OKU V. THE STATE

• Pages: 53-59

OKU V. THE STATE



53

OKU V. THE STATE

5

ENE ENE OKU

V

10 THE STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

15 FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

13th March, 1970

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 175/1969

Contempt of court - Solicitor not conducting cause for which he was engaged

- Liability under order XVI rule 13 - Guilt of person charged must be proved

20





according to law - Proceedings for contravention of Order XVI Rule 4 are

proceedings for Criminal Offence and so provisions of section 285 of the

Criminal Procedure Act dealing with manner of hearing nzust apply - Where

punishable brevi manu in court no warrant necessary - In other cases proper

procedure of apprehension, charge, prosecution etc. must be followed.

25

ISSUES:

1. Whether a solicitor who does not conduct a case for which he is engaged is

liable under Order XVI Rule 13 or Order XVI Rule 4 of the High Court Rules for

contempt of court.

30





2. Is it necessary for a Judge to issue a warrant to punish an offender for contempt

brevi manu

in court?

3. Whether the Provisions of Order XVI Rule 4 of the Eastern Nigeria High Court

Rules, 1955, deal with contempt in

facie curiae.

FACTS:

35





A lawyer was convicted for not appearing in court to conduct his client's case.

The Judge convicted him under Order XVI Rule 4 which he treated as a form of

contempt of court. The Judge issued two bench warrants as a result of which the

lawyer was arrested. He was charged under the provisions of Order XVI Rule 4

and the Judge took a plea. The lawyer pleaded not guilty and offered explana-

40





tions through his counsel as regards his absence from court. Although the Judge

adjourned the case till the 13th, he gave a reserved judgment on the 12th reject-

ing the explanations of the lawyer. The Judge made it clear that he convicted the

lawyer for breach of the provisions of Order XVI Rule 4 of the Eastern Nigeria High

Court Rules, 1955.

45





On appeal it was contended for the appellant,

inter alia

that the trial Judge mis-

directed himself in law by describing proceedings initiated under Order XVI Rule

4 as contempt of court.

HELD:

1. Not every act of discourtesy to the court by counsel or conduct which involves

50





a breach of duty to client amounts to contempt. In this case, the appellant may

have breached his duty to his client but there was nothing on the record to justify

contempt of court.