Disobedience To Court’s Order: Whether Any Person Found Guilty Can Be Termed As An ‘Ex-Convict’? By: Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq.

Also, some persons- governments, corporate and natural persons-, at some occasions, engage in personal interpretation of court’s order and or judgment so as to make their own personal decisions as to whether or not to comply with same. This kind of situation is indeed a bad experience in a democratic civil society where the Rule of Law takes precedence over Rule by Might or Rule by Whims-the other form of tyranny. This paper considers the implications of a person being found guilty of disobeying a court’s order or judgment, within the Nigerian Law Context, though, this paper will use the disobedience to an order of Injunction made by a court but disobeyed as a case for reference. First and foremost, the Court of Appeal in Ogunleye v Aina (2013) All FWLR (part 682) 1681, at page 1712, paragraph A, had admonished litigants to always obey Court’s order thus ‘It is now firmly settled that a court order must be obeyed even such order is perverse, until such a time that the order is set aside by a competent court. Oba Aladegbami v Oba Fasanmade (1988) 3 NWLR, (Pt. 81) 131…’. Also, this position was made in the case of Nwakwa v Adikamkwu (2015) All FWLR (pt.804) 2064, C.A. at page 2084, paragraph F, held thus ‘Of course, every court has inherent powers to protect itself and orders and to punish for contempt any act of disobedience to its lawful orders.’ Furthermore, in Nwakwa v Adikamkwu (supra) further held at page 2085, paragraphs C-E, thus ‘The above is to underscore the fact that any judgment made by a court deserves and demands obedience whether or not the judgment was well founded, and nobody must be allowed to stand in the way of translating the decision of a court! The power to punish for contempt is also constitutional and the courts are expected to guard their powers, integrity and decisions jealously, ready to punish any act of disobedience, or conduct that puts a court or its decision in derision, or poses an affront to its being obeyed or respected. See: the case of Ogunleye v Aina at 77…’. Therefore, the Courts and the Rules of various Courts and the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, 2004 (as amended), have laid down the procedure to follow in enforcing the compliance with court’s order. For instance, the provisions of Section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, 2004 (as amended) which provides thus ‘If any person refuses or neglects to comply with an order made against him, other than for payment of money, the court, instead of dealing with him as a judgment debtor guilty of the misconduct defined in paragraph (f) of section 66 of the Act, may order that he be committed to prison and detained in custody until he has obeyed the order in all things that are to be immediately performed and given such security as the court thinks fit to obey the other parts of the order, if any, at the future times thereby appointed, or in case of his no longer having the power to obey the order then until he has been imprisoned for such time or until he has paid such fine as the court directs’. Also, Order 9 Rules 13 of the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules, made pursuant to the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (supra) provides thus ‘(1) when an order enforceable by committal under section 72 of the Act has been made, the registrar shall, if the order was made in the absence of the judgment debtor and is for the delivery of goods without the option of paying their value or is in the nature of an injunction, at the time when the order is drawn up, and in any other case, on the application of the judgment creditor, issue a copy of the order endorsed with a notice in Form 48, and the copy so endorsed shall be served on the judgment debtor in like manner as a judgment summons.  (2) If the judgment debtor fails to obey the order the registrar on the application of the judgment creditor shall issue a notice in Form 49 not less than two clear days after service of the endorsed copy of the order, and the notice shall be served on the judgment debtor in like manner as a judgment summons. (3) On the day named in the notice the court, on being satisfied that the judgment debtor has failed to obey the order and, if the judgment debtor does not appear- (a) that the notice has been served on him; and (b) if the order was made in his absence, that the endorsed copy thereof has also been served on him, may order that he be committed to prison and that a warrant of commitment may issue’. Furthermore, in respect to the jurisdiction and power of a Court, in relation to a contempt proceedings, to protect and enforce the judgments and orders of the Court, the Court of Appeal of Nigeria has held in the case of Ogunleye v Aina (supra) at page 1703-1704, paragraphs H-A, thus ‘However, it must be stated that section 287(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and Order 9, Rule 13 of the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules, and even the inherent jurisdiction of the court, pursuant to section 6(6) of the Constitution (as mended), clearly vest every court of record with jurisdiction to hear and determine applications relating to contempt proceedings, to protect and enforce the judgments and orders of superior courts.’ Also, the Court of Appeal of Nigeria has stated the procedure for initiating a contempt proceedings, which is criminal in nature, in the case of Nwakwa v Adikamkwu (supra), (Abiru J.C.A.) held at page 2091, paragraphs E-G, thus ‘It is settled law that there is not only one way of commencing contempt proceedings and the category of the contempt being prosecuted determines the manner of commencement of the proceedings. Where the contempt consists solely of disobedience of an order of court, the only acceptable procedure for commencing the proceedings is a provided in section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and order 9, Rule 13 of the Judgment (Enforcement) Procedure Rules, made pursuant to the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, i.e. by the issuance of Forms 48 and 49-Adeniji-Adele v Ogbe (1998) 9, NWLR, (PT. 567) 650, Abass v Solomon (2001) 15 NWLR (pt. 735) 144 and Attorney-General, Anambra State v Okeke (2002) FWLR (pt.112) 175, (2002) 12 NWLR (Pt. 782) 575.’ Furthermore, from the above provisions of law and the cited judicial precedents, it is the submission of the writer of this paper that any person found guilty of disobeying court’s order is an ‘ex-convict’ i.e., having been found guilty of such disobedience to the order of the court-an offence. It is further submitted by the writer of this paper that such a person ought to be disqualified from holding elective positions in Nigeria as far as Nigerian politics is concerned, also considering the provisions of Sections: 66(1) (c) and (d); 107(2) (c); 137 (1) (d) and (e) and 182(1) (d) and (e) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). Therefore, it is the recommendation of the writer of this paper that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) should disqualify any person who-either while acting in his official or private capacity-has been found guilty of disobeying court’s order, so as to serve as a detriment to others from disrespecting any order(s) made by the court whether assumed as good or bad by him until same is set aside by such court or by an appeal court. Politicians and electorates are advised to take this position to effect by studying the profile of any of the aspirants to any elective office. Nevertheless, it is recommended that a developed computer system where such order of court convicting in a contempt proceedings will be reported and be in public circulation for access. Also, it is submitted that the Constitution should be amended to expressly include ‘conviction on the basis of disobedience to court’s order/judgment’ as a condition for disqualification for any political office holder and same should be a condition for disqualifying any person from holding any public office in the civil or public service. Finally, it is believed that where the above recommendations are considered, every person will have regards for the obedience and respect for court’s order, for in the opinion of the writer of this paper, disobedience to court’s order is a war against democracy. e-mail: hameed_ajibola@yahoo.com]]>