A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fixed Nov. 2 to rule on a preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction to entertain a criminal case involving forgery of document by a legal practitioner and his accomplices.
The Police had in 2018 filed an 11-count charge against Barr. Everistus Ugwuowo, 39, and three others for allegedly forging document to a property in Gwarinpa, Abuja.
The matter was based on a report by one Mrs Grace Audu.
The other suspects are Umar Adamu, 41, Usman Audu, 49, and Adole Christopher, 29.
They were said to have
connived to produce a forged “Deed of Assignment” in respect of the property.
The main suspect and his accomplices were said to have acted without lawful authority to sell House 11, 662 Road, Gwarinpa 2, Estate, Abuja, a property belonging to one Mr Grema Umar.
Other documents which the suspects were said to have forged include an Offer Letter, a document bearing No. FHA/OCE/GWA 2 OWU C for the property, an Irrevocable Power of Attorney, a letter of checking in of owner occupier purported to have been signed by Grema Umar and other receipts.
They were said to have deceitfully collected N29 million from their victim on the pretence that they have the authority to sell the house, the offence which they all pleaded not guilty to at the beginning of the trial.
When the main suspect (Ugwuowo) was asked to return all the money he collected from his victim, who later discovered that the transaction was fraudulent, the suspect was said to have issued a dishonoured cheque.
The Police had charged them for forgery, conspiracy to commit felony, obtaining money under false pretences, an offence said to be contrary to Section 8 of the Advance fee fraud and other related offences Act 2006.
The suspects were also said to have committed an offence contrary to Section 1(1) and punishable under 1(3) of the Advance fee fraud and other related offences Act 2006 and 3(6), 1(2)(C) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act CAP M17 Law of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004.
Another offence which the suspects were also charged with is issuing a dishonoured cheque, an offence contravening Section 1(1) of dishonoured cheque Act, CAP D11 LFN 2004.
At the resumed hearing of the case, Justice Egwuatu Obiora adjourned till November 2 to rule on a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.
Mr Ebuka Agwu, Counsel to the 2nd defendant (Adamu), had told the court that an application had been filed challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
According to Agwu, the police have no legal backing to file such a case before the court, as it is only the Attorney-General of the Federation who has such powers to do so.
He supported his argument with Section 104 to 106 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).
Counsel to the 1st, 3rd and 4th defendants also aligned themselves to the provision of the ACJA.
He told the court that a written address had also been filed to support his argument on the provision of those sections of the ACJA.
Mr Yomi Olokeogun, counsel to the 1st defendant, earlier told the court that his client (Ugwuowo) was on admission in the hospital as a result of high blood pressure, and therefore couldn’t make it to the court.
Olokeogun told the court that a copy of the medical report obtained from the hospital had been filed before the court as a means of evidence of the true position of his client.
He pleaded with the court to use its discrection to decide on what to do since his client was not in court.
Earlier, the prosecution counsel urged the court to reject the medical report, saying that the report did not come from a certified government hospital.
He also urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection, adding that there have been frivolous adjournments since the begining of the trial. (NAN)
