MADHAT V. THE COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS

• Pages: 20-23

20

NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1956] N.S.C.C.

MADHAT V. THE COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS

5

MOHAMMED HALTS MADHAT

APPELLANT

V

THE COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS

RESPONDENT

10

SUIT NO. WACA 172/1955

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

FOSTER SUTTON, F.C.J.

JIBOWU,

ABBOTT,

Ag. F.J.

15

6th April, 1956.

Εξχηανγε Χοντρολ Ορδινανχε, 1950− σ 22 (1) (α) − Χλαιµ φορ πεναλτψ ανδ φορφειτυρε

Φρενχη Χολονιαλ Φρανχσ − Χυστοµσ Ορδινανχε − σ 125 (1) ανδ 43 − µονεψ

ιµπορτεδ ιν τρανσιτ.

20

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a passenger in transit can be considered to he "in Nigeria" within the

meaning of Paragraph 1(1) of Part II of the 5th Schedule of the Exchange Control

Ordinance.

25

2.

Under what circumstances can a party be held liable for importation of money

in transit.

FACTS:

The appellant was an in transit passenger who landed at ikeja Airport en route

to Beirut. He stayed in the Airport waiting for his plane to continue on his journey

30

to Beirut the same day shortly before he was due to depart he was, with his per-

mission, searched by a Customs official, and was found with five million French

Colonial francs which he had brought with him from Monrovia. As a result this

claim was brought against him by the respondent for a penalty of £30,612 and

claiming the forfeiture of the francs. The case was tried by a Magistrate at Lagos

35

who ordered the forfeiture of the five Million francs, but did not impose the pen-

alty. Both parties appealed to the former Supreme Court, and that court upheld

the forfeiture, and also imposed the penalty asked for. This penalty was later miti-

gated by the respondent to £5,000. The appellant then appealed to this court.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not "in Nigeria" with-

40

in the meaning of the paragraph 1 (1) of Part II of the Exchange Control Ordin-

ance. On this point the Court in their judgment found that on the facts in this case,

the appellant was very clearly "in Nigeria" within the meaning of the legislation in

question.

It was further submitted that since paragraph 1(1) of Part II of the 5th schedule

45

of the Exchange Control Ordinance makes the enactment relating to Customs ap-

plicable, and that since Section 43 of the Customs Ordinance expressly provides

that money imported in transit shall not be deemed to be money prohibited to be

i

mported or exported, no offence was committed in this case.

HELD:

50

Section 43, applies. The money in question was "imported in transit" and sec-

tion 22(1) (a) of the Exchange Control Ordinance does not expressly prohibit the

importation of money in transit. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section

43 of the Customs Ordinance.