Category: Law

By Adebisi Onanuga

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has affirmed investors in Nospetco Oil & Gas Ltd’s ownership of N22.45billion funds  trapped in the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) for over 14 years.

The apex court said investors can approach an  appropriate court for recovery of their money.

Upholding the Court of Appeal’s decision that the money actually belonged to the investors, the apex court dismissed Nospetco Oil & Gas claims that the money should be paid into its coffers.

Reading the main virtual judgment through zoom on behalf of Justice Amina Augie, the presiding Judge, Justice S.C. Oseji said the three other Justices of the apex court that formed the five-man panel, agreed that since it is a collective investment scheme, the case can be prosecuted in a representative capacity.

The apex court, therefore, ordered the investors through their lawyer, Debo Adeleke, to go the appropriate court to ventilate their grievances.

The Nospetco Oil and Gas had earlier appealed against the judgment of the Investment and Security Tribunal (IST) which ordered that the sum of N22.45b should be kept in the CBN purse for the Investors.

Debo Adeleke, leading Dr. Bashir Wada, Oyegbuna Thank God, Ebuka Nwaeze, B. T. Akeredolu  and A. A. Musa appeared for 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14 Respondents/Applicants, in a representative capacity for and on behalf of 13,737 investors.

Mr Rowland Otaru (SAN), leading E. Okoro apeared for 2, 3, 5, & 6 Respondents/Applicants only while  O.C. Onwegbue also announced appearance for the 16th Respondent.

The 13-year-old legal battle began when the decision of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), declared a scheme founded by Nospetco Oil And Gas Limited illegal.

NOSPETCO is a company which is solely for importation, sale and distribution of petroleum products and cooking gas in the country.

But shortly after the investors made their investment in the firm, the SEC in 2007 stopped NOSPETCO’s operations, describing it illegal.

Besides, the regulatory operator froze NOSPETCO’s various bank  accounts and deposited the money with the CBN for the investors.

NOSPETCO filed a suit No: IST/OA/19/07 at the Investment & Security Tribunal (IST) in 2011 wherein it challenged SEC’s power to declare its business illegal.

In the suit No: SC/305/2012 the investors sued SEC and the CBN as co-defendants.

Their trouble began when NOSPETCO Oil & Gas Ltd was allegedly listed among 48 companies by the Federal Government as ‘Wonder Banks’ following a judgment meaning it was operating illegally and taking money from unsuspecting Nigerians.

NOSPETCO had, between 2004 and 2005, encouraged thousands into its investment scheme with each slot attracting N450,000 with a promise of monthly N40,000 on each slot.

This, according to the firm, would be ploughed into importation, sale and distribution of petroleum products and cooking gas.

Some of the investors of the scheme who have substantial funds in the scheme came together and formed a group to fight for the refund of their money.

Led by their counsel, Debo Adeleke, the investors instituted a suit at the Investment and Security Tribunal (IST) for payment of their over N22.45billion trapped in the CBN. The IST delivered judgment in their favour.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the IST, Nospetco Oil And Gas, headed to the Court of Appeal in Lagos, urging the appellate court to set aside the IST’s decision, but the Court of Appeal upheld the IST decision, ruling in favour of the investors.

Still dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s decision, the oil company, again appealed to the Supreme Court to quash the  appellate court’s decision.

The investors, through their lawyer, also cross appealed, insisting the IST, not the high court that has the proper jurisdiction to handle the case from beginning.

The issue of representation which earlier stalled the proceedings was finally resolved in February when a five-man panel of Justices of the Supreme Court presided over by Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour held that Adeleke could appear for over 13,737 investors and Otaru for four of them, involving Comrade Roland Badejo and three others only.

 

By John Austin Unachukwu

 

 

Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo (SAN) and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamilla are among dignitaries expected at the Nigerian Bar Association Section on Legal Practice (SLP) 2021 Annual General Conference from Sunday, June 13 to Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at Ibom Icon, Uyo, the Akwa Ibom State capital.

The theme of this year’s conference is: Law, lawyers and the next generation. The focus of the conference is to periscope Nigeria’s journey over the years as a nation of laws, the role of lawyers, and chart the course for desirable future for the next genre of laws, and generation of lawyers.

The conference will address topical issues, challenge the country’s national ills, and inspire next-generation laws, next-generation lawyers and next-generation law practice.

The conference will attract an eminent  jurists, lawyers, academia, experts,  government functionaries and corporate executives to share their knowledge, expertise and experience with participants and other stakeholders.

Gbajabiamila is expected to deliver the keynote address, while the Akwa Ibom State Governor, Udom Gabriel Emmanuel is expected to be the guest of honour at the event.

Mr Peter Madubueze & Anor v. Mortgages Phb Ltd & Ors

CITATION: (2021) LPELR-53821(CA)

In the Court of Appeal

In The Enugu Judicial Division

Holden At Enugu

ON THURSDAY, 22ND FEBRUARY, 2018

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU J.C.A

TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU J.C.A

MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF J.C.A

SUIT NO: CA/E/170/2017

 

Between

ENGINEER EMMANUEL CHUKWUEMEKA OKEKE – APPELLANT(S)

AND

NNAMDI AZIKIWE UNIVERSITY

TEACHING HOSPITAL –   RESPONDENT(S)

 

LEAD JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.

 

 

Brief FACTS OF THE CASE

 

Emmanuel Chukwuemeka Okeke (Appellant) entered into a consultancy agreement with the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital (Respondent). A dispute arose between the parties to the consultancy contract and in accordance with paragraph 20.0 of the contract; the dispute between the parties was referred to an arbitrator appointed by the President of the Nigeria Institute of Arbitrators.

