The judgment is perceived to have a reverberating effect across the state, as most criminal cases before the Customary Courts are said to border on forcible entry on land.
By TheInvestigator
A Chief Magistrate’s Court of Cross River State, Nigeria sitting as Court No 2 Akpet Central, Biase LGA and presided over by His Worship, Eno Iyamba Esq has declared that Customary or District Courts in Cross River State lack the jurisdictional competence to try criminal cases relating to assault, forcible entry on land and threatening violence.
This followed an Originating Motion filed before the Chief Magistrate’s Court, Akpet by one Monday Bassey Ibin as Applicant against (1) Chief Sunday Arong Osang, (2) The Registrar, Ehom District Court and (3) The President, Ehom District Court, all as Respondents to the case in Suit No. MAC/MISC.17/2024.
A certified true copy of the judgment sighted by our reporter shows that the applicant, who was represented by one Barr A. E. Okpa as his counsel, sought an order transferring his case from the Ehom Customary Court to the Chief Magistrate’s Court for hearing and determination in the interest of justice. The respondents were in fierce opposition to the application, and they were represented by Barr Monday I. for the 1st respondent and Barr Sunday Ekeh (Deputy Director) for the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
In agreeing with the applicant and granting the orders sought, the learned presiding Magistrate in his judgment delivered on 17th April, 2025, stated that:
“… The second vista upon which the Applicant’s application is founded is the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the lower court presided over by the 3rd Respondent to try the criminal charge of assault, forcible entry and threatening violence based on the fact that the maximum punishment that could be imposed by the lower court is three months imprisonment, whereas the punishment prescribed for each of those offences under the Criminal Code Law is one year imprisonment.
“… It would appear that the respective counsel for the Respondents deliberately ignored or totally lost sight of this second arm of the Applicant’s contention, hence they failed to advance any argument in direct answer to the same, thereby making it unassailable. Therefore, I will, respectfully, adopt the lucid submissions of the learned counsel for the Applicant as contained in paragraphs 3.11 – 3.12 @ page 8 of his written address in support of the Amended Originating Motion, as my findings and holdings as follows;
“By section 7 of the Schedule to the Customary Courts (Jurisdiction) Order made pursuant to section 14 of the Customary Courts Law of Cross River State, Cap. C.21 LCRSN, 2004, the criminal charge of threatening violence is not contemplated as an offence over which the 2nd and 3rd Respondents have jurisdiction to try.
“Similarly, by section 12(2) of the Customary Courts Law of Cross River State, the maximum fine and maximum imprisonment which a Customary Court may impose is a fine of eighty naira or imprisonment for three (3) months or both.
“Invariably therefore, the offence of assault and forcible entry (as well as threatening violence), the punishment on conviction of which is not less than one year (12 months) imprisonment cannot adequately be handled by a Customary Court as the jurisdiction to impose the said punishment prescribed for the named offences is lacking in the 2nd and 3rd Respondents”, the Court held.
The judgment is perceived to have a reverberating effect across the state, as most criminal cases before the Customary Courts are said to border on forcible entry on land.