“The definition of a fair hearing in civil cases as entrenched in Section 33 (1) of the 1979 Constitution (now Section 36 (1) of 1999 Constitution) was given by Obaseki JSC in Ariori & Ors v. Elemo & Ors (1983) 1 SC 13 at pages 23-24 in these words:- “Fair hearing, therefore, must mean a trial conducted according to all the legal rules formulated to ensure that justice is done to the parties.” This definition was adopted by Karibi-Whyte JSC in Ntukidem v. Oko (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt.45) 909 at 933 and applied to the case of Bamaiyi v. State (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 715) 270 in the leading judgement of Uwaifo JSC at page 284. It is in Uguru v. State (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 771) 90 that this Court per Kalgo JSC stated at page 105:- “According to the case of Mohammed v. Kano N. A. (1968) All NLR 424 cited by learned counsel for the appellant in his brief, the term “fair trial” and “fair hearing” are synonymous and mean the same thing, and according to the provisions of Section 33(1) of the 1979 Constitution which applies to this case the term “fair hearing” in relation to a case in my view, means that the trial of the case or the conduct of the proceedings therefore, is in accordance with the relevant law and rules in order to ensure justice and fairness. See: Salu v. Egeibon (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 348) 23; Mohammed v. Olawunmi (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 133) 458.” Per AKA’AHS, J.S.C. at P. 7, Paras. A-B
DAME PATIENCE IBIFAKA JONATHAN v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2019-LCER-36849-SC)
Facts
On 26 April, 2017 the respondent filed an ex-parte application before the Federal High Court, Lagos in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/640/17 seeking an order of interim forfeiture of the sum of $5,842,316.66 (Five Million, Eight Hundred and Forty- Two Thousand, Three Hundred and Sixteen United States Dollars and Sixty Cents) in account No. 2110001712 domiciled with Skye Bank Plc in the name of Dame Patience Jonathan and the total of N2,421,953,522.78 (Two Billion, Four Hundred and Twenty-One Million, Nine Hundred and Fifty-Three Thousand, Five Hundred and Twenty-Two Naira, Seventy-Eight Kobo) in account No. 2022000760 domiciled with Ecobank Nigeria Ltd in the name of La Wari Furniture and Baths Ltd. The respondent also sought for an Order of the Court directing the publication in any national newspaper of the order under reliefs 1 and 2 above for the respondents or anyone who is interested in the property sought to be forfeited to appear before the Court to show cause within 14 days why the final order of forfeiture of the monetary properties mentioned in reliefs 1 and 2 should not be made in favour of the Federal Government of Nigeria.
The grounds upon which the application was brought were:-
(a) That this Honourable Court has statutory powers under the provisions of Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 2006 to grant the reliefs sought.
(b) That the monetary properties sought to be attached are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
The application was said to be an action in rem. The Federal High Court granted the application. Dissatisfied with the Order of the Federal High Court, the appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on 3 May, 2017 which was later amended on 18 September, 2017. The name of the 2nd appellant was struck out from the Notice of Appeal. The appellant was granted leave to appeal on mixed law and facts. After hearing arguments on 6 November, 2017 the Court of Appeal adjourned for judgement.
The judgement was delivered on 12 January, 2018 dismissing the appeal. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, filed a further appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issues
1. Whether Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act Cap 14 of 2006 is not in conflict with the provision of Sections 36 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution as held by the Court of Appeal.
2. Whether the proceedings commenced under Section 17 of the said Act for an Order of Forfeiture is an action in rem and an application for civil forfeiture as held by the Court of Appeal.
3. Whether having regard to the onus placed on the applicant under Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud Act and General Civil proceeding at the Federal High Court, there were sufficient materials before the Federal High Court to validate the Orders made, as held by the Court of Appeal.
Lead Judge(ment)
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Judgment):
Held
Unanimously dismissing the appeal.
Alternate Citations
Read Full Judgment
Counsel:
Chief I. A. Adedipe, SAN and G. I. Abibo, SAN with them, Messrs S. A. Somiari, E. Njoka and C. S. Maduba…..For Appellant
And
Oyedepo Iseoluwa Rotimi, Esq……For Respondent
For Appellant(s)
For Respondent(s)
Counsel’s Photograph(s) Needed.