The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has dismissed an appeal brought by former military officer, Major Hamza Al-Mustapha, in a property dispute concerning a property in Asokoro, Abuja, in a leading judgment delivered by Justice Okon Abang, JCA.
Justice Abang delivered the judgment as part of a remarkable series of seven distinct judgments and rulings delivered by the Court of Appeal on Monday, addressing questions ranging from foreign currency importation and contractual enforceability to criminal procedure and the time within which an appeal may properly be brought.
The appellate court held that the time prescribed for appealing the judgment in the property dispute, delivered on June 16, 2023 by a lower court, had expired on September 15, 2024.
The subsequent steps taken by the appellant could not revive the right of appeal after the prescribed period had elapsed, Justice Abang held.
In a particularly memorable formulation, Justice Abang described the appellant’s position as “doing the right thing at the wrong time” — a succinct expression of the consequence of attempting to exercise an appellate right after the statutory period for doing so had expired.
In yet another significant decision delivered on Monday, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought by British aviation company, Aviation Services International Ltd (AHS), against Precision Support Services Ltd, Merit Oil Ltd and Precision Aviation Handling Company Ltd (PAHCOL), now AHS Aviation Handling Services Nig. Ltd.
In a leading judgment delivered by Justice Abang, the Court reaffirmed the primacy of Nigerian law in transactions substantially connected with Nigeria.
The AHS appeal arose from a 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between AHS and PAHCOL concerning the proposed development of aviation ground-handling services in Nigeria.
The arrangement contemplated the subsequent execution of a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA). That agreement, however, was never executed.
In 2023, the Federal High Court, Abuja, presided over by Justice Obiora Egwatu, terminated the parties’ arrangement and awarded N2 million in damages to Precision Support Services Ltd.
The trial court held, among other things, that the MoU had expired by effluxion of time on June 30, 2017, while the contemplated JVA remained inchoate because the parties never executed it.
It also found that AHS had abandoned the preliminary obligations contemplated by the parties and had acted contrary to applicable Nigerian law, including the statutory framework governing the importation of foreign currency into Nigeria.
In a decision likely to prove significant for cross-border commercial transactions, the Court considered whether the trial court was right to hold that the failure to execute the contemplated JVA rendered the transaction inchoate.
Justice Abang answered this issue in the affirmative, holding that the trial court had made findings of fact on the issues properly joined by the parties and that those findings were supported by the evidence.
The Court also upheld the trial court’s treatment of the contractual clause purporting to confer exclusive jurisdiction on English courts.
In a striking pronouncement on the limits of contractual autonomy, Justice Abang agreed that, in the circumstances, the foreign jurisdiction clause could not make the associated contractual instruments enforceable where the proposed joint venture involved a Nigerian company and a business to be carried out in Nigeria pursuant to Nigerian law.
The implication is important for parties entering cross-border transactions in Nigeria: a contractual choice of foreign jurisdiction does not, by itself, displace mandatory Nigerian laws regulating activities undertaken within Nigeria.
The Court further agreed with the finding that, at the time the suit was instituted, AHS was in contravention of Section 33(1)(a) of the Civil Aviation Act 2006, which prescribes eligibility requirements for licences, permits, certificates and authorisations issued by the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority.
On the foreign currency issue, Justice Abang accepted the respondents’ position, advanced by counsel, Chioma Linda Ekene-Okwunma, Esq., that the evidence before the trial court supported its conclusion that the purported importation of funds into Nigeria was in breach of the applicable Nigerian legal framework governing the importation of foreign currencies.
Justice Abang also upheld the finding that AHS had abandoned the preliminary roles contemplated by the parties.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed for want of merit and the judgment of the Federal High Court was affirmed, with costs of N1 million awarded.
In another consequential ruling, the Court of Appeal in a leading judgment delivered by Justice Abang considered an appeal by Prince Okoro Nkem Akonam against the Inspector-General of Police and another.
The Court held that the appellant required leave to appeal because the grounds of appeal were grounds of mixed law and fact. Since the requisite leave had not been obtained, the appeal was incompetent and was dismissed.
More strikingly, the Court made a significant pronouncement on the conduct of criminal proceedings.
Justice Abang held that a defendant in a criminal case cannot stay away from court while attempting, through counsel, to control proceedings remotely by filing objections to his arraignment.
In language that leaves little room for ambiguity, he held that the trial court ought to have invoked Section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) to compel the appellant’s attendance and secure his arraignment, including, where necessary, through a bench warrant.
The Court further held that the trial court ought to have stood down its ruling on the objection and delivered it alongside the substantive judgment, rather than allowing the objection to impede the arraignment and progression of the criminal proceedings.
The pronouncement is a forceful reminder that the right to challenge criminal proceedings does not confer a right to evade the jurisdiction of the court.
The three decisions illustrate different but connected aspects of the Court’s approach to litigation.
In the AHS appeal, the Court placed contractual arrangements firmly within the framework of Nigerian statutory and regulatory requirements.
In Akonam, it emphasised the need for criminal proceedings to proceed within the procedural architecture of the ACJA. In Al-Mustapha, it reaffirmed that appellate rights are subject to prescribed periods and cannot be exercised indefinitely.
For commercial parties, particularly those entering cross-border arrangements, the AHS decision is a reminder that contractual autonomy operates within the limits imposed by mandatory local law.
For litigants, the other decisions reinforce equally fundamental propositions: procedural requirements are not optional, and rights of appeal must be exercised within the time and manner prescribed by law.
Taken together, the seven judgments and rulings delivered by Justice Okon Abang, JCA, on Monday constitute a consequential body of judicial work, ranging across commercial law, regulatory compliance, criminal procedure and appellate practice.