CORE CAPITAL LTD & ANOR V ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISION (IBADAN ZONAL OFFICE, IBADAN OYO STATE & ORS

suit no: CA/L/CV/658/2019

Legalpedia Electronic Citation: (2021) Legalpedia (CA) 11171

Areas Of Law:  

Appeal, Criminal Law And Procedure, Law Of Contract, Notable Pronouncement, Practice And Procedure

Summary Of Facts

The Appellants filed a motion before the Federal High Court, praying for a declaration that the continued harassment, intimidation, embarrassment and serious threats of being hounded into the 1st and 2nd Respondent’s cell by the Respondents, their agents, servants, privies or however called since May 2017, to the person of the 1st Appellant and its officers as a result of the 3rd Respondent’s malicious complaint and request against the Appellants is wrong, illegal, ultra vires and unconditional; an order restraining the Respondents and their agents from further harassing, intimidating, arresting, detaining the Applicants; the sum of N5, 000,000 damages from the Respondent being compensation to the Applicants amongst other reliefs.

Upon receipt of the application, the 1st and 2nd Respondent filed a joint counter affidavit and 3rd Respondent separately filed its own counter affidavit.

The Appellants in reply filed a further and better affidavit. The Learned trial judge after hearing the parties delivered judgment dismissing the application. Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal containing four grounds of appeal.

HELD:

Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

Ø  Whether the lower court has the jurisdiction to entertain the appellants’ application.

Ø  Whether the court below was right in dismissing the appellant’s application ruling record to the evidence before the court.

RATIONES

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION – STATUS OF AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION NOT RELATED TO THE GROUND OF APPEAL

“This issue apparently does not arise from the ground’s of appeal and there is no cross appeal or Respondents Notice to sustain it, even though it is on jurisdiction it must take its root from the ground’s of appeal. See Nsirim V Amadia( 2016) 5NWLR ( PT. 1504) 42 at 60-61: see also Angadi V PDP & Ors ( 2018) LPELR-44375 ( SC). Where an issue is not related to the ground of appeal such issue is incompetent and must be struck out. See Poroye & Ors Vs Makarfi (2018) INWLR ( PART 1599) 91. PER T.O.AWOTOYE, J.C.A

INVESTIGATION OF A CRIME – CONCEPT OF INVESTIGATION OF CRIME – WHETHER THE INVESTIGATION OF CRIME UNDER SECTION 6(B) OF THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIME COMMISSION (ESTABLISHMENT ETC) ACT INCLUDES THE ARRESTS AND DETENTION OF SUSPECT

“The investigation of a crime is a process. It involves the interrogation of the suspect, the verification of his statement and that of his witness as well as the statement of the witness for the complainant. On some occasions it might be necessary in order to preserve the exhibits recovered or about to be recovered or in order or the investigation not to be tampered with to detain the suspect or his witnesses. Section 6(b) of the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (Establishment etc) Act 2004 (as amended) read as follows; “The Commission shall be responsible for the investigation of all financial crimes including advance fee fraud, money laundering, counter feinting illegal charge transfers, future market fraud, fraudulent encashment for negotiable instruments couples’ credit fraud, contrast scene etc.” The word investigation as used in section 6(b) of the Act is wide enough to include arrests and detention of suspect. It however excludes advises of the power vested in the Commission under the Act”. PER T.O.AWOTOYE, J.C.A

POWER OF THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIME COMMISSION – WHETHER THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIME COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED TO INVESTIGATE CONTRACTUAL DEALINGS BY CITIZENS

“It is in the light of the above that I shall view and resolve this issue. The Commission is not empowered to look in to innocent contractual dealings by citizens. However if fraudulent intent is readable in to the dealing they fall within the purview of its power. The Commission is not a debt recovery agency. It must however be noted that there is thin line between simple contracts and fraudulent transactions. See Jim-Jaja V COP (2011) 2NWLR (PT1231) 375 at 392”. PER T.O.AWOTOYE, J.C.A

POWER OF THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIME COMMISSION – EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIME COMMISSION
“It is significant to note that each institution established by government shall be allowed to function and fulfill its mandate in order for law and order to be mentioned in the society.
Its exercise or discretion, barring abuse of such discretion should not be truncated and aborted, whimsically just in the name of forensic legal acrobatics. It seems clear to me that an allegation of crime was being investigated by the Respondents.

The words of I.T. Muhammed (as  he then was in  El Rufai Vs House Of Representatives ( 2003) FWLR ( PT 173) are very pertinent on this point. They read thus:
“However, if in obedience to the summons, the appellant reported to the committee and the committee decided to take any step in excess of powers conferred upon it, or, in the same process, some of the fundamental rights of the appellant were actually violated or threat of such violation were imminent, then the appellant would have every right to run to a court of law for a relief. That is not the actual case in this matter. The appellant in my view, developed an anticipated fear of violation of his fundamental right. A court of law acts on reality, i.e. what has actually taken place or is taking place at the time of complaint. Hardly has speculation any place in law. If there is allegation, then there must be proof to substantiate that allegation…. I agree that the  lower court was right in striking out appellant’s suit”. PER T.O.AWOTOYE, J.C.A