MAJEKODUNMI V. SHELL (MG) LTD.

• Pages: 69-71

MAJEKODUNMI V. SHELL (NIG) LTD.



69

5



MAJEKODUNMI V. SHELL (NIG) LTD.

CHIEF AFOLABI MAJEKODUNV



APPELLANT

V

10 THE SHELL COMPANY OF NIGE:RIA LTD.



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 27/1966

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.C.

15



MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

21st March, 1968.

Criminal Law Bond to keep the peace under s.44(2) of the Criminal Procedure

Act - Whether ultra vires s.117(4) (e) of the Constitution on making the

20



decision of the High Court final Criminal Law - Proceedings under part 4 of

the Criminal Procedure Act



Whether criminal or civil proceedings.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether s.44(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act is inconsistent with s.117(4)(c)

25



of the Constitution of 1963 and therefore void.

2.

Whether "proceedings" under part 4 of the Criminal procedure Act are criminal

or civil proceedings for the purpose of s.117 of the Constitution.

FACTS:

At the instance of the respondent company, the Chief Magistrate Court, Ibadan,

30



ordered the appellant to enter into a bond in the sum of £100 with one surety in

the same amount to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for the ensuing

twelve months. The order was made under part 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act

which deals with prevention of offences; the appellant had not been accused or

convicted of having actually committed an offence. The appellant appealed to the

35



High Court. As his counsel had been admitted in hospital, he appeared in person

asking for an adjournment, which the Judge refused, and dismissed the appeal

for want of prosecution. The appellant then gave notice of appeal to the Supreme

Court using Criminal Forms 3. The High Court Registrar treated the appeal as a

civil one, and in due course issued certificates in Civil Forms 16 and 17. In his

40



grounds of appeal, the appellant complained that the judge was wrong to have re-

fused an adjournment. The qua,tion arose whether the appeal before the Supreme

Court was brought in civil or criminal proceedings.

HELD:

1.

Although s.44(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the decision of

45



the High Court on appeal brought by a person called on to give security for

good behaviour under that section shall be final, this was void to the extent of

its inconsistency with s.117(4)(c) of the Constitution.

2.

Subsection (6)(a) of s.117 of the Constitution make it clear that for the purpose

of s.117, criminal proceedings are proceedings in which there is an accused

50



person.

3.

An accused person would normally be a person charged with having committed

a criminal offence and in subsection (6)(a) of s.117 of the Constitution the words

include a person accused of having shown by his conduct that he is a person