IZUORA v. THE QUEEN

POLICY AND PRACTICE LAW REPORTS, 2PLR

Search

Search

–

JOSEPH ORAKWUE IZUORA

V.

THE QUEEN

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL

16TH DAY OF MARCH, 1953

2PLR/1955/20 (PC)

–

OTHER CITATION(S)

2PLR/1955/20 (PC)

LEX (1953) – XIII WACA 313 – 316

(1953) XIII WACA PP. 313 – 316

–

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:

LORD PORTER,

LORD TUCKER,

LORD ASQUITH OF BISHOPSTONE

–

BETWEEN:

JOSEPH ORAKWUE IZUORA – Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN – Respondent

–

ORIGINATING COURT(S)

Privy Council Appeal No. 29 of 1952.

–

REPRESENTATION

Appeal from the West African Court of Appeal (W.A.C.A. 3645)

–

ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE:- Criminal contempt of Court – What constitutes  

ETHICS – LEGAL PRACTITIONER:– Act of discourtesy towards court by counsel by failing to attend session – Conduct involving breach of duty by counsel to his client – Where not necessarily contemptuous of court — Proper treatment of – Right of appeal to West African Court of Appeal

–

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ISSUE(S)

COURT:- Powers to discipline counsel for contempt of court – How properly exercised – Need to distinguish between mere courtesy and contempt

–

CASE SUMMARY

The appellant, counsel for the respondent in a divorce case, applied to the trial Judge to be excused attendance at a reserved judgment. His application was granted, but rescinded on petitioner’s counsel also asking to be excused attendance. The appellant, without tendering any explanation, failed to attend on the delivery of the reserved judgment. He was summoned to attend the Court to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court and fined £10 or in default two months’ imprisonment.

Upon appeal to the West African Court of Appeal, that Court held, following the case of Poku & Jantuah, (1) that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal which was struck out.

–

DECISION OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL

Held that:

1.     It is not every act of discourtesy to the Court by counsel that amounts to contempt, nor is conduct which involves a breach by counsel of his duty to his client necessarily in this category. The appellant’s conduct was clearly discourteous but did not amount to a contempt.

2.     In the present case an order for payment of a fine and for imprisonment in default has been made by a Judge in the Supreme Court for conduct adjudged by him to amount to contempt of Court of a criminal nature. Such order was a “conviction” within the meaning of section 10 of the Nigerian Ordinance.

3.     It is not possible to particularise the acts which can or cannot constitute contempt in the face of the Court, but in this connection it is desirable to bear in mind that the “summary power of punishing for contempt should be used sparingly and only in serious cases. It is a power which a Court must of necessity possess; its usefulness depends on the wisdom and restraint with which it is exercised, and to use it to suppress methods of advocacy which are merely offensive is to use it for a purpose for which it was never intended “.

2.    That the case of Poku & Jantuah was wrongly decided, and that the trial Judge’s order amounted to a conviction from which an appeal lies to the West African Court of Appeal.

Cases referred to:-

(1)      In re Poku & Jantuah, 13 W.A.C.A. 277.

(2)      Reg. v. Gray (1900), 2 Q.B. 36.

(3)      Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. (1940), A.C. 1014.

(4)      Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. The King-Emperor (1945), A.C. 264 at 270.

(5)      O’Shea v. O’Shea & Parnell, 15 P.D., 59 at 64.

–

DOWNLOAD PREMIUM PDF COPY (N2,000)

READ MORE

JUDGMENTS BY AREAS OF PRACTICE

JUDGMENTS BY PRACTICE/PROCEDURE ISSUES