Category: Law

Faced with the threat of eviction by her in-laws and others from the Ikoyi residence she and her two children lived with their father for 38 years, former beauty queen Bianca Ojukwu – widow of the late Igbo leader – Dim Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, approached the Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja for protection. ROBERT EGBE reports that after a long-drawn out legal battle that lasted 10 years, Justice A. M. Lawal held that the widow and her children are entitled to the estate of their father and his entitlements as a deceased director and shareholder of Ojukwu Transport Limited (OTL).

It was not a situation many would have thought possible, but barely a year after the death in 2011 of the late Igbo leader, Dim Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, his widow Bianca Ojukwu and two of his infant children Afamefuna and Nwachukwu were on the verge of being evicted from the home he lived with the former Miss Nigeria for 38 years, notwithstanding that this was where they had and lived with their children. The evictors, according to averments before the court in suit LD/1539/2012, were seven defendants comprising the late Ojukwu’s siblings and others. For 10 years, the parties sought the court’s backing for their respective arguments over the management and control of some of the assets of Ojukwu Transport Ltd (OTL).

The late Ikemba Nnewi was a Director of OTL, a family company, before he died in 2011.

But in a judgment delivered on June 10, the Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja upheld Ojukwu’s heirs’ arguments canvassed in the Final Address filed through their lawyer, Mr. Nick Omeye, and delivered judgment in favour of Bianca and her two children.

Parties

The suit, LD/1539/2012, was filed by Bianca on behalf of the claimants, her two sons, Afamefuna and Nwachukwu, who were infants at the time, against OTL and seven others (brothers of the late Dim Ojukwu, their sons and property agent) over an alleged move by the defendants to take possession of the claimants’ residence at No. 29 Oyinkan Abayomi Drive, Ikoyi, Lagos, as well as some of the company’s property in Lagos, which were under the management and control of their late Biafra warlord, Chief Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu.

The defendants in the suit filed in 2012 are OTL, Prof Joseph Ojukwu, Engr. Emmanuel Ojukwu, Lotanna Putalora Ojukwu, Dr. Patrick Ike Ojukwu, Arch. Edward Ojukwu, Lota Akajiora Ojukwu and Messrs. Massey Udegbe (doing business under Massey Udegbe & Company).

Summary of facts

Afamefuna and Nwachukwu, being infants at the time, commenced the suit through their mother – Mrs Bianca Ojukwu – who sued as the next friend to her biological sons. Afamefuna and Nwachukwu are the biological sons of the late Chief Chukwuemeka Ojukwu, while Mrs Ojukwu was the legal and statutory wife of Chief Chukwuemeka Ojukwu.

The Claimants are in possession of the properties subject-matter of this suit, and with their mother reside at No 29 Queens Drive (now No 28 Oyinkan Abayomi: Drive) Ikoyi, Lagos. The late Ojukwu also resided at No 29 Queens Drive, Ikoyi, since around 1985 and his wife Bianca Ojukwu and the Claimants also lived there with him and are still residing there.

The properties in question were acquired by Chief Ojukwu’s father, the Late Sir Louis Ojukwu, in the name of the 1st Defendant. The Late Sir Louis Ojukwu was the majority shareholder of the 1st Defendant. The other shareholders are the 2nd Defendant, Late Chef Emeka Ojukwu (the father of the Claimants), Bethram Obi and the 4th Defendant.

The properties acquired by Sir Louis Ojukwu in the name of the 1st Defendant were about 25 in number, and same were separately occupied by his Children, -the 2nd Defendant, Late Chief Emeka Ojukwu (the father of the Claimants), the 3rd and the 4th Defendants.

Apart from the properties physically occupied by the children of Late Sir Louis Ojukwu, the 2nd Defendant was in possession of the properties at Onitsha and Port Harcourt and collected rents in respect of the properties and used the money realized from the properties for his subsistence.

Read Also: Appellate court affirms Abure as LP national chairman

The Claimants’ late father Chief Emeka Ojukwu lived at No 29 Queens Drive, Ikoyi, and also retained possession and collected rents on four other properties in Lagos, namely: No. 13 Hawksworth Road, Ikoyi, 32A Commercial Avenue, Yaba, Lagos, No. 30 Gerard Road, Ikoyi and No. 4 Macpherson Avenue, Ikoyi.

The 4th Defendant, who is also one of the shareholders and biological sons of Late Sir Louis Ojukwu resides at No. 19, Mekuenwen Road, Ikoyi, Lagos and controls a couple of other properties from where he collects rents for himself for his subsistence. The 3rd Defendant also had some properties under his control and collects rents from the properties.

While the Claimants’ father was alive, he complained to the Defendants about the way and manner the landed properties were being managed, and suggested that an Estate Manager be appointed to manage all the properties, but his suggestion was ignored by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants.

The 2nd Defendant alone managed all the 1st Defendant’s properties at Onitsha and Port Harcourt since the late 1960s without rendering account to any person, and from 1993 after the release of the properties in Lagos from acquisition by the Government, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants to the exclusion of the Claimants’ late father had managed 19 properties in Lagos State without rendering account of the rents collected to anybody.

While the Claimants’ father was on a hospital bed in London in 2011, the 4th to 7th Defendants were purportedly appointed Directors of the 1st Defendant Around the 4th of August, 2011. While the Claimants’ father was still sick and hospitalized, the 4th-7th Defendants attempted to forcibly take possession of No. 29 Queens Drive (now Oyinkan Abayomi Street), but were prevented from doing so by private security operatives guarding the house.

Shortly after the death of the Claimants’ father, the 2nd -7th Defendants purportedly appointed the 8th Defendant as property manager of No. 29 Queens Drive, Ikoyi, and the other 4 properties subject-matter of this suit.

Following the purported appointment, the 4th Defendant wrote a letter to the Claimants’ mother and next friend Mrs Bianca Ojukwu, notifying her of the 2nd -7th Defendants’ intention to take over possession and control of the properties subject-matter of this suit.

Further to the above, the Solicitors to the 8th Defendant issued letters dated 14th and 17th of September, 2012 threatening to eject the Claimants from No 29 Queens Drive, Ikoyi. The 8th Defendant also wrote the Claimants’ next friend of his purported appointment and requesting that she hand over the properties subject matter of this suit to the 8th Defendant.

On the 14th of August, 2012, the 5th Defendant and Mr. Ifeanyi Okumah, who is the Counsel to the 8th Defendant, put up a Public Notice in Thisday Newspaper warning the occupants of the properties subject matter of this suit to deal or relate with the 8th Defendant with respect to the properties.

The 5th Defendant, Dr Patrick Ojukwu also issued statement in The Sun Newspaper of 23rd September, 2012 threatening to forcefully eject the Claimants and their next friend Mrs Bianca Ojukwu from No 29 Queens Drive, Ikoyi, and the other 4 properties under the control and possession of the Claimants.

The Late Chief Chukwuemeka Ojukwu in his Will stated in the Codicil that his wife Mrs Banca Ojukwu should retain his interest in No 29 Queens Drive, Ikoyi, and take his seat in the Board of Directors of Ojukwu Transport Limited.

While threatening to take over No 29 Queens Drive Ikoyi and the other 4 properties subject-matter of this suit, the 2nd to 4th Defendants and their children retained the other properties of the 1st Defendant under their control and have been collecting rents from the properties under their control and had at all times shared the rents realized from the properties to the exclusion of the Claimants and their mother.

Bianca and sons’ claims

By a Further Amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim dated the 3rd of May, 2016, filed by Nick Omeye Esq. and Chris Ezugwu Esq. of Faith Attorneys, Messrs Afamefuna and Nwachukwu sought five reliefs from the courts. They are:

1. That the threat of forceful ejection of the claimants from No.29 Oyinkan Abayomi Drive, Ikoyi, Lagos, by the defendants is illegal.

2. That the claimants are also entitled to the possession of the properties known as No 13

Hawksworth Rd, Ikoyi (now known as No 13 Ojora Rd, Ikoyi); No. 32A Commercial Avenue, Yaba, Lagos; No. 30 Gerard Rd, Ikoyi, Lagos and No. 4 Macpherson Ave, Ikoyi, Lagos, which were some of the properties that were under the possession of the late father of the claimants from the time the properties were released from government acquisition.

3. That the 2nd-8th defendants be restrained either by themselves or through their agent or privies from interfering with the claimants’ possession and control of the 5 listed properties, being the subject matter of the suit which properties had been under the possession of Late Chief Odumegwu Ojukwu – the father of the Claimants from the time the properties were released from government acquisition till date until the harmonization of the management and administration of the assets of the 1st Defendant.

4. An Order of Court restraining the Defendants ether by themselves or through their agents or privies from interfering with the Claimants’ possession and control of No 29 Oyinkan Abayomi Street (formerly Queens Drive) Ikoyi:, Lagos, until the harmonization of the management and administration of the assets of the 1st Defendant.

5. An Order of Court restraining the Defendants, their agents or privies or assigns from interfering with the Claimants’ possession and control of the properties referred to in paragraph “3° above, until the harmonization of the management and administration of the assets of the 1st Defendant.

Issues for determination/claimants’ argument The claimants in their Final Address settled by their Counsel Mr. Nick Omeye raised four issues for determination and asked the court to resolve them in the Claimants’ clients’ favour.

Omeye prayed the court to hold that it was neither right nor proper for the 1st -8th Defendants “to forcefully eject the Claimants and their next of friend/biological mother from No. 29 Queens Drive, Ikoyi, Lagos, which was the residential house of Late Chief Emeka Ojukwu and his children the Claimants, while the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants who are also children of Sir Louis Ojukwu, foundation shareholders and Directors of the 1st Defendant retain the properties under their own possession and control.”

He argued that the Claimants are “entitled to possession and control of the properties known as (a) No 13 Hawksworth Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, (b ) 32A Commercial Avenue, Yabe Lagos. (c) No 30 Gerard Road, Ikoyi Lagos. (d) No 4 Macpherson Avenue, Ikoyi, Lagos, which properties were under the possession and control of the Claimants’ Late father, Chief Emeka Ojukwu, pending the time all the other properties under the control and possession of the other shareholders and children of Late Sir Louis Ojukwu are surrendered to the 1st Defendant and managed by an approved Estate Manager.”

He contended that the Claimants “are entitled to order of court restraining the 1st to 8th Defendants from forcefully ejecting the Claimants from No 29 Queens Drive, Ikoyi, and (a) No 13 Hawksworth Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, (b ) 32A Commercial Avenue Yaba Lagos, (c ) No 30 Gerard Road, Ikoy), Lagos. (d) No 4 Macpherson Avenue Ikoyi, Lagos, which were under the possession and control of the Claimants’ Late father, until the time all the other properties under the control and possession of the 2nd , 3rd and 4th Defendants and their children are surrendered to the 1st Defendant and managed by an approved Estate Manager.”

Lastly he argued that the 1st – 7th Defendants’ Counter-Claim against the Claimants was not competent and was bound to be struck out or dismissed.

Judgment

Delivering judgment on June 24, this year, Justice A. M. Lawal, after considering all the evidence adduced by the parties in the course of the proceedings spanning about 10 years, upheld Omeye’s arguments.

The judge held that the claimants being biological children of the late Dim Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu are entitled to the estate of their father, as well as his entitlements as a deceased director and shareholder of the 1st defendant.

Justice Lawal stated that “equity is fairness and fairness is equity,” adding that as a court of equity, the court would not allow the dispossession of the claimants who are children of a foundation director of the company while other directors are in hold and control of other property of the 1st defendant and deriving benefits from the same.

“Therefore, the claimants are entitled to possess and control what their late father possessed and controlled in the company, OTL, when he was alive,” the court held.

The judge stated that the fact that the 1st defendant allowed the family of the company to live on, and derive income from the assets of the company all these years was a decision of the company by conduct.

He noted that the 2nd defendant who had refused to surrender the property under his control for joint management could not now lead the battle of having the deceased director’s children hounded out of possession of the property that was managed by their late father.

The judge further upheld Omeye’s prayer and struck out the counterclaim instituted by the defendants for lack of competence.

He held: “That the claimants are entitled to the possession and occupation of the property known as No. 29 Oyinkan Abayomi Drive (formerly Queens Drive), Ikoyi, Lagos, until the harmonization of the management of the assets of the 1st defendant;

“That the threat of forceful ejection of the claimants from No.29 Oyinkan Abayomi Drive, Ikoyi, Lagos, by the defendants is illegal;

“That the claimants are also entitled to the possession of the properties known as No 13

Hawksworth Rd, Ikoyi (now known as No 13 Ojora Rd, Ikoyi); No. 32A Commercial Avenue, Yaba, Lagos; No. 30 Gerard Rd, Ikoyi, Lagos and No. 4 Macpherson Ave, Ikoyi, Lagos, which were some of the properties that were under the possession of the late father of the claimants from the time the properties were released from government acquisition.

“That the 2nd-8th defendants are restrained either by themselves or through their agent or privies from interfering with the claimants’ possession and control of the 5 listed properties, being the subject matter of the suit.”

Present as the judgment was delivered were the 1st, 5th and 8th defendants, with the 5th defendant, a director of the 1st defendant representing the 1st defendant.

For Ajike Ukonu, the determination to succeed, regardless of the struggles he faced, propelled him to success. The Abia State University (ABSU) graduate in this interview tells Anne Agbi how he engaged in menial jobs to scale through Law School.

Tell us briefly about yourself

My name is Ajike Ukonu and I’m a legal practitioner at L.L. Legal Services at Apo Resettlement, Abuja-FCT. I’m from Ohafia Local Government Area of Abia State. I attended Abia State University, Uturu (ABSU), and Nigerian Law School, Kano Campus, Kano State. I love  God and understand the importance of relationships. I give my all in everything I set out to do.

First graduate, only lawyer in family

My father Ukonu Udo Ajike (late) married two wives. My mum is the second wife. We are 11 children in my family; my step-mum gave birth to five children while mum had six of us; I’m the fourth child of my mum. I’m also the first graduate in the family. I have been practicing for 7 years. The fact that I graduated from a university gave my father great joy.

Memorable law journey experience

After I finished secondary school I gained admission to study law at ABSU, Uturu. I was on the merit list but due to lack of funds, I resumed late and was unable to get subsidised accommodation in the school hostel. While in school, I avoided male/female relationships because I had this mindset that if I had a female friend, she would probably be demanding money which I didn’t have. It wasn’t easy scaling through the faculty of law, but what kept me going was faith. For any exam I sat, the focus was not on if I would pass, but rather on what score I would get. So, with God’s help, I did not have any failed grade till I graduated. I graduated with a Second Class  (lower division) grade (2.2). Though below expectations, God saw me through.

Law School has a quota for every university, so because of that, there was a backlog of students. Since we didn’t have much money, I didn’t bother about going to law school immediately. I had to go and hustle a little to raise money. Firstly, I worked with an eatery/fast food restaurant in Aba for a few months and later worked with someone that sells fresh cow tail and leg. However, I raised money and with the help of my siblings, I was able to raise the Law School fee. I was posted to Kano Campus. Immediately school resumed, I paid and was left with nothing. I raised my transport fare again and started heading to Kano. After I paid the transport fare, I had less than N500 left with me.

What shaped me

At the Law School, I had no money to buy books, so I had to visit the library. This taught me the power of determination to succeed. In my second year at the university, I went to class one day and saw a new face, a direct entry student. He was not talking to anybody. After some time, I approached him and we spoke. We became friends, going to the Christian Law Students Fellowship (CLASFON) together. Later he told me that when I met him, he was contemplating joining a cult but thank God he met me.

Read Also: Appellate court affirms Abure as LP national chairman

Decision to become a lawyer

Honestly, I was not thinking about Law even when I finished secondary school. I can’t tell what informed the decision but I found myself falling in love with law stuff and it wasn’t difficult for me. Seems I was just meant to study law.

Other options beside law

I wouldn’t know, maybe a businessman.

High, low moments studying Law

My low moments were getting average results after studying hard, most of the time due to human factors such as lecturers, not buying books, etc.

High moments were from the people I met and interacted with who gave me a bigger perspective of the possibilities in law practice/business. That mental shift was key.

Formula for scaling through Law school

I usually read books several times before I can fully grasp what is in the book. So, I had to read over and over again. Also participating in group activities, it might look like a distraction but anything you grasp there you can’t forget.

Extracurricular activities in school

If church/fellowship activities are considered an extracurricular activity, they will be part of it. I was part of the Christian Law Students Fellowship (CLASFON). I later became the president of the fellowship in my fourth year. Went for picnics, waterfall. I think that’s all I can remember.

Popular belief that law students and lawyers are boring

Yes. Law students are boring to an extent but lawyers are not that boring, especially when money starts coming. Lawyers like enjoyment.

Call to bar

Call to bar was a dream come true. Of course, my family felt good. There wasn’t a party, but I joined a call mate/friend’s party.

Law school grading system

The grading system is okay. It makes you want to reach for the stars. It makes you give your all, knowing that you will be graded or judged with your lowest scores.

Should wig/gown be scrapped?

Wig and gown shouldn’t be scrapped. It’s iconic. It has its prestige, which is ancient.

Marrying a Lawyer?

Yes, I would like to marry a lawyer, but that doesn’t mean I can’t marry from another profession.

SAN, Professor, or Judge?

SAN, but not desperate for it.

Thoughts on the exodus of lawyers from the profession/country

First, the legal profession, especially if you are not from a “privileged family’ requires years of hard work, tutelage, and learning. Most young lawyers may not be able to endure and thus they need to look for alternatives. Also, most senior lawyers who employ young lawyers in their firm pay them little, with the mindset of ‘they are learning’. So those who have responsibilities will look the other way for finance. Unmet expectations also contribute because some think once they are called to the Bar the money will start flowing. I have no thoughts about japa for now.

Plans for the future?

Looking forward to partnering with some young lawyers soon to run a law firm. Also business, investment in Transport business and some other things.

Advice for fellow young lawyers.

Learn when it’s time to learn, then pursue money when it’s time to make money.

Chairman of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Nigeria Branch, Chief Akingbola Akinola (SAN) has been appointed as a Non-Executive Director of Axa Mansard Insurance Plc.

In a July 6, 2023 letter to the Nigerian Exchange Limited (NGX), the company noted that the appointment is in accordance with Section 274 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 and has been approved by the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM).

The letter signed by its Company Secretary Omowunmi Mabel Adewusi, described Chief Akinola is an experienced arbitrator and practicing lawyer with considerable experience in corporate and commercial law and a highly skilled advocate with extensive commercial legal advisory experience.

It further stated that “Chief Akinola was called to the Nigerian Bar in 1987 and admitted to practice as a solicitor and barrister of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. He is an experienced arbitrator and practicing lawyer with considerable experience in corporate and commercial law and a highly skilled advocate with extensive commercial legal advisory experience.

“He was appointed a Notary Public in May 1998, admitted as an Associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in November 1999 and became a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in January 2000. He was appointed a Senior Advocate of Nigeria in 2022.

“He is proposed as a Non-Executive Director representing Minority Shareholders in accordance with the NAICOM Guideline on Code of Corporate Governance 2021.”

Mr. Kola Adesina was also appointed to replace the erstwhile Chairman of the leading insurance company, Mr. Olusola Adeeyo who resigned from the Board at the last Annual General Meeting.

Other Non-Executive members of the board include Mr. Mariano Caballerro and Ms. Melina Cotlar.

AXA Mansard is a member of the AXA Group, the worldwide leader in insurance and asset management with 166,000 employees serving 107 million clients in 64 countries.

AXA Mansard Insurance plc is rated B+ by A.M. Best (2016) for Financial Strength. The company is also certified ISO 9001:2008 compliant by the Standard Organisation of Nigeria (SON) for quality management systems.

Omonena Origbo, the youngest in a family of 10 children, graduated from the Delta State University with a 4.1 CGPA to become its first. Origbo tells Anne Agbi how her desire to impact lives influenced her choice of law as a profession and how being the sole lawyer in a pack of technical experts steered her towards the dynamic world of technology law.

Introduction

My name is Omonena Oluchi Origbo. I hail from Agbarha-Otor town in Ughelli-North Local Government Area (LGA) of Delta State. I am a legal practitioner and an entrepreneur, with a strong focus on compliance and technology law, as well as legal procedures tailored for startups. I’ve had the privilege of collaborating with several IT firms in Nigeria, where I gained valuable insights into the intersection of law and technology. Currently, I am the in-house lawyer at TIMA Influencer Marketing Agency, located at 8, Joshua Ebun Ojo Close, Lekki Phase 1, Lagos. Although we have a majority of our staff working remotely across various cities in Africa. Within TIMA, I hold the position of Head of Compliance. In my capacity as the Head of Compliance, my responsibilities revolve around ensuring that our marketing campaigns adhere to all legal regulations and industry standards while harnessing the power of technology to achieve our client’s goals.

Self description

I would describe myself as someone passionate about making a difference in any ecosystem where I find myself. I am very result-oriented and I have a strong passion for the law and how it interacts with technology. I am passion driven and I thrive on collaborating with diverse teams, translating legal concepts into actionable insights that contribute to the success of projects and ventures.

An entrepreneur

I run a small business where I curate hampers and gift items for companies and individuals. I am also currently working towards owning my law firm in the coming years.

Hobbies

I enjoy several hobbies. From cooking to volleyball, badminton, and singing. My favorite hobby is reading. I love to read across various genres of books. I am also looking forward to doing lots of traveling soon. I have been practicing law for three years.

Family

I come from a closely-knit polygamous family background. My father, a successful entrepreneur, and esteemed estate surveyor, was at the helm of our family. With a total of 10 children, I hold the position of the youngest among my siblings. Our family structure is one of unity and strong bonds.

While my father was engaged in entrepreneurship and the real estate industry, my mother pursued a career as a dedicated trader. Each of my siblings has embraced a career-oriented path, excelling in their respective fields. Their accomplishments serve as inspiration for me, and I aspire to walk in their footsteps, following their remarkable examples.

In my family, I hold the unique distinction of being the first and sole lawyer.

Memorable law journey experience?

Certainly! This experience unfolded during my National Youth Service (NYSC) posting to an IT company, a phase that brought both excitement and apprehension. The prospect of being the sole legal presence amidst a team of technical experts left me feeling somewhat uncertain. For the initial weeks, a sense of nervousness lingered.

In my academic journey, I had always envisioned a future steeped in litigation, with aspirations of someday assuming the role of a judge. However, the unexpected turn of finding myself as a corporate lawyer within an IT company ignited a new passion within me. This unforeseen path generated a desire to delve further into the realm of technology law, ultimately leading to my current sense of fulfillment.

This juncture represented a pivotal moment in my career. It reshaped my trajectory, steering me away from the familiar lanes of litigation and towards the dynamic world of technology law.

At what point did you decide to become a lawyer? What inspired this decision?

My choice to pursue a career in law was rooted in my innate desire to make a positive impact on people’s lives. Even at a young age, I made up my mind that I wanted to fight for the rights of people and help them to get what is due to them. I think I made this decision at about the age of 12.

What were your high and low moments while studying law?

Among the highlights of my journey through law school was the opportunity to connect and engage with a multitude of brilliant minds. Forming numerous meaningful friendships was a true delight. However, there were undoubtedly moments of challenge. The pressure to excel academically and consistently maintain a high standard was an ongoing hurdle.

Overcoming challenges

I encountered lots of challenges, especially in the Nigerian Law School. The workload was like nothing I had ever encountered before. I was also part of the 2020 (Covid-19) set at the law school so our lecture was disrupted by the pandemic. It was a very scary moment for me because I knew that failure was not an option. I had to turn to God. I did lots of prayers and I studied the hardest I had ever done in my life. God helped me to overcome and I came out with flying colors.

Formula for scaling through law school

The formula for me was simple “Pray like my success depended on prayers alone and study like my success depended on studying alone”.

CGPA?

I graduated from Delta State University with a Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) of 4.1 (Second Class Upper). However, I graduated with a Second Class Lower from the Nigerian Law School.

Extracurricular activities in school

I was actively involved in extracurricular activities. I engaged in sporting events and social events. I was also very active in moot and mock competitions in the University and I was finally appointed as a Student Court Judge in my final year.

Popular belief that law students are boring

I understand where this comes from especially as law students tend to always give their studies a huge amount of time thus having less time for social activities on campus. However, I do not agree with this belief. Most law students are great conversationalists and quite social too.

Call to bar

My call to the Bar was a very beautiful period for me and my family. Everyone was excited for me. The joy lasted in my home for months. My mom was the happiest and we all wished my dad was alive to witness the joy. We had a small party at home with my extended family, friends, and well-wishers.

Law School grading system

I believe that there is room for an evaluation of the grading system, a system overhaul. Rather than assessing candidates based on their lowest bar finals grade, a more equitable and advantageous approach could involve the implementation of a cumulative grade point average. This adjustment has the potential to provide a fairer representation of candidates’ overall performance.

Should wig/gown be scrapped?

No. I hold the stance that the abolition of the wig and gown from Nigerian legal practice is not necessary. Despite the ongoing calls for their elimination, I firmly believe that these traditional elements hold significant symbolism and value for our profession. The legal regalia stands as a distinguishing feature that sets us apart and confers a sense of honour upon those practicing in the legal field.

Marrying a lawyer?

I am open to the idea of marrying a fellow lawyer. Such a union could potentially foster a shared mindset, enabling us to collaboratively address legal challenges and even form a partnership to solve legal issues together.

SAN, professor, or judge?

I look forward to being a SAN someday. I am doing everything within my power to actualize that goal in the future.

