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)
SHARE ON
A superior Court of record has the inherent jurisdiction to deal with contempt in facie curiae and punish for the offence summarily.
– Chima Centus Nweze, J.S.C. Independent National Electoral Commission & Anor v. Ejike Oguebego & Ors (2017)
For words or actions used in the face of the Court, or in the course of proceedings, to be contempt, they must be such as would interfere with the course of justice.
– Chima Centus Nweze, J.S.C. Independent National Electoral Commission & Anor v. Ejike Oguebego & Ors (2017)
It is trite that contempt of Court is an office sui generis. An application for committal for any disobedience of an order of Court is a very serious matter as it involves in most cases an exceptional interference with the liberty of a subject and therefore when any antecedent process has to be put in motion every prescribed step and rule however technical should be carefully taken, observed and insisted upon. Any irregularity in the procedure for committed is a fundamental vice which vitiates the entire application.
– P.O. Elechi, JCA. Mofunanya v. Nwadiogbu (2017) – CA/E/282/2009
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
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.”
Above all, the case must be one the facts surrounding the alleged contempt are so notorious as to be virtually incontestable, where the Judge would have to rely on evidence or testimony of witnesses to events occurring outside his view and outside of his presence in Court, he should not try the case himself. The matter must be placed before another judge where the usual procedure for the arrest, charge and prosecution of the offender must be followed, Oku v. The State. In other words, in the trial of criminal contempt ex facie curiae, an offender is entitled to the benefit of a full process of a criminal trial.
– Chima Centus Nweze, J.S.C. Independent National Electoral Commission & Anor v. Ejike Oguebego & Ors (2017)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry