F.R.N. v. Lamido [2026]
A note before we begin: the underlying criminal trial in this matter is not concluded. This appeal was about a preliminary ruling only — whether the trial court had the territorial jurisdiction to hear the case at all, and a procedural question about how the notice of appeal was framed. Nothing in the Supreme Court's decision below is a finding of guilt or innocence on the substantive charges, which the trial court has now been directed to continue hearing. The respondent is presumed innocent unless and until that trial concludes with a finding to the contrary.
Introduction
This was an appeal by the Federal Republic of Nigeria against a Court of Appeal ruling that had discharged the respondent from a money laundering and conspiracy charge, on the basis that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear it. The Supreme Court, unanimously, allowed the appeal and sent the matter back for the trial to continue.
Fact of the Case
The respondent, together with seven others, was arraigned before the Federal High Court, Kano, on a twenty-eight-count charge of money laundering and conspiracy. Before trial began, the prosecuting agency applied to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to have the case transferred to the Abuja Division, citing security concerns — specifically, a crowd of roughly two thousand people that had gathered outside the courthouse during an earlier arraignment, requiring an armed police escort to safely evacuate the judge, prosecution, and defendants.
The Chief Judge granted that transfer. Once in Abuja, the charge was amended to thirty-seven counts, still centred on money laundering and conspiracy. At trial, the prosecution called seventeen witnesses and tendered a substantial volume of documentary evidence before closing its case. The respondent and his co-defendants then made a no-case submission, which the trial court overruled.
Dissatisfied with that ruling, the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. In doing so, he filed his notice of appeal listing only himself and the prosecuting authority — he did not include his seven co-defendants as parties to the appeal.
Summary of Proceedings at the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal allowed the respondent's appeal, holding that the Federal High Court's Abuja Division lacked the territorial jurisdiction to hear a case whose alleged offences had occurred in Kano. It struck out the charge and discharged the respondent. Dissatisfied in turn, the prosecuting authority appealed to the Supreme Court.
Appellant's Case at the Supreme Court
The appellant's case rested on two main planks. First, that the omission of the seven co-defendants from the respondent's notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal was a fatal defect — the appellant argued that a criminal appeal ought to properly list all parties from the trial below, and that the relevant Court of Appeal Rules required this. Second, and separately, that the transfer of the case from Kano to Abuja by the Chief Judge for security reasons was a valid exercise of a distinct statutory power, and that once validly transferred, the Abuja court properly acquired jurisdiction to try the matter regardless of where the alleged offences physically occurred.
Respondent's Case at the Supreme Court
The respondent maintained that the applicable Court of Appeal Rules required all defendants from the trial to be listed as parties to any appeal arising from that trial, and that the omission of his co-defendants rendered his own notice of appeal irregular in a way the Court of Appeal ought to have taken more seriously. On the jurisdiction point, he maintained that the Federal High Court Act's territorial jurisdiction principle meant a case had to be tried where the offence was actually committed, and that since no element of the offences charged occurred in Abuja, the Abuja court could never properly exercise jurisdiction over it, transfer or no transfer.
Resolution of the Questions for Determination
On the notice of appeal question, the Supreme Court sided decisively with the respondent's underlying appeal, though not for the reason the appellant had hoped. The Court explained that a notice of appeal exists mainly to pin down who is appealing, who they're appealing against, which decision is under fire, and on what specific grounds — its whole focus sits with the individual appellant's own grievance against the judgment as it touches him personally. A criminal appeal, the Court held, belongs to the person bringing it: it is not a re-trial of everyone who stood in the dock together, but a review of the judgment specifically as it concerns the person appealing. Where a co-accused hasn't chosen to appeal himself, or his situation has nothing to do with the grounds being raised, there's simply no reason to drag his name into someone else's notice of appeal — it adds nothing and risks pulling the appellate court into ruling on a person's position when that person isn't actually part of the case before it.
The Court went further to correct what it called a fundamental misreading of the rules by the appellant's counsel. The provision counsel had leaned on, Order 7 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, governs civil appeals only — it has no application to criminal matters at all. The rule that actually governs notices of appeal in criminal cases, Order 17, imposes no requirement that all trial defendants be listed as parties. On this point, the appeal against the respondent failed: the omission of his co-defendants was not an irregularity and did not affect the validity of his appeal at the Court of Appeal.
On the territorial jurisdiction question, though, the Court found in the appellant's favour. It confirmed the ordinary rule that a criminal offence is generally tried where it was committed. But that rule, the Court held, sits alongside a distinct statutory power: the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court has express authority to transfer a case from one judicial division to another where doing so will promote the ends of justice or serve the public peace. Where a case has been validly transferred under that power, the receiving court's jurisdiction flows from the transfer order itself, not from where the offence occurred — meaning the question of whether any element of the alleged offences happened in Abuja becomes, in the Court's own words, redundant once a valid transfer has taken place. The security concerns cited here — a crowd of thousands requiring an armed escort — squarely fit the purpose the transfer power exists to serve.
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court held that the notice of appeal was validly constituted without needing to list the co-defendants, but that the Court of Appeal erred in finding the Abuja trial court lacked jurisdiction, since a valid transfer by the Chief Judge confers jurisdiction independent of where the offence was committed. The appeal was allowed, the Court of Appeal's judgment was set aside, and the case was remitted to the trial court to continue.
Appeal allowed.
Key Takeaways
- A criminal appeal is personal to the appellant. There's generally no requirement to list co-accused persons as parties to your own notice of appeal, unless they're actually affected by the specific grounds you're raising.
- Civil and criminal appeal rules aren't interchangeable. Order 7 of the Court of Appeal Rules governs civil appeals only — leaning on it for a criminal notice-of-appeal argument is a fundamental mismatch, not a minor technicality.
- A validly transferred criminal case draws its jurisdiction from the transfer order itself, not from where the offence occurred. Once a Chief Judge validly exercises the power to transfer for security or public-peace reasons, the receiving court's competence doesn't depend on the locus of the alleged crime.
- Security concerns can lawfully override the ordinary territorial jurisdiction rule. A large, volatile crowd requiring an armed evacuation is squarely the kind of circumstance the transfer power exists to address.
In Practice
Many criminal cases has multiple defendants especially where conspiracy is involved and it is only wise to list all the persons involved. There could be instances where only one of the accused persons has a lawyer and is serious about getting bail from court. What I see sometimes in practice from the surface of the summons for bail is to have all the accused persons listed as defendants while the sole defendant applying for bail is listed as the defendant/applicant. This way it is clear to the court from the surface of the summons paper who is actually applying for bail. Similarly, in a criminal appeal it is logical and understandable if a counsel decide to list all the accused persons on his Notice of Appeal. It only set the record straight that at all times throughout the proceedings at the trial court, the accused persons were jointly tried. However Order 17 of the Court of Appeal rules as cited in the instant case, imposes no requirement that all trial defendants be listed as parties. It is not mandatory to list all the co-accused persons alongside the appellant and a deliberate omission of same will not be fatal to an appeal. However, where you choose to list the co-accused person alongside the appellant, you wont be punished provided it is clear on the surface of your Notice of Appeal who the appellant is.
Related Reading
For more on how territorial and transferred jurisdiction plays out in Nigerian courts, and on how appeals are properly framed and limited to the parties actually affected, see:
This post is based on the Supreme Court's judgment and is intended for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. As noted above, the underlying criminal trial is ongoing and unresolved.
Comments
Post a Comment