–
POLICE
V.
SAMUEL WOGU ABENGOWE
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL HOLDEN AT LAGOS, NIGERIA
23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 1941
2PLR/1941/35 (WACA)
–
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1941/35 (WACA)
(1941) VII WACA PP. 135 – 136
LEX (1941) – VII WACA PP. 135 – 136
–
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS
BROOKE, J.
FRANCIS, J.
JEFFREYS, J.
–
BETWEEN:
POLICE — Appellant
AND
SAMUEL WOGU ABENGOWE — Respondent
–
REPRESENTATION
Unsworth — for Crown
Appellant not present
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — PROOF OF CRIME:- Jurisdiction of Magistrate’s Court to hear a charge under section 22 of the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Ordinance No. 20 of 1934 — Plea of guilty — Autrefois convict.
–
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ISSUE(S)
JURISDICTION:- Original and appellate jurisdiction of courts — Nature of as limited or unlimited — Magistrate’s original jurisdiction which is statutory — Whether cannot be made to depend on the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court
–
CASE SUMMARY
Accused pleaded guilty before the Magistrate to a charge under section 22 of Ordinance No. 20 of 1934: he then found he had no jurisdiction and remitted the accused to the Supreme Court: a direction was given under section 10 (3) of the Protectorate Courts Ordinance that the case should be tried by a Judge of the Supreme Court at Lagos. There was a plea of autrefois convict and attention was drawn to a previous decision in the High Court. The opinion of the Appeal Court was asked as to whether a Magistrate’s Court constituted under section 3 of Ordinance No. 45 of 1933 had jurisdiction to hear a charge under section 22 of the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Ordinance 1934 and the answer to the question was in the affirmative.
–
DECISION OF THE WEST AFRICAN C OURT OF APPEAL
1. The Acting Gbese Manche filed an appeal against this judgment, but since doing so a substantive Gbese Manche has been installed (though not yet gazetted) and Ayikai Teiko consequently no longer represents the Gbese Stool and has no standing to prosecute the appeal. The newly installed Gbese Mantse, though entitled, if he wished to get himself substituted for Ayikai Teiko and thereafter to prosecute the appeal, has not seen fit to do so, and consequently has not appeared upon the appeal.
2. In putting forward the grounds of appeal, counsel for the appellant entirely misunderstood the principle upon which is founded the rule of law that where an injury amounts to an infringement of the civil rights of an individual, and at the same time to a felony, the right of redress by action is suspended until the party inflicting the injury has been prosecuted, and public justice thus vindicated.
3. The original and appellate jurisdiction of Courts are entirely distinct and may be unlimited or limited by statute as to the nature of the actions and matters of which the particular Court has cognisance. The Magistrate’s original jurisdiction which is statutory cannot be made to depend on the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court which is set out in section 20 of No. 45 of 1933.
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following joint judgment was delivered:-
BROOKE, FRANCIS AND JEFFREYS, JJ.
This is a case stated for the opinion of this Court as to whether a Magistrate’s Court constituted under section 3 of Ordinance 45 of 1933 has jurisdiction to hear and determine a charge framed under section 22 of the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Ordinance, 1934.
The facts are that the accused pleaded guilty to a charge under that section before the Magistrate of the Enugu Area who then found that he had no jurisdiction and remitted the accused to the Supreme Court: a direction under section 10(3) of the Protectorate Courts Ordinance was then given that the matter should be heard at Lagos by a Judge of the Supreme Court.
There was a plea of autrefois convict before the latter and attention was called to a decision on appeal in the High Court at Aba in 1937 (R v. Chinaka) that a Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try such a charge. This point, however, was not argued in that case and the decision was based on the opinion that certain proceedings having been excluded from the jurisdiction of the High Court which is an Appellate Court from the Magistrate’s Court it must necessarily follow that such proceedings are impliedly excluded from the Magistrate’s jurisdiction.
But the original and appellate jurisdiction of Courts are entirely distinct and may be unlimited or limited by statute as to the nature of the actions and matters of which the particular Court has cognisance. The Magistrate’s original jurisdiction which is statutory cannot be made to depend on the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court which is set out in section 20 of No. 45 of 1933. Further if the High Court was excluded from appellate jurisdiction could a judge of the High Court in strictness hear the appeal in R v. Chinaka? The Magistrate’s Courts were established under section 3 of the Protectorate Courts Ordinance and section 33 of that Ordinance as amended by No. 15 of 1936 sets out the jurisdiction of Magistrates for the summary trial of criminal cases and section 22 of Ordinance No. 20 of 1934 creates an offence which in our opinion comes within that jurisdiction, and there is no enactment which excludes such proceedings therefrom as it does in the case of the original jurisdiction of the High Court.
The answer to the question in the case stated is in our opinion that the Magistrate had jurisdiction.
–