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
SHARE ON
It is clear that the contempt of court which a court of record is entitled to deal with brevi manu is not anywhere prescribed in a written law but it is part of the functions which are associated with the inherent jurisdiction of a court of record.
– GEORGE BAPTIST AYODOLA COKER, J.S.C. A.U. Deduwa & Ors. v. The State (1975)
In Onagoruwa vs. Adeniju (1999) 5 NWLR (PT.293) 317, wherein, my lord, Niki Tobi JCA (as he then was) stated what must be proved in contempt application, thus: “To establish contempt of breach of an order of injunction the following elements must be established: 1. The terms of the injunction must be clear and unambiguous; 2. It must be proved that the defendant had had proper notice of the terms of the injunction; 3. There must be a positive proof that the terms of the injunction have been broken.”
Here, I take liberty to restate that there are two broad classifications of contempt: that committed in facie curiae and that committed ex facie curiae. In the latter category, a charge and a plea are necessary and the accused is entitled to a fair hearing of the case against him.
– Chima Centus Nweze, J.S.C. Independent National Electoral Commission & Anor v. Ejike Oguebego & Ors (2017)
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)
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
From the foregoing, I am unable to hold that the extra-judicial vituperative exchanges between the appellant and the respondent in the peculiar circumstances of this case amounted to contempt of court. On the contrary I think that the invocation of the power of contempt in the instant case bordered on abuse of judicial authority. It is clearly improper and will expose the administration of justice to ridicule if a magistrate or a presiding officer of an inferior court were invested with such extraordinary powers to provoke unnecessary extra-judicial verbal exchanges with counsel or a member of the public and yet invoke against him the lethal and drastic power to punish for contempt.
– Achike JCA. Adeyemi v. Edigin (1990)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry