be decided first before further steps are taken on other issues in the matter in order to avoid an exercise in futility. See SKYPOWER EXP. AIRWAYS LTD V. UBA PLC (2022) 6 NWLR (PT. 1826) 203 at 228. In the light of the fact that an issue of jurisdiction can be raised at all stages of the proceedings, the Respondent was justified in bringing the application that culminated into the present appeal. It is however pertinent to state at this juncture that the said application was not in the nature of a no case submission, in which the trial Court was called upon to quash the charge because it fails to disclose a prima facie case against the Respondent and or the charge is defective. As stated earlier, the thrust of the Respondent’s case was the Supreme Court decision in NWOBIKE V. FR.N. now reported in (2022) 6 NWLR (PT. 1826) 293 which according to the Respondent has brought about a paradigm shifts in the way and manner of investigation and prosecution of cases by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). Put differently, that the EFCC’s investigatory and prosecutorial powers are confines to and restricted to economic crimes in the strict sense of the word. And that the offence with which the Respondent was arraigned and made to stand trial before the lower Court is not an economic crime within the meaning of the law. Before embarking on the expedition of discovering whether the offence with which the Respondent was standing trial is an economic crime or not and also whether the case of Nwobike V. F. R. N. (supra) was on all fours with the present case, it is also pertinent to note that for the principle of stare decisis to hold, the facts of the case have to be the same or similar to the facts of the earlier decided case by a higher Court, for the CA/S/114C/2022 Page 8