Thoughts on exodus of lawyers from the profession/country

I hold the belief that lawyers who choose to leave Nigeria for other countries are often driven by a desire to advance their education and augment their skills. Nonetheless, I remain convinced that the Nigerian environment presents significant potential for young lawyers to flourish within the expanding economy. My dedication is firmly rooted in contributing to the transformation of the emerging Nigeria and supporting startups within the rising technology sector of the country. At this juncture, my focus is not oriented toward migrating to another country. While I entertain the possibility of considering migration as a retirement option in the future, my current dedication lies in leveraging my expertise to contribute to the growth and prosperity of the local legal and technological sectors.

Business vs career

At the moment, my business does not affect my career. It can be a bit challenging at times but I do not run it personally. My career is a bit demanding and requires me working into the night and most weekends at times.

The future

My plans for the nearest future involve scaling my business, getting better in my career, starting my corporate law firm, starting a family, and obtaining all-around growth.

BELLO & ORS v. OKUNEYE & ANOR

CITATION: (2023) LPELR-60197(CA)

 In the Court of Appeal

In the Lagos Judicial Division

Holden at Lagos

ON FRIDAY, 17TH MARCH, 2023

Suit No: CA/LAG/CV/820/2021

Before Their Lordships:

Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu                                                          Justice, Court Of Appeal

Joseph Eyo Ekanem                                                                         Justice, Court Of Appeal

Folasade Ayodeji Ojo                                                                      Justice, Court of Appeal

Between

1. Mr Mohammed Yinka Bello

2. Mrs. Olutayo Bello

3. A.a.n. Energy Services Ltd   

                                                                                                                                                                                            –  Appellant(s)

And

1. High Chief Tola Okuneye

2. Oluwaseun Oyewole Okuneye 

                                                                                                                                                                                                           –  Respondent(s)

Leading Judgment delivered by Joseph Eyo Ekanem, J.c.a.

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State sitting at the Lagos Judicial Division (the trial Court) delivered by S.B.A. Candide-Johnson, J. on 25/6/2021 in Suit No. LD/700/2021. 

The facts of the case leading to this appeal are that the 1st and 2nd appellants are Directors of the 3rd appellant, a limited liability company registered under the laws of Nigeria. Sometime in 2009, the 3rd appellant entered into a contract with the 2nd respondent which was witnessed by a memorandum of understanding by which the 2nd respondent contributed the sum of N15,510,000.00 for the petroleum products marketing business of the 3rd appellant. The 2nd respondent was to be paid “adequate returns” at the end of every month.

Pursuant to the agreement, the 3rd appellant made monthly returns of N500,000.00 from September, 2009 to February, 2010 to the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the 3rd appellant failed to make returns to the 2nd respondent despite demands by the said respondent though it issued two cheques to the 2nd respondent but they were returned unpaid. The appellants stated that they made effort to fund the accounts and the 2nd respondent was informed when it became obvious that the accounts would not be funded on due date. The reason given by the appellants for the failure to make the returns was that the business in which the fund was invested collapsed as a result of sudden fluctuation in the prize of diesel.

The 2nd respondent terminated the agreement and proceeded to the trial Court to take out a writ of summons endorsed with a statement of claim against the appellants seeking the following reliefs:

1) The sum of Seventeen Million, Two Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira (N17,260,000.00) being the principal and outstanding monthly remittance to the claimants as at the 29th November, 2010.

2) Interest on the sum of Seventeen Million, Two Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira (N17,260,000.00) at the rate of 30% from 29th November, 2010 until judgment.

3) Interest at the rate of 19% from judgment until the debt is liquidated.

4) Solicitor’s fees in the sum of One Million Naira (N1,000,000:00).

5) Damages in the sum of Ten Million Naira (N10,000,000.00) for breach of contract.

6) All other incidental costs.

The appellants filed a statement of defence in response to the suit, in which the 3rd appellant admitted indebtedness to the 2nd respondent to the tune of N12,260,000.00. Consequently, the trial Court entered judgment against the 3rd appellant in the said sum of money without prejudice to subsequent proof by the respondents of additional entitlement.

After trial of the remainder of the claim, the trial Court found the appellants liable for breach of contract between the 3rd appellant and the 2nd respondent. It awarded damages in the sum of N5,000,000.00 in favour of the respondents against the appellants. Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Court determined the appeal on the following issues:

1) Whether, having regard to the evidence before the lower Court and the applicable law, the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the 1st and 2nd Appellants were jointly and severally liable for breach of contract arising out of the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the 3rd Appellant and the 2nd Respondent.

2) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in awarding damages for breach of contract against the 1st to 3rd Appellants in the circumstances of this case and particularly because the case had lingered.

APPELLANTS’ SUBMISSION

On issue one, appellant’s counsel submitted that the trial Court was wrong in holding that the money received into the account of the 3rd appellant was for the execution of a specific project; rather, he contended, the money was the 2nd respondent’s contribution for the continuing business of petroleum products marketing being carried out by the appellants. It was his further submission that the memorandum of understanding recognized that the business was a revolving one. He further contended that the finding of the trial Court was not borne out by the pleadings.

 It was his argument that the contribution made by the 2nd respondent cannot be interpreted to come within the limited scope of Section 316(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020 (CAMA) to justify the decision of the trial Court. He stated the position of the law that a limited liability company is a separate and distinct legal personality from its Directors or officers and as such they cannot be held liable for the actions of the company. He placed reliance on NBCI v. Integrated Gas Nigeria Limited (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 613) 119 to buttress his argument. He added that the officers of a company can only be held liable if the Memorandum of Association expressly provides that their liability is unlimited or, in the case of a debt owed by the company, the said officers are sureties or guarantors of the loan. Counsel stated that for section 316 of CAMA to apply the following conditions must apply:

(i)                 the money or property was received by the company for a specific purpose or for the execution of a specific project or contract; and

(ii)               there was an intention on the part of the Director or officer to defraud.

Counsel stated that none of the above conditions exist in the case and as such the trial Court was wrong to apply the provisions of section 316 of CAMA.

On issue two, Appellants’ counsel contended that there was no basis for holding the 1st and 2nd appellants liable for breach of the contract and so the trial Court erred in awarding damages against them. He went on to submit that award of damages against the 3rd appellant was not justified. It was his view that the only reason given by the trial Court for the award was that the case lasted for 9 years. He posited that there was no evidence that the delay in prosecuting the case was caused by the appellants. He stated that there was no evidence that the 2nd respondent suffered any injury as a direct result of the breach of the contract.

RESPONDENTS’ SUBMISSION

Respondents’ counsel in response submitted that the trial Court was right in holding the 1st and 2nd appellants alongside the 3rd appellant liable for breach of contract in line with Section 316 of CAMA. It was his position that appellants’ defence was a sham defence and so it was open to the trial Court to lift the veil of incorporation by holding the 1st and 2nd appellants liable. He placed reliance on Public Finance Securities Ltd v Jefia (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt. 543) 602 and Alade v Alic Nig Ltd (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 111. It was his argument that the said appellants did not deny their involvement in the transaction and that they used the 3rd appellant to obtain funds from the respondents to carry out a contract and they failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract.

 On issue two, Counsel noted that the trial Court found that the appellants admitted their breach of the contract and that since general damages are damages which the law presumes to have accrued from the wrong complained of and are presumed to flow from the wrong complained of, the trial Court was right in awarding general damages against the appellants.

RESOLUTION

In resolving the first issue, the Court cited the cases of Salomon v Salomon & Co. Ltd (1897) AC 22, Bulet International Nigeria Limited v Olaniyi (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1594) 260, 292 and Bababe v FRN (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1652) 100,129-130 to state the position of the law that a company is a legal entity distinct from its members. It has a distinct legal personality and is capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name. Once it has complied with the requirement of incorporation, it becomes an artificial legal entity different from the subscribers to its memorandum; it is neither an agent nor trustees for them. It has the capacity to enter into any agreement in its corporate name. As a result, where a Director enters into a contract on behalf of a company, he cannot be held personally liable unless it appears that he undertook personal liability or he is either a surety or guarantor. The law draws a veil of incorporation over the company and one is generally not entitled to go behind or lift the veil. See Nigeria Bank for Commerce and Industry v. Integrated Gas (Nigeria) Limited (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 613) 119,129, Chartered Brains Ltd v. Intercity Bank Plc (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 445, 463 and Southbeach Co. Ltd v. Williams (2022) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1831) 147, 182. Going further the Court stated that in certain circumstances, the veil of incorporation can be lifted. One of such circumstances is where the company is liable for fraud. See Vibelko Nigeria Limited v NDIC (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 994) 280, 295.

Applying the above to the instant case, the Court interpreted the provision of Section 316 of CAMA and held that according to the section, the only reason for liability to attach to a Director is where the company, with intent to defraud, fails to apply the money or other property for the purpose for which it was received. It would be absurd to attach liability to a Director of a company simply because the company received money by way of loan for a specific purpose or because the company received money or other property by way of advance payment for the execution of a contract or project which fails. The Court placed reliance on the case of Public Finance Securities Ltd v Jefia (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt. 543) 602 and held that the instant case was not one where the principle of lifting the veil of incorporation applied. Thus the 1st and 2nd appellants were not to be held liable for breach of contract between the 3rd appellant and 2nd respondent.

