The Federal High Court’s decision to reject the National Broadcasting Commission’s attempt to vacate a May 2023 order prohibiting it from fining radio and television stations has been challenged by the commission in an appeal.
NBC’s lead attorney, Mr. Babajide Koku (SAN), filed a four-ground notice of appeal in which the company both criticised the lower court’s ruling and requested that the appellate set aside the previous ruling.
In a lawsuit filed on behalf of Media Rights Agenda, an Abuja-based attorney named Mr. Noah Ajare contested the NBC’s authority to fine broadcasters. This came after 45 broadcast stations were fined N500,000 apiece in 2019 for allegedly breaking the Nigeria Broadcasting Code.
Giving his ruling, Justice James Omotosho, held that only courts of law are empowered to impose sanctions for criminal offences, noting that NBC was “neither a court nor a judicial tribunal to make pronouncements on the guilt of broadcast stations notwithstanding the NBC Code, thereby violating the constitution.”
In its first ground of appeal, the NBC argued that Justice Omotosho erred in law when he refused to set aside the judgment, which it alleged, was demonstrated before him to have been deceitfully obtained on the ground that the commission was indolent and ought to have raised the objection in the substantive suit timeously.
It said the law confers on a court the inherent power to review and set aside its earlier judgment on grounds of fraud and deceit if those grounds are subsequently brought to its knowledge and demonstrated to exist.
The second ground of appeal is that the judge erred in law when he held that he would not set aside his earlier judgment because “res judicata” was not a ground for settling aside a default judgment.
The NBC’s third ground of appeal is that the judge erred in law when he held that “In the final analysis, the application by the respondent/applicant (NBC) has no substance for being an afterthought and a belated attempt at challenging the jurisdiction of the court.”
In its fourth ground of appeal, the commission said the judge erred in law when he found that “a party who is the victim of a default judgment fraudulently obtained would not be entitled to the indulgence of a court of law if it applies to set aside the judgment belatedly without having taken the opportunity of appearing to raise those issues in its defence to the substantive claim.”
The NBC argued that the law and, in particular, the rules of the Federal High Court, permit a party against whom a default judgment was obtained to subsequently apply to have such a judgment set aside on recognized grounds.
