Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

COURT’S POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

One would note that the court’s power to punish for contempt is as old as the courts themselves. In the celebrated case of Atake v. The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1982) 11 S.C. 153, the Supreme Court, per Idigbe, J.S.C., had decided that the power of the court to punish for contempt is inherent and indeed preserved under Sections 6 and 36(3)(a) of the 1979 Constitution. It is undoubtedly a sine qua non to the smooth and proper administration of justice and ought to be preserved. It belongs to the realm of discretionary powers of the court. But the courts have recognised its uniqueness and have cautioned that the power to punish for contempt should be invoked sparingly.

– Achike JCA. Adeyemi v. Edigin (1990)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT IS NOT SUBJECTIVE

Clearly, it seems to me that the discretionary power of the court to punish for contempt is reviewable. Any reviewing authority is undoubtedly invited to make an objective assessment of a matter under consideration. To, therefore, hold as the lower court did, that the test regarding the power of the court to punish for contempt is subjective, is with respect, unacceptable.

– Achike JCA. Adeyemi v. Edigin (1990)

Was this dictum helpful?

COMMITTAL FOR CONTEMPT IS BY WAY OF BREVI MANU

Committal for contempt in the face of the Court is by way of a brevi manu procedure. This allows the Judge to be the accuser, prosecutor, jury and Judge all rolled into one. It is a negation of some of the very well-known principles upon which our common law oriented adjudicatory mechanism are founded upon. Of great and utmost concern is the total derogation of one of the pillars of the principles of natural justice; where it is not allowed for one to be a Judge in his own case- Nemo judex in causa sua, in the brevi manu procedure.

– A.A.B. Gumel, JCA. Alechenu v. AG Benue (2011) – CA/J/220/2002

Was this dictum helpful?

EXCEPTIONS TO WHEN A PARTY IN CONTEMPT MAY NOT BE HEARD

In First African Trust Bank Limited and Anor v. Basil O. Ezegbu and Anor (supra) at 151 Karibi Whyte, JSC, spoke so incisively, about these exceptions thus: “In my respectful opinion, the rule precluding hearing a contemnor before the Court is founded on principle. To every rule there are always exceptions. The exceptions to the general rule that a party in contempt may not be heard as distilled from the authorities referred to (supra) are:
(1) Where the party is seeking for leave to appeal against the order of which he is in contempt;
(2) Where the opposition to the order is one on the ground of lack of jurisdiction;
(3) Where the contemnor is seeking to be heard in defence of the Order and
(4) Where it can be shown that there were certain procedural irregularities in making of the orders which irregularities make the order unsustainable.

– Chima Centus Nweze, J.S.C. Independent National Electoral Commission & Anor v. Ejike Oguebego & Ors (2017)

Was this dictum helpful?

LAW OF CONTEMPT IS FOR UPHOLDING THE EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

The principles enshrined in the law of contempt are there to hold and ensure the effective administration of justice. They are the means by which the law vindicates the public interest in the administration of justice. It is also settled that the law of contempt does not exist for the sake of the personal aggrandizement of the judge nor is it there to protect the private rights of parties or litigants.

– Kekere-Ekun, JCA. Alechenu v. AG Benue (2011) – CA/J/220/2002

Was this dictum helpful?

CONTEMPT OF COURT IS TO PROTECT DIGNITY OF THE COURT

Contempt of court may be described as any act or conduct which interferes with the course of justice and tends to bring the authority and administration of law into disrespect. The twin elements of contempt of court are, therefore, interference and disrespect. The aim of the law of contempt of court, therefore, is to protect the dignity of court from any conduct that tends to obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice.

– Achike JCA. Adeyemi v. Edigin (1990)

Was this dictum helpful?

Load More
No more related dictum to show.

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

Humongouz Empire

© 2025

designed by Humongouz Ztudio. 

TO – 1367 | UO – 5 | GO – 1139 | BO – 223

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.