On issue two, the Court held that the award of damages against the 1st and 2nd appellants cannot stand since they are not personally liable for the breach of contract. With regards to the award of damages against the 3rd appellant, the Court held that the Court was right in awarding damages as it was a probable consequence of the breach of contract between the parties. The Court held that it was within the contemplation of the parties to the contract that the 2nd respondent would be paid “adequate returns” for his investment in the business of the 3rd appellant which returns were paid from September, 2009 to February, 2010 and thereafter stopped. The trial Court was therefore right to award damages in the circumstances as the damages awarded were within the contemplation of the parties as at the time of the contract, and were natural and probable consequence of the breach.

HELD

The Court allowed the appeal in part. The judgment of the trial Court against the 1st and 2nd appellants was set aside while the judgment of the trial Court against the 3rd appellant was affirmed.

APPEARANCES:

Mrs Ifeoma Esom             For Appellant(s)

Adeniyi Joshua, Esq.      For Respondent(s)

• Compiled by LawPavilion

Wahab Shittu (SAN) writes on conditions under which a plaintiff will stand to present a case and receive decision on merit

It is imperative to possess legal capacity to institute or commence an action in a competent Court of law or tribunal without hindrance from any person or body whatsoever, a person must show sufficient interest in the subject matter of the suit. The aggrieved person must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully affected his title to something.

This paper will show what the rule of locus standi postulates in legal parlance that a man who has aggrieved must be a man who has been refused something which he had a right to demand. The article Locus Standi- The Law Today denotes that it is only a person who has suffered a specific legal injury by reason of actual or threatened violation of his legal right or legally protected interest who can bring an action for judicial redress.

1.1      Introduction:

Meaning and nature of locus standi:

“Locus Standi”in general parlance, means a recognized position of standing, in law, it means a place of standing in Court or right to appear in Court. Locus Standi or standing to sue is defined as the legal right of a party to an action to be heard in litigation before a court of law or tribunal. The term entails the legal capacity of instituting, initiating or commencing an action in a competent court of law or tribunal without any inhibition, obstruction or hindrance from any person or body whatsoever, in other words, locus standi is the right of appearance in a court of justice or before a legislative body on a given question.

1.2 In TAIWO V ADEGBORO. [1] It was held that:

“The doctrine of locus standi was developed to protect the Court from professional litigants and busybodies who have no real stake or interest in the subject matter of the litigation they wish to pursue.”

1.3 What litigants must show to establish locus standi?

a.) Notably, in ADETONA V. ZENITH INTERNATIONAL BANK PLC [2] it  was held that a party seeking to establish locus standi must show the following A legal or justifiable right

1.) (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1259) 562 P. 486

2.) (2011) 18 NWLR (PL.1279) 627 Pp.486-487, Paras A-F)

b.) A legal or justifiable right

c.) Sufficiently or special interest adversely affected and

d.) A justifiable cause of action. In other words, for a person to have locus standi, he must show that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed and that he has sufficient legal interest in seeking redress in a court of law. Put differently, there must be a nexus between the party and the disclosed cause of action concerning his right or obligations.

1.4 A person is said to have interest in a thing when he has rights, advantages, duties, liabilities, losses or the like, connected with the thing, whether present or future, ascertained or potential provided that the connection, and in the case of potential rights and duties, the possibility, is not too remote. The tests for determining whether a person has special or sufficient interest in instituting an action are:

a.) Whether the person  could have been joined as a party to the suit if some other party had commenced the action and

b.) Whether the person will suffer some hardship or injury arising from the litigation if some other party instituted the action.

1.5 Documents the Court will examine in determining whether litigant has locus standi:

Where documents are pleaded in the statement of claim and are frontloaded as documents to be relied upon at trial or attached to an affidavit in support as exhibits, as part of the originating process, then such documents might also be looked at.

A trial court cannot go outside the originating processes in determining the issue of locus standi of a claimant. Furthermore, in determining locus standi the chances that the action may not succeed is completely irrelevant.

1.6  In INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION V. OGBADIBO LOCAL GOVERNMENT [3] E-G Per Galadima defined Locus standi as a Latin term or expression. It denotes the Plaintiff’s capacity to sue in a Court of law to enforce a legal right.

3.)          (2016) 3 NWLR Part 1498 Page 167 at 187 Paras E-F (2015) ALL FWLR Part 812 Page 1586 at 1604 Paras

Once the Plaintiff has the right or vested interest to protect and enforce legally and disclose in a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim and, in an action commenced by Originating Summons in the averment in the affidavit in support, the Plaintiff is adjudged to have shown sufficient interest which entitles him to sue on the subject matter. Chances of the success of an action are not relevant consideration.

1.7   In A/G FEDERATION V. A/G LAGOS [4] Per. M.D Muhammad JSC. Held that “When a party’s standing to sue is in issue, the question is whether the person whose standing is in issue is a proper party to request an adjudication of a particular issue and not whether the issue itself is justiciable. while quoting from ADESANYA V. PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA[5] Per Fatayi Williams CJN “It is only when the civil rights and obligation of the person who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court are in issue for determination that the judicial powers of the Courts may be invoked. In other words, standing will only be accorded a Plaintiff who shows that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being violated or adversely affected by the act complained of.”

1.8  The question whether a person has locus standi to bring an action raises an issue of jurisdiction. Where a party initiating an action lacks locus standi, the court is robbed of  jurisdiction to entertain it [6] INAKOJU V. ADELEKE

1.9   In YARA’DUA V. YANDOMA [7] Paras E-H Per Muhammed JSC. It was held that”

The two Latin words which make up the expression locus standi conjunctively mean “a place to stand ” and if used in relation to a matter in a law court, “a platform to stand” in the suit. It is a phrase that usually applies to a Plaintiff in ascertaining the place he stands in commencing or prosecuting the suit he initiates.

2.0 It is about that Plaintiff’s legal right as a party in a court of law or tribunal to be heard in the litigation. The phrase requires that whatever remedy the Plaintiff seeks must be founded upon the existence of legal right.  A person is said to have locus standi if he has shown sufficient interest in the action and that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed.”

2.1   In JITTE V. OKPULOR [8] Per Ogunbiyi held that

 “The concept of locus standi denotes the legal capacity to institute proceedings in a Court of law. What the Plaintiff needs to show in order to establish that he has locus standi in a case is sufficient interest in the matter in controversy.”

4.) (2017) 8 NWLR Part 1566 Pg. 20 at 40-41 Paras D-G

5.) (1981) 1 ANLR Part 1 Page 1

6.) 2007 4 NWLR (Pt.1025) 423

7.) (2015) 4 NWLR Part 1448 Page 123 at 173

8.) (2016) 2 NWLR Pt.1497 Pg.542 at 563-564 Paras A-H (2016) ALL FWLR Pt. 820 Page 1371 at 1386 Paras A-B,

2.2  A person has locus standi to sue in an action if he can show that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. There are two tests for determining if a person has locus standi. They are:

1. The action must be justiciable,

2. There must be a dispute between the parties.

In applying the tests; a liberal attitude must be adopted.

2.3 In B.B APUGO & SONS LTD V. ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITALS MANAGEMENT BOARD (OHMB) [9] Per Okoro JSC. It was held that “A person has locus standi if he can show that he has a stake in the subject matter or outcome of the case and must be able to establish that what he suffers or the injury to his person was the consequence of the Defendant’s conduct. There must be a nexus between  the Plaintiff’s action and the Defendant’s act or conduct “

 2.4  In OKWU V. UMEH [10] Per Okoro  JSC. It was held that:

“The legal concept of standing or locus standi is predicated on the assumption that no Court is obliged to provide a remedy for a claim in which the applicant has a remote, hypothetical or no interest.

2.5 Thus where a Plaintiff by his pleading, fails to show that he has a locus to institute an action, no issue in the case can be gone into, not even the question whether or not the statement of claim discloses cause of action.”

2.6  In determining whether the Plaintiff has the necessary locus to institute an action, in WIKE V. PETERSIDE [11] Per Kekere-Ekun JSC. it was held that “it is Claimant’s pleadings that will be considered by the Court. The Claimant must show sufficient interest in the subject matter of the dispute.”

2.7 In BAKARE V. AJOSE- ADEOGUN [12] Per Ariwoola JSC. held that:

 “In determining the locus standi of a Plaintiff, it is the statement of claim that should be scrutinized by the Court. In demurrer proceedings where the Defendant has not filed a Statement of Defence but the point of law is taken, the Defendant is deemed to have admitted the averments in the Statement of Claim”

9.)          (2016) ALL FWLR Part 825 Pg.232 at 249-250 Paras G-A.

