. It held that section 98(1) of the ACJA confers a broad statutory and essentially administrative power on the Chief Judge to transfer a criminal case where the transfer will promote the ends of justice or serve the interest of public peace. That power is subject to important limits: it cannot be exercised after the prosecution has called witnesses, because section 98(2) prohibits transfer of a part-heard criminal matter.

The Court distinguished the administrative power under section 98(1) from the quasi-judicial procedure under section 98(3) and (4). The investigation requirement applies only where the transfer is sought subsequent to a “petition.” In context, “petition” does not mean every written request made to the Chief Judge. It refers to a complaint or allegation of wrongdoing, bias, misconduct or other impropriety against the Judge presiding over the criminal case. The EFCC’s letter was merely a request based on territorial jurisdiction and venue; it was not a petition requiring investigation.

The court also held that section 98 does not require the Chief Judge to hear the parties before making an administrative transfer. Nevertheless, the prosecution acted unprofessionally by failing to copy the appellants’ counsel when communicating with the Chief Judge. Parties must notify one another of communications made to the court concerning a step in the proceedings. That omission was, however, an irregularity and did not invalidate the transfer because the appellants failed to establish prejudice or miscarriage of justice.

Court Findings

The court applied the principle that statutory provisions must ordinarily be given their clear, grammatical meaning and read as a whole. It found that the trial court’s reference to Order 49 rules 1 and 2 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009, even though the underlying matter was criminal, did not invalidate the decision. A court possessing the necessary statutory power does not lose that power merely because it referred to an incorrect rule or legal source.

On venue, the court held that an accused may be tried in any jurisdiction where an element, ingredient or act forming part of the alleged offence occurred. The evidence showed that relevant acts occurred in Lagos and Abia, while no sufficient basis was established for Abuja as the proper territorial venue. Consequently, the Chief Judge was entitled to transfer the matter to Lagos, and the Court of Appeal would not direct continuation of a criminal trial in a court lacking territorial jurisdiction.

The allegation of forum shopping also failed. Forum shopping is the reprehensible practice of selecting the jurisdiction believed to be most favourable to a party. The request for transfer was founded on territorial jurisdiction and the authorities concerning the proper place of trial, not on an attempt to secure a favourable Judge or outcome. The appellants did not dispute that elements of the offences occurred in Lagos and Abia, nor did they show bad faith.

The court further stated that a judgment is perverse only where it is unreasonable, contrary to the evidence, based on matters that should not have been considered, or results in a miscarriage of justice. The appellants did not demonstrate any of these defects. Their reply brief was also discountenanced because it repeated arguments already made instead of addressing genuinely new points, contrary to Order 19 rule 5(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety. The judgment of the Federal High Court delivered on 23 June 2017 was affirmed, and there was no order as to costs.

Significance

The decision clarifies the relationship between administrative case management and constitutional fair hearing in Nigerian criminal procedure. It confirms that the Chief Judge’s power to transfer a criminal case under section 98(1) of the ACJA is wide but must be exercised within the statutory conditions, particularly before prosecution witnesses are called and only where justice or public peace is served. It also limits the special investigation procedure in section 98(3) to genuine complaints of judicial wrongdoing, bias or misconduct, rather than ordinary applications concerning venue. Finally, the case emphasises that procedural irregularities do not automatically nullify judicial action unless they cause demonstrable prejudice or a miscarriage of justice.