pg 135
jurisdiction of Magistrate's
Court to hem' a charge under
section 22 of the Medical
Practitioners and Dentists
Ordinance No. 20 of 1.9.14-Plea
of ,guilty- Autrefois Convict.
Accused pleaded guilty before
the Magistrate to a charge under
section 22 of Ordinance No. 20
of
1934: he t1wn found he had no
jurisdiction and remitted the
an' used to the Supreme Court: a
direction was given under
section 10 (:3) of the
Protectorate Courts Ordinance
that the case should be tried by
a Judge of the Supreme Court at
Lagos. There was a plea of
autrefois convict and
attention was drawn to a
previous decision in the High
Court. The opinion of the Appeal
Court was asked as to whether a
Magistrate's Court constituted
under section 3 of Ordinance No.
45 of 1933 had jurisdiction to
hear a charge under section 22
of the Medical Practitioners and
Dentists Ordinance 1934 and the
answer to the question was in
the affirmative.
Unsworth
for Crown.
Appellant not present.
The following joint judgment was
delivered:-
BROOKE, FRANCIS AND JEFFHEYS, JJ.
This is a case stated for the
opinion of this Court as to
whether a Magistrate's Court
constituted under section 3 of
Ordinance 45 of 1933 has
jurisdiction to hear and
determine a charge framed under
section 22 of the Medical
Practitioners and Dentists
Ordinance, 1934.
The facts are that the accused
pleaded guilty to a charge under
that section before the
Magistrate of the Enugu Area who
then found that he had no
jurisdiction and remitted the
accused to the Supreme Court: a
direction under section 10
(3) of the Protectorate Courts
Ordinance was then given that
the matter should be heard at
Lagos by a Judge of the Supreme
Court. There was a plea of
autrefois
convict before the
latter and attention wall called
to a decision on appeal in the
High Court at Aba in 1937 (R
v. Chinaka) that a
Magistrate had no jurisdiction
to try such a charge. This
point, however, was not argued
in that case and the decision
was based on the opinion that
certain proceedings having been
excluded from the jurisdiction
of the High Court which is an
Appellate Court from the
Magistrate's Court it must
necessarily follow that such
proceedings are impliedly
excluded from the Magistrate's
jurisdiction.
pg136
But the original and
appellate jurisdiction of
Courts are entirely distinct
and may be unlimited or
limited by statute as to the
nature of the actions and
matters of which the
particular Court has
cognisance. The Magistrate's
original jurisdiction which
is statutory cannot be made
to depend on the appellate
jurisdiction of the High
Court which is set out in
section 20 of No. 45 of
1933. Further if the High
Court was excluded from:
appellate jurisdiction could
a judge of the High Court in
strictness hear the appeal
in
R v. Chinaka?
The Magistrate's Courts were
established under section 3
of the Protectorate Courts
Ordinance and section 33 of
that Ordinance as amended by
No. 15 of 1936 sets out the
jurisdiction of Magistrates
for the, summary trial of
criminal cases and section
22 of Ordinance No. 20 of
1934 creates an offence
which in our opinion comes
within that jurisdiction,
and there is no enactment
which excludes such
proceedings therefrom as it
does in the case of the
original jurisdiction of the
High Court.
'I'he answer to the question
in the rase stated is in our
opinion that the Magistrate
had jurisdiction.