10.    (2016) 4 NWLR Pt. 1501 Pg.  120 at 144 Paras E-F (2016) ALLFWLR Pt. 825 Pg.  232 at 249-250 Paras A-G,

11.)   (2016) 7 NWLR Pt. 1512 Pg. 452 at 514 Paras C

12.)   (2014) 6 NWLR Pt. 1403 Pg. 320 at 354 Paras E-G

2.8       In OKWU V. UMEH [13] Per Okoro JSC. held that ‘Where a Plaintiff fails to show that he has the locus to institute an action, no issue in the case can be gone into, not even the question or not the Statement of Claim discloses a cause of action. The only and proper order to make in the circumstance is that of sriking out of the suit.

2.9  In INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION V. OGBADIBO LOCAL GOVERNMENT[14] Per Kekere-Ekun JSC. Legal consequence of lack of locus standi is that the Court will lack the jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiff’s claims and the suit will be liable to be struck out.

3.0        In BAKARE V. AJOSE-ADEOGUN [15] Per Arowoola JSC. it was held that

 ” It is not enough for the purpose of establishing his locus standi for a plaintiff to merely claim to belong to one of the disputant families. He has to go further to state in his Statement of Claim what personal interest he has in the disputed chieftaincy and how that interest arose.

3.1       In not enough for the chieftaincy matters, it is not enough for the  Plaintiff to state that he is a member of the family, he has to state that he has an interest in the chieftaincy title.

3.2        Test to determining locus standi to sue in an action

A person has locus standi to sue if he is able to show to the satisfaction of the court that his right and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. There are two tests for deeming of a person has locus standi. They are:

a.)           The action must be justifiable and:

b.)          There must be a dispute between the parties.

3.3    In applying the test a liberal attitude must be adopted to have locus standi the plaintiff’s statement of claim must disclose sufficient legal interest and show how such interest arose in the subject matter of action. See P.M. LTD V. THE M.V. DANCING SISTER [16]

3.4     To have locus standi to sue, the plaintiff must have sufficient interest in the suit. One criterion of sufficient interest is whether the party could have been joined as a party in the suit.

13.) (2016) 4 NWLR Pt. 1501 Pg. 120 at 144 Paras E-G (2016) ALL FWLR Pt. 825 Pg. 232at 250 Paras A-B

14.) (2016) 3 NWLR Pt. 1498 Pg. 167 at 202 Paras F(2015)ALL FWLR Pt. 812 Pg 1586, Paras B-C

15.) (2014) 6 NWLR Pt. 1403 Pg.320 at 357 Para D

  16.) (2012)4 NWLR Pg. 169(SC)

Another criterion is whether the party seeing the redress or remedy will suffer some injury or hardship from the litigation. If the court is satisfied that he will suffer, then he must be heard.

3.5 The process that would assist the Court in determining whether or not a party has locus standi to institute action is the statement of claim. In an action commenced by originating summons, the relevant process is the affidavit in support. In ascertaining whether the plaintiff in an action has locus standi, the pleading, that is the statement of claim, must disclose a cause of action vested in plaintiff and the rights and obligation or interest of the plaintiff which have been violated. Put differently, the question as to the competence of a plaintiff to institute an action is gathered from the statement of claim and not from the evidence that is subsequently led.

3.6 Determination of locus standi in constitutional matters

A party who seeks a declaratory relief in the Constitution must show that he has a constitutional interest to protect and that the interest is violated. See also INAKOJU V. ADELEKE [17]  it was held that proper order to make where a party lacks locus standi to institute an action is to strike out the suit. Where a party has no locus standi to institute an action the proper order to make is to strike  out the suit.

3.7 Locus Standi of a member of family to sue and to protect family property

In MOZIE V. MBAMALU [18]. It was held that a member of a family has the capacity to sue to protect family property, any member of a family whose interest is threatened by wrongful alienation or wrongful interference with the family property can sue to protect his interest whether with the consent or without the consent of the other member of the family if he does not act, he may find himself being held to be standing by when his right were being taken away.

3.8    A cause of action and standing to sue are linked to the issue of jurisdiction of a court. If the plaintiff does not have a cause of action or the standing to sue that is locus standi to institute an action, the court cannot properly assume jurisdictional to entertain the matter. No one has competence or locus standi in a claim of ownership over land which has been acquired by the government for public purposes. Once the disputed land is acquired by the Federal Government, all existing rights are existinguished. Consequently, a claimant has no locus standi to institute a case.

17.) 2007 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423

18.)  (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt.1003)  P.466 C.A

3.9  It is a sine qua non to the exercise of jurisdiction because judicial powers are constitutionally limited to cases in which they have locus standi. The locus standi of a plaintiff in essence is a condition precedent to the court jurisdiction. Thus before the court can proceed to the hearing of a matter on the merit, the plaintiff must have locus standi. Therefore, for a plaintiff to be able to obtain reliefs in a cause, he must have the necessary standing. That is why issue of cause of action or standing to institute an action must be raised in limine before going into the merit of the matter in dispute between parties

4.0 In ADEGBITE AMOSUN V. AMOSU [19] it was held that a person can maintain an action in respect of land acquired by government, if he can show that he successfully challenged the acquisition which was later revoked. Such action can also lie when the person can show that he has the fiat of the Attorney General giving him the standing to sue.

4.1 Conclusion:

In effects, the rule with regard to locus standi postulates a right-duty pattern which is commonly found in private law litigation subsequent English decisions clung to the pattern.

4.2 Nigerian Courts, as legatees of the English common law heritage, embraced the English concept of Locus Standi. In doing so, however, they would appear to have merged the narrow and restrictive concept of private law.

19.) [2016] [19]15 NWLR (Pt. 1536) P.405A

President of the Nigerian Law Society (NLS), Kunle Ogunba (SAN) has urged  other like-minded organizations to speak up for the Judiciary and the welfare of judges and magistrates.

He made the call in a statement  issued during the weekend to mourn three jurists who died recently.

He condemned the judiciary over the poor welfare, healthcare and aftercare of judges on the bench adding that they must not be allowed to die off.

He said: “Just a few days ago, I had cause to condole with the families and the Legal Community on the passing of our eminent jurists, one from the Supreme Court, another from the Federal High Court.

Read Also: ‘How I became Law School’s best’

 “Now my heart breaks to once again condole with the family of the immediate-past Chief Judge of Balsa State, Hon. Justice Kate Abiri who passed on in the morning of August 3rd, 2023.

“Her lordship only just retired from the bench in January 2023 and was perhaps one of the longest serving Chief Judges of any State; serving as Chief Judge for 15 years”.

The NLS President  further noted

“for judges and magistrates to be dying in their 60s when they are nearing retirement or have retired is very unfortunate and unacceptable”.

Ogunba SAN then stated that;

” In the light of this; while we mourn, we at the Nigerian Law Society will activate a special committee to specifically advocate for the welfare of our colleagues on the Bench.

“The committee will also be a voice for and on behalf of the Bench, ensuring that our Judges and Magistrates are well catered for, projecting their concerns to government and to the Nigerian people”

The NLS President re-echoed as he said “We will defend our judiciary.

“At NLS; we appreciate that our Judges, Magistrates, Khadis and Customary Court Judges are human beings living amongst us, they have families, they have needs, they are under the same economic and social pressures as anyone else, the job they do is divinely established and creates a balance in our polity otherwise there will be absolute chaos if we didn’t have them amongst us.

“The relevance of the Bench in our daily peaceful co-existence cannot be over-emphasized and in this light I call on other well-meaning organizations to join NLS in promoting a healthy and corruption free Judiciary”, he said.

• Association to donate N10m law books to AAU

The 1987 Law Class of the Bendel State University (BENSU), now Ambrose Alli University (AAU), is set to donate law books worth over N10 million to the Faculty of Law of AAU.

President of the BENSU Law Class of ’87, Mr. Sylva Ogwemoh (SAN), said this during the Class Reunion held in Lagos.

The reunion theme was: “Developing Alumni Connections: Challenges and Prospects.”

Special guest of honour at the occasion was the immediate-past Minister of State for Budget and National Planning, Prince Clem Agba.

The three-day event, which began with a cocktail on August 3, 2023, included a class meeting, health talk and a dinner.

Read Also: Court orders Ambrose Alli University to reinstate sacked staff member

Mr. Ogwemoh paid tribute to the late Ambrose Folorunsho Alli, a professor of morbid anatomy and the first governor of Old Bendel State (now Edo State) who established the university.

The SAN stated that the major aim of the association is to improve the welfare of members and support AAU, particularly the Faculty of Law of the university in areas of need.

