IN RE: G.M. BOYO

• Pages: 87-92

IN RE: G.M. BOYO



87

would refrain from saying any more than that this method of treating the defence

of an accused person would appear to be unusual.

For the reasons already stated this appeal succeeds and is allowed. It is or-

dered that the case be sent back to the High Court, Oshogbo to be there tried

de

5



novo

by another Judge. It is further ordered that at the retrial the appellant be

granted all facilities necessary to call any witness he may wish to call for the pur-

pose of ventilating his defence. Order accordingly. Court below to carry out this

order.

Appeal allowed: case sent back to

10



High Court for trial

de novo

by

another Judge.

15



IN RE: G.M. BOYO

IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERATION

20



IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 117(4)(a).

IN RE: G.M. BOYO

SUIT NO. SC 53/70

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

25



COKER,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

UDOMA,



J.S.C.

23rd March, 1970.

30

Practice and Procedure - Constitutional rights - Protection - No rules of Cowl

exist specifying procedure by which Constitutional rights may be protected -

No formal way required for invocation of Court's power to protect invasion

of such rights - Constitution of the Federation ss.22; 32(1)(3) - Contempt of

Court - Court of appeal - Attorney-General to be made respondent - Application

35



for stay of proceedings pending determination of appeal.

ISSUES:

1. Whether there is a right of appeal against an interlocutory order made in a

criminal case.

40 2. Who is the proper respondent in a contempt of court case on appeal?

3.

Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court grant an application for a

stay of proceedings pending the determination of an appeal?

4.

In what form should an application for invocation of a court's power to protect

an invasion of constitutional rights be made?

45

FACTS:

The applicant lodged an appeal in the Supreme Court against

inter alia

the de-

cision of a judge given in the course of his trial for contempt of Court. He applied

for orders that pending the hearing and determination of his appeal the proceed-

ings before the High Court should be stayed and also that notwithstanding the rules

50



of the Supreme Court, his appeal be heard and determined on the paper exhibited

in his application. It was contended for the applicant that his case was one of an

infraction of constitutional rights and that he was entitled to ask that such rights be

determined and upheld.