Court: Court of Appeal, Lagos
Date of Judgment: July 1, 2004
Case Number: CA/L/351/2002
Justices: James Ogenyi Ogebe (JCA), Pius Olayiwola Aderemi (JCA), and Musa Dattijo Muhammad (JCA)
Parties Involved:
The appellants in the case were Cadbury Nigeria Plc (1st accused), Bunmi Oni (2nd accused), and Adegboje Tunjirs (3rd accused). The respondent was the Federal Republic of Nigeria, represented by the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC).
Background of Cadbury Nigeria Plc & Ors. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria:
The Federal High Court, Lagos, initially charged the appellants with importing dairy products for sale without registration and for labeling, packaging, and advertising the products in a misleading way. These acts were alleged to violate various provisions of Nigerian law, including the Drugs and Related Products (Registration, etc.) Decree 1993 (as amended), the Trade Malpractices (Miscellaneous Offences) Decree No. 67 of 1992, and the Food and Drug Act (Cap 150) 1990.
While the 1st and 3rd accused were properly served with the charge sheet, the 2nd accused was reportedly in London at the time and was never personally served. Despite this, the trial court issued a bench warrant for his arrest based on claimed service by the court bailiff. Meanwhile, Cadbury Nigeria Plc, acting as a responsible corporate entity, entered into negotiations with NAFDAC and complied with the conditions set out for resolving the matter.
Counsel for the appellants filed an application to quash the charge, arguing that NAFDAC no longer had the authority to continue the prosecution since the issues had been settled. However, the trial court refused to entertain the application and instead insisted that the 2nd accused be produced in court, even though his counsel argued that the court lacked jurisdiction due to improper service.
Issues for Determination:
The appeal raised three main issues:
- Whether the trial court was right to refuse to vacate the bench warrant for the 2nd accused after finding he was not served.
- Whether the court could lawfully compel a lawyer to produce an accused person.
- Whether it was proper for the court to refuse to hear an application showing that the matter had been resolved between the parties.
Decision of the Court of Appeal:
The Court of Appeal found in favor of the appellants. It held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the 2nd accused due to the absence of personal service. Therefore, the bench warrant should not have been issued or maintained. The appellate court also ruled that there was no legal basis for compelling an accused person’s counsel to produce them in court. On the third issue, while the resolution between the parties was noted, the court emphasized that it was the duty of the complainant to withdraw the case, not for the accused to seek a declaration that they could not be prosecuted.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal declared the entire proceedings before the trial court a nullity and discharged the appellants without ordering a retrial.
Counsel Appearance in Cadbury Nigeria Plc & Ors. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria:
The appellants were represented by A.O. Olufon, F. A. Aigbadumah, and F. Adesanmi. The respondent was not represented during the appeal.
Cite this page:
“Cadbury Nigeria Plc & Ors v. Federal Republic of Nigeria.” Nooktoria, https://nooktoria.com/case-law/case-cadbury-nigeria-plc-ors-v-federal-republic-of-nigeria/.