He said the Class of ’87 boasts of an array of judges, Senior Advocates of Nigeria, a  professor of law, magistrates, directors in public service, seasoned politicians and successful businessmen and women.

“In my view, our coming together as a class association should provide us the opp ortunity to help  one other in areas of need,” Ogwemoh said.

He also stated that it was important for the BENSU Law Class of ’87 to act as a united body that will ultimately assist the university in re-engaging its diverse alumni for academic and infrastructural development in the institution.

Agba: alumni associations key to nation-building

Prince Agba said alumni associations can play a critical role in nation-building.

He said they can do this by contributing to the country’s educational advancement through their alma mater.

Agba, a member of the first graduate class of BENSU, stressed that building great educational institutions begins with successful alumni organisations that have entrenched connections.

He said: “Alumni associations in Nigeria should, therefore, participate actively in the development of their various institutions like their counterparts in developed countries by looking beyond providing infrastructure to looking into the administration and academic situation of our universities to know truly if we are producing the right kind of students for the society.

“This is because the real challenges of university education and development can only be properly addressed with the involvement and contributions of those who passed through its four walls and are interested in the progress and further development of the institution.

“It behoves alumni associations to ensure that the connections they have built over the years translate into tangible benefits to their institutions of training.”

Agba believes that the existence of an academic institution in the modern sense depends largely on the commitment and carriage of its alumni.

“This is because the acquisition of knowledge and tradition and the engagement in scholarship is only appreciated through a continuous display of academic traditions and self-pride in their belief system in sustaining the values of their self-discovery and self-consciousness,” he said.

He noted that beyond donations, alumni associations can volunteer for activities in the institutions, carry out speaking engagements, engage in mentoring and take an active interest in the institution’s administration.

“It is, therefore, important to promote regular interactions among institutional staff, students, and alumni, thereby creating a sense of inclusivity.

“Such interactions also go a long way in ensuring that the institution’s outreach stays on point and relevant,” Agba said.

Agba, who said BENSU was established upon the foundational base of selfless and visionary leadership, firm and rugged determination, and service-oriented political leadership, called the alumni to action.

“We should challenge ourselves on the preservation of the above values. We can set and attain individual standards and goals for ourselves.

“We can also set and seek to attain goals and standards for our people, our communities or our societies,” the former minister added.

A Lagos firm, Melka West Africa Limited,  has accused the Nigerian Navy and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) of disregarding court judgments and orders in respect of  civil transactions between two private legal entities.

The firm insisted that the transactions had nothing to do with the security of the country or any crime within the remit of the EFCC enabling Act. 

This was contained in a petition addressed to President Bola Tinubu, dated August 1, 2023 and signed for the firm by Emmanuel Osaghae.

The petition titled “Blatamt Disregard For Court Judgments/Orders, Abuse Of The Rule Of Law And The Use Of Military Force To Enforce Civil Transactions By The Nigerian Navy And The Economic And Financial Crimes Commission – A Plea For Urgent Intervention”  was also copied to the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Olukayode Ariwoola, and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice.

Read Also: EFCC decries trial delays

 In the petition, the firm,  owner of a tugboat named M.V. Naomi Princess with official Number SR 2683 and IMO Number 9743112, explained that on December 16, 2023, First Bank of Nigeria Limited, made a credit facility offer (CFO) to the petitioner (Melka West Africa Limited) and subsequently executed the contractual transaction in question. 

The Vessel, according to the firm, was made the security for the facility under a Vessel Mortgage which was strictly between Melka West Africa and First Bank of Nigeria Plc in which late Chief Mike Uwaka executed the contract in his capacity as the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer and gave a personal guarantee of the facility.

 However, the relationship between the parties got deteriorated and resulted in a legal action designated FHC/L/CS/667/2017 – First Bank Of Nigeria Plc Vs MV. Naomi Princess and Melka West Africa, before Justice Chuka Obiozor of a Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Lagos. 

After a review of the terms of settlement and consent judgment, it was discovered that there were some jurisdictional issues that affected the competence of the court on the matter.

By an originating summon in suit  FHC/L/CS/1460/2018 marked MV Naomi Princess & Melka West Africa Limited Vs First Bank of Nigeria Limited dated  September 5, 2017, the plaintiffs sought to set aside the consent judgment by Justice Chuka Obiozor on December 12, 2017.

The matter was assigned to Justice Chukwujeku Aneke whose decision is now subject of appeal in suit no CA/1590/2018.

The petitioner said upon its petition to the AIG, Marine Division, and investigation of facts of the matter, police officers who invaded MV Naomi Princess at Onne Port were ordered to vacate the vessel.

The petitioner said rather than allow the judicial process to run it’s full course, the respondent lodged a complaint at the EFCC who consequently started harassing their staff. She said the development made her to enforce her fundamental rights at the high court of Lagos State in a suit against EFCC and the bank in a suit marked LD/9085MFHR/19 – Mrs. Elsie Uwaka Vs EFCC, Shuaib Umaru & First Bank of Nigeria Limited.

The petitioner said after presenting their respective cases, Justice Ibironke  Harrison in a judgment delivered on June 2, 2020 declared that: “The court finds that none of the said allegations constitutes an economic or financial crime known to law as stated in EFCC Act or any of the other allied Acts……

“The court finds that any further continuous investigation of the Applicant’s company Melka West Africa Limited, invitation of the directors of the applicant’s company and threat to arrest and detain the applicant pursuant to the petition of the 3rd respondent by the 1st and 2nd, 4th respondent is indeed unlawful and a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights…….” and ordered that neither the director nor the petitioner’s business associates MV Naomi Princess be harassed, investigated, arrested or detained on any issue related to the bank’s petition. 

 Justice Harrison had in her judgment dated June 2, 2020, on the enforcement of fundamental rights suit filed by the petitioner, Mrs Elsie Uwaka granted all the relief of the applicant in her Motion on Notice dated October 22, 2019 which included:

“A declaration that the continuous investigation of the applicant’s company, Melka West Africa Limited, the invitation of the Directors of the applicant’s company and a continuous threat to arrest and detain the applicant upon the petition of the 3rd respondent and using the instrumentality of the coercive and penial powers of the 1st and 2nd respondents is unlawful and a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights. 

“A declaration that the continuous harassment of the applicant’s business associates in the guise of investigating the applicant’s company, Melka West Africa Limited, using the coercive and penial powers including invitations directed by the 1st and 2nd respondents upon the petition of the 1st respondent is unlawful and a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights to dignity of human person and right to personal liberty. 

“A declaration that the applicant is entitled to the dignity of her person and personal liberty, particularly against arrest threat to arrest, detention or further arrest or detention howsoever as guaranteed by Sections 34 and 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and also by virtue of the relevant provisions of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 2004. 

“An order restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents by themselves, their agents and servants from using their coercive and penial powers to harass and intimidate the applicant and her business associates and from acting at the instigation of the 3rd respondent to perpetrate any further violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights whilst a suit between parties is pending at the Court of Appeal.

 “An order restraining the respondents either by themselves or through their agents and privies from arresting, disturbing or interfering with the business operations of the applicant or through further threat of incitation, investigation of her business operations, disruption of her banking operations, intimidation and unnecessary interrogation of in any other way or manner whatsoever. 

“Perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents by themselves, their agents and servants from using their coercive and penial powers to harass, intimidate, attempt to arrest, arrest and detain the applicant and her business operations and from acting at the instigation of the 3rd respondent, in any manner or form, or through any form of invitation or investigation on the subject between the applicant’s company, Melka West Africa Limited and the 3rd respondent pending at the Court of Appeal.” 

The court also granted an “order directing the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents jointly and severally to pay the applicant the sum of N250,000 as general damages.

 “The 3rd respondent shall issue a letter of apology to the applicant for breach and violation of the applicant’s rights”.

 The court however refused and dismissed the 7th and 8th reliefs of the applicant.

In another development, Justice Adamu Mohammed of Federal High Court, Port Harcourt in suit FHC/PHC/CS/83/2023 dated  May 9, 2023 and filed on the 10″ day of May 9, 2023  having heard from Chike Ikeoha on May 11 and June14, 2023 granted the applicants their relief for an order of interim  injunction directing/compelling the respondent, its agents and privies or any other person acting on its behalf or on its prompting; to desist from disturbing the peace and possession of the 1st applicant, M.V. Naomi Princess  pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice.

Justice Mohammed granted an order of interim injunction  restraining the Nigerian Navy either by itself or through its agents and privies from moving the 1st applicant, M.V. NAOMI PRINCESS from anchorage at FOT ANCHORAGE/Midstream, close to Ark Chali Vessel, Onne Port in any other way or manner whatsoever pending the determination of the Motion on Notice.

