➥ CASE SUMMARY OF:
Mayaki V. Registrar, Mag. Ct. (4 January 1990)
by Branham Chima (LL.B.)
➥ SUBJECT MATTER(S)
Magistrate power to try indictable offence.
➥ CASE FACT/HISTORY
The main issue that calls for decision in this appeal is whether or not a Magistrate who has no power to impose the maximum penalty provided by law for an indictable offence can have jurisdiction to adjudicate on a charge relating to that offence under the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 32 Laws of Lagos State 1973.
The facts that led to this appeal are as follows: –
On 20th July, 1988 the 3rd Respondent accused person was charged before the 2nd Respondent Magistrate in Charge No. F/124/88 for the offence of attempt to commit felony, to wit murder, contrary to section 509 of the Criminal Code Law of Lagos State.
The 3rd Respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge and elected summary trial.
The 3rd Respondent was there and then released on bail and further trial of the case was adjourned till 31/8/88.
Thereafter the Appellants who were the complainants in the charge before the Magistrate Court applied to the Lagos High Court for an order of certiorari and order of prohibition against all the Respondents.
The grounds upon which these reliefs were sought were as follows: –
(1)that the charge before the learned Magistrate Grade I in the proceedings which form the subject matter of this application is a charge of attempted murder.
(2)that the proceedings, decisions and orders (including order as to bail) were held and made without jurisdiction.”
In a ruling delivered on 30/9/88 the learned trial Judge dismissed the application.
Dissatisfied with this ruling the Applicants have now appealed to this court where they are now Appellants and will be referred to as such hereafter.
➥ ISSUE(S)
I. Whether or not a Magistrate who has no power to impose the maximum penalty provided by law for an indictable offence can have jurisdiction to adjudicate on a charge relating to that offence under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Law, Cap.32, Laws of Lagos State 1973 and the Lagos State Magistrate’s Courts Law, Cap. 82?
➥ RESOLUTION(S) OF ISSUES
[APPEAL DISMISSED]
↪️ ISSUE 1: IN RESPONDENT’S FAVOUR.
[THE MAGISTRATE WHO IS NOT A MAGISTRATE GRADE 3 CAN TRY THE INDICTABLE OFFENCE
‘Now the offence with which the 3rd Respondent was charged as disclosed on the printed record of proceedings was attempted murder. It is an indictable offence. The accused person elected summary trial. The 2nd Respondent before whom the 3rd Respondent was arraigned was a Magistrate Grade I (or probably still is). Section 18(5) of the Magistrate Court Law contains a maximum sentence that a Magistrate can impose. It was amended by Section 4 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Edict of 1979 which was again amended by Law No.8 of 1981. The law gives a Magistrate Grade I power to impose a maximum sentence of three years. Therefore, as the law now stands all Magistrates other than a Magistrate Grade 3 have jurisdiction to try indictable offences in Lagos State subject to the accused person electing summary trial.’
ONLY THE PUNISHMENT IS LIMITED
‘The Magistrate will however not be able to impose any punishment greater than that stated in Section 18(5) (c) of the Magistrates’ Court Law as amended by Law No. 8 of 1981.’
THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS RIGHT WITH HIS CONCLUSION
‘Therefore, the observation of the learned trial Judge in his ruling to the effect that – “Once an accused who is charged with an indictable offence before a magistrate (other than a magistrate grade 3) elects to be tried summarily, the magistrate is from the moment of the election, vested with jurisdiction to try that accused person. The magistrate would however not be able to impose any punishment greater than that specified for his grade in section 13(5) (c) of the Magistrate Court Law.” is correct.’]
.
.
.
✓ DECISION:
‘This appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The ruling of Silva, J., delivered on 30th day of September, 1988, is hereby affirmed.’
➥ FURTHER DICTA:
⦿ ASSIGNING A CHARGE TO A MAGISTRATE WHO CANNOT IMPOSE THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE AMOUNTS TO JUDICIAL RASCALITY
Criminal Justice cannot be a matter of the luck of the dip, and so Chief Mayaki was entitled to complain, albeit without locus in the matter. A Chief Magistrate must realise that his duty to assign criminal cases to those under his charge is an exercise to be carried out judiciously and that it bothers in judicial rascality to assign a charge carrying a maximum of life imprisonments to a Magistrate whose sentencing power is limited to three years. — Awogu JCA.
➥ LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:
Babalakin, J.C.A.
➥ APPEARANCES
⦿ FOR THE APPELLANT(S)
⦿ FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
➥ MISCELLANEOUS POINTS
➥ REFERENCED (LEGISLATION)
➥ REFERENCED (CASE)
➥ REFERENCED (OTHERS)
