The Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos, western Nigeria, has quashed a 22-count assign brought opposite a former Managing Director of Intercontinental Bank Plc, Dr. Erastus Akingbola by a Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The EFCC had purported that Akingbola stole N47.5 billion belonging to a bank.
Ruling on Akingbola’s focus on jurisdiction, a probity presided over by Justice Amina Augie hold that a High Court of Lagos State presided over by Justice Lateef Lawal-Akapo lacked office to perform a fit filed opposite him by a commission.
Justice Augie pronounced it amounted to miscarriage of probity for a reduce probity to have discharged Akingbola’s focus severe a office on a matter.
“The interest is commendable and allowed,” she declared.
“I am assured that a reduce probity refused to align itself with a preference of this probity in Nwosu’s case,” she serve held.
Akingbola and his co-defendant, Bayo Dada, had filed dual apart applications severe a office of a probity to hear a 22-count assign filed opposite them by a EFCC.
But, a reduce court, in a statute on 2 May, 2014 discharged their applications.
Justice Lawal-Akapo had afterwards hold that a charges elite opposite a defendants were within a cunning and office to determine.
Dissatisfied with a statute of a high court, Akingbola and Dada approached a Appeal Court, praying that a hearing court’s preference be set aside.
Delievering a judgement, Justice Augie announced that a reduce probity fell into critical blunder by not abiding by a preference on Nwosu’s box adding, “it is many astray and is an injustice”.
According to her, a reduce probity has no choice than to follow a preference of a aloft probity on Nwosu’s case.
“The indicate contingency be done that a preference of this probity in Nwosu’s box was formed on explanation of evidence.”
The decider remarkable that all a charges opposite a defendants arose out of collateral marketplace transactions.
“Only sovereign high probity is conferred with a disdainful office to try cases of collateral marketplace transaction,” she stressed.
The appellate probity hold that a reduce probity owes it a avocation to review and contrariety a papers cited by parties.
“It is a avocation to inspect materials brought before him. It is a purpose of a decider to do probity in adjudicating all a cases brought before him.
“One sided probity would volume to misapplication and favoring one side.
“The explanation of justification was there though a hearing decider during a reduce probity indicted a defendants of not furnishing him with a documents.
“He has unsuccessful in his duty.”
Justice Augie serve hold that a interest filed by a defendants has zero to do with evidence, observant that a reduce probity unsuccessful to go by justification canvassed before it insincere office on a matter.
She emphasised that a emanate of office should not have been toyed with by a reduce court.
“I determine with a appellant that a reduce probity ought to have left by a explanation of evidence.
“There is no approach a assign of hidden can mount but going by a explanation of evidence,” she declared.