The court further granted an  order of interim injunction restraining the respondent, its agents and privies or any other person acting on its behalf or on its prompting; from disturbing the applicants’ quiet enjoyment and possession of the vessel M.V. Naomi Princess (1st applicant), in any manner or form, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

The questions Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) faced during the screening of ministerial nominees last Wednesday, at the Senate, suggest that the lawmakers believe he might be appointed as the next Attorney-General and Minister of Justice by President Bola Tinubu.

In his response, Fagbemi weighed in on Nigeria’s seemingly endemic corruption and offered many proposals on how the Federal Government can bring the anti-graft war back on track.

One of his proposals was that the foremost anti-corruption body, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), be merged with its sister agency, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).

Read Also: JUST IN: I will seek merger of EFCC, ICPC, other anti-graft agencies – Fagbemi

The resulting “super agency” would then be unbundled so that its investigation and prosecution arms would work independently, for, in Fagbemi’s view, greater efficiency.

The senior lawyer further suggested that there should be a supervisory authority within the system to oversee the new agency’s operations.

Fagbemi said: “It doesn’t augur well to ask the same authority to do an investigation and carry out prosecution. That is why we have problems.

“If I have my way, first of all, bring ICPC and EFCC together, unbundle them. An investigation should not be handled by the same body,” he said.

The SAN said the tradition of arresting a suspect before an investigation was not ideal.

“In corruption matters, you can take your time to prosecute but when you knock, it should be like the way an average American will react when the FBI knocks at your door; you will be surprised at what they have on you.

“My advice would be that, in matters of law, the Attorney-General of the Federation should be involved. DSS cannot be an island unto itself; EFCC cannot continue to behave as if there is no law. There is a law.

“And if you want to do an investigation, do it before inviting the accused person. It is not a question of inviting a man and saying: ‘We have caught a big fish’, then at the end of the day you say you are investigating.

“So, that also goes to the issue of the pace at which the cause of justice travels. It can be slow, but it’s very sure. You do your investigation before arrest and not arrest before investigation,” he contended.

Investigation, prosecution in other climes

Fagbemi’s ideas are in place and are succeeding elsewhere, especially in Western countries.

The UK experience:

In the United Kingdom (UK), the primary responsibility for investigating criminal conduct lies with the Police Forces of England and Wales. The cases brought by these Forces are prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service, a national organisation created in 1985, to ensure national standards of service in the prosecution of crimes.

The remit of these organisations is very broad, and covers a very broad spectrum, But not all of the criminal offences that exist in England and Wales.

The central government’s initiatives for dealing with crime tend to concentrate on criminal conduct that has a high local impact and this is where Police Forces and the Crown Prosecution Service come in.

Also in The UK, the Serious Fraud Office investigates and prosecutes fraud, nothing else.

However, as is the case in many countries,  The UK has several organisations that investigate or prosecute criminal conduct including fraud. For the vast majority of these organisations, however, the investigation or prosecution of fraud is a secondary function sitting alongside other primary responsibilities.

The Serious Fraud Office has jurisdiction over all serious or complex fraud committed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland but is a relatively small organisation of about 250 permanent staff who can conduct approximately 80 investigations and prosecutions at any one time.

Criminal investigation, prosecution in US: 

In the offices of the United States Attorney-General, US Department of Justice, some agencies employ criminal investigators to collect and provide information to the United States Attorneys in the respective district.

Some of the agencies include the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), United States Secret Service (USSS) and Homeland Security Investigations (DHS/HSI)

The investigators at these agencies investigate the crime and obtain evidence, and help prosecutors understand the details of the case. The prosecutor may work with just one agency but, many times, several investigating agencies are involved.

Part of the investigation may involve a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution usually requires that police officers have probable cause before they search a person’s home, clothing, car, or other property. Such searches usually require a search warrant, issued by a “neutral and detached” judge. Arrests also require probable cause and often occur after police have gotten an arrest warrant from a judge.

Depending on the specific facts of the case, the first step may be an arrest. If the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect (as is the case if they witnessed the suspect commit a crime), they will go ahead and make an arrest.

A prosecutor evaluates a case and uses all the statements and information they have to determine if the government should present the case to the Federal Grand Jury – one in which all the facts lead to a specific person or persons who committed the crime. However, before the prosecutor makes that conclusion, they have to look at both direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is evidence that supports a fact without an inference. Testimony of an eyewitness to a crime would be considered direct evidence because the person saw the crime. Testimony related to something that happened before or after the crime would be considered circumstantial.

After the prosecutor studies the information from investigators and the information they gather from talking with the individuals involved, the prosecutor decides whether to present the case to the grand jury. When a person is indicted, they are given formal notice that it is believed that they committed a crime. The indictment contains the basic information that informs the person of the charges against them.

Senior lawyers back Fagbemi

Eminent lawyers also shared their thoughts on the practicality of Fagbemi’s suggestion. They include a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), Wahab Shittu (SAN) and Dr Fassy Yusuf.

Unbundling EFCC, ICPC long overdue, says Agbakoba

Dr Agbakoba agreed with Prince Fagbemi on the need to unbundle the two agencies of the government, noting that the Supreme Court had continuously criticised our legal enforcement framework.

“I would even go further than Lateef Fagbemi to suggest that apart from merging the ICPC and EFCC, three critical functions of investigation, prosecution and assets recovery must be separated to maximise efficiency”, he added.

Fagbemi’s suggestion top-notch, says Shittu

Shittu, a top EFCC prosecutor, said he watched and approved of Fagbemi’s “stellar outing” at the senate screening exercise for ministerial nominees.

He weighed in on how to improve the suggestion, especially in the areas of quality investigation by both agencies, implementation problems that would be caused by an EFCC, ICPC merger and how to strengthen the agencies.

On the issue of quality investigation, Shittu said: “I agree completely with his view on the need to strengthen the quality of our investigation process to deliver quality outcomes. I also endorse his view that emphasis should shift to investigation-led arrest rather than arrest-led investigation.

“This is the norm in advanced democracies around the world. It does not make sense in making arrests before fishing for evidence.”

Nevertheless, the lawyer noted several implementation problems that the EFCC, ICPC merger may generate and suggested a way out.

Shittu said: “This lofty suggestion may create practical problems of implementations. The two anti-graft bodies are regulated by separate legislation. The merger cannot take place without tinkering with existing legislation. This will mean introducing an Executive bill to the legislature and will appear a very tedious process of actualisation.

As to strengthening the agencies, he believes this is feasible but is connected to funding, among others.

“I will rather advise the strengthening of the two bodies in terms of funding, technical competence, capacity, professionalism and integrity to focus on the rule of law in their operations.

“I will also advise constant synergy between these bodies and the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice in terms of working together and not at cross purposes to deliver on the anti-corruption agenda of the administration,” Shittu added.

How to make Fagbemi’s suggestion work, by Yusuf.

Dr. Yusuf largely agreed with Fagbemi but advocated getting the legal framework right first, especially in terms of a constitutional amendment, so that the ideas can be seamlessly implemented.

He said: “To a large extent, I am tempted to agree with Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) on his position. The doctrines on the separation of authorities or separation of responsibilities should be what we should be pursuing in this country now because of abuse of powers, abuse of responsibilities.

“Ordinarily, there should be no problem about what Prince Fagbemi is advocating. But the practicality, the execution, might be difficult to attain in this part of the world.

“We see the submission at some levels like the high court where the Police are the prosecution and through them, the files are sent to the Ministry of Justice for the DPP’s advice. That one would determine whether  a prima facie case has been established or not.”

He reasoned that the suggestion requires amending the constitution and other laws

Yusuf said: “On the other hand,  when you look at what is happening in the customs, NDLEA and other agencies, in the light of the recommendation or the position of the learned silk, is it going to be holistic or is it going to be partial?

“For it to be holistic, it means many aspects of our constitution would have to be amended because there are many laws covering the operation of these agencies and some of the laws empower them to prosecute.

“So, it means for the proposition to have effect, some aspects of our constitution would have to be amended.

“There are many personal laws established in these agencies which would also have to be amended.

“Do we really have the time to do that? Or, is it something we should face frontally and accept since whoever goes for equity, must go with clean hands?

“If an agency is investigating, should it also be the one to prosecute? You can see that some agencies even have the power to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate.”

Nevertheless, Fassy agreed that it is a good proposition.

He proposed that a committee should be set up to look at it and advise the Federal Government and at the same time liaise with the National Assembly “to see if the laws establishing these agencies can be amended to reflect this proposition.

“Where the constitution is involved, the amendment would have to go round the 36 states of the federation and if they are able to secure 24 states’ concurrence, then we can give effect to this proposition. It is a long journey to go, but it is equally a good proposition.”