LawPavilion Online


Back

ISIAKA MUMINI v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

(2018) LPELR-43904(SC)

In The Supreme Court of Nigeria

On Friday, the 9th day of March, 2018

SC.472/2013


Before Their Lordships

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

EJEMBI EKO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria


Between

ISIAKA MUMINI - Appellant(s)

AND

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA - Respondent(s)


Other Citations

; ;


Summary

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to try Indian Hemp Cases.

FACTS:
This is an appeal against the decision of Faji, FJ., of the Federal High Court, Ilorin, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The case of the prosecution was that, on or about the 17th day of December, 2011, at Nungurme Village of Gwanara District in Baruten Local Government Area of Kwara State, without lawful authority, Appellant  unlawfully dealt in 10 Kilogrammes of cannabis sativa (otherwise known as Indian Hemp), a drug similar to cocaine, Heroin, LSD etc and thereby committing an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 11(c) of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act Cap N30 of Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

Appellant pleaded guilty upon arraignment and was summarily convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. At the Court of Appeal, appellant contended that the Federal High Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the charge against him, arguing that, it is only the Magistrate's Court that has been vested with jurisdiction, by virtue of Section 8(1) of the Indian Hemp Act. His appeal was unsuccessful. He appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:
The following single issue was submitted for determination in the appeal:
"Whether having cognizance of the charge preferred against the Appellant at the trial Court, the Court below was correct when it upheld the decision of the said trial Court that it was seised of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings undertaken pursuant thereto?"
DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.


Read Full Judgment