Both parties to the contract participated fully in the arbitration process. Upon completion of the arbitration, the sole arbitrator Azike Diribe made an award on March 26, 2015 and additional award made on May 6, 2015 totalling N25, 347,174.52 in favour of Okeke, an engineer.

The arbitral award remained unpaid hence, on 19/4/16 the Appellant as applicant instituted an action by way of Originating Application to enforce the award against the Respondent at the trial court.

Upon receipt of the Originating Application for enforcement of the Arbitral Award, the Respondent, via a motion on notice dated 11/5/16, raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the trial Court to enforce the arbitral award against the Respondent, claiming that the Respondent is a non-juristic party. It was argued that the proper party should have been Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital Board of Management which is the juristic person capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name.

The Appellant, in response, filed a counter affidavit to the motion of the Respondent, stating that all agreements entered into by both parties bear the name of the Respondent in which it was sued- Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital.

The learned trial judge, in his ruling, struck out the suit on the ground that the Respondent cannot be sued as the Respondent is a non-juristic person.

Aggrieved by the trial Court’s Ruling, Appellant filed this current appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION

The issues for determination as formulated by the Appellant and adopted by the Court are:

1. Whether Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital is a juristic person capable of being sued in its name.
2. Whether an arbitral award can be challenged after three months of its delivery.

APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION

ISSUE ONE- Whether Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital is a juristic person

The crux of Appellant’s argument is that Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital is a corporate body vested with a legal personality having the power to sue and be sued in its corporate name according to Section 1 of the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital Act, Cap N 141 LFN 2004 (2018) LPELR-43781(CA).

To the appellant, the intent of the makers of Section 2 of the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital Act 2004 is to vest legal personality on the Board of Management separate from the University Teaching Hospital, which makes Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital Board of Management a juristic person capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name, and can also acquire, hold, and dispose of immovable property.

Appellant maintained that the cause of action in this appeal is against Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital and not the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital Board of Management as all the agreement entered into by the Appellant and the Respondent in the instant case disclose the name of the Respondent as Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital and not Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital Board of Management. It was further argued that the Respondent actively participated in the arbitration proceedings in the name it was sued and it was against that name that the Arbitral Award was given. And that the Respondent, having dealt with the Appellant in the name it presented, cannot turn around to say it is not a juristic person.

ISSUE 2- Whether an arbitral award can be challenged after three months of its delivery.

Appellant’s argument in respect of issue 2 is that the award in this matter was made on 26/3/15 and an additional award was made on 6/5/15. This suit having being brought to enforce the said awards more than a year after the additional award was made by the arbitrator, Appellant submitted that there cannot be a valid objection to the application for registration of the award. Appellant argued further that the Respondent’s application challenging the jurisdiction of the Court is an attempt aimed at stealthily setting aside the enforcement of the arbitral award, despite the fact that the limitation period for objecting to the arbitral award has expired.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT

ISSUE ONE- Whether Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital is a juristic person

In this regard, Respondent’s argument is that the issue of jurisdiction is fundamental in any legal proceeding, and must be determined first before any step can be taken in a matter.

The pith of Respondent’s argument is that Section 1 of the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital Act relates to the renaming of the Anambra State University of Technology Teaching Hospital Management Board, but did not vest juristic personality on the renamed Teaching Hospital (the Respondent).

Respondent argued that the principles of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” applies in the instant case, in that, having expressly conferred juristic personality on the Board, the intention to exclude other parties under the Act from having such capacity can be inferred, more especially where no functions or duties were assigned to the said Respondent under the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital Act, 2004.

ISSUE 2- Whether an arbitral award can be challenged after three months of its delivery.

It was Respondent’s argument that their preliminary objection does not relate to the validity or otherwise of the arbitral award itself, but on the legal status of the party against whom the award was made. Further, that the objection to the juristic personality of the Respondent was raised at the arbitral proceedings but was not dealt with on the face of the record.

Respondent argued that the objection that the Respondent is not a juristic person relates to the competence of the suit, and it relates to the issue of whether or not the trial Court has jurisdiction over the matter. Respondent reiterated that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at anytime.

Respondent proceeded that although the argument that the challenge that to the arbitral award was out of time was raised at the lower Court, the lower Court struck out the suit for the enforcement of the arbitral award on the ground that the named Respondent to the suit is not a juristic person.

COURT’S OPINION

ISSUE 2- Whether an arbitral award can be challenged after three months of its delivery.

The Court reinforced the long standing legal principle that a party who has a right to commence or defend an action in Court must be a person known to law, be it a natural person or a creation of statute.

The Court perused the relevant provisions of the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital Act 2014 and posited that while the Act created and re-named the university the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital, it gave only the Management Board of the Teaching Hospital juristic personality and the power to sue and be sued in its corporate name.

Contrary to the Appellant’s contention, the Court held that even though the Act created the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital, the Teaching Hospital in itself is not different from the Management Board and thus cannot sue or be sued in its separate name.

The Court distinguished juristic personality from misnomer of parties. According to the Court, it is not the specific name under which a person is sued that decides whether or not the person is a juristic person. Rather, it is whether or not a natural person exists who bears that name or a similar name or had in fact hitherto bore that name. On the other hand, a misnomer was described as occurring where the natural or legal person actually exists but a wrong name is used to sue. The Court then classified this case as one of misnomer wherein the Appellant merely got the appropriate name wrong. Adding that there is no doubt that the wrong description of the Respondent has neither misled the Respondent nor cause miscarriage of justice.

Although the Statement of Defence at Arbitration raised the issue of the non juristic personality it was later abandoned as both parties participated fully at the arbitration proceedings as the Respondent had submitted fully to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal and even paid the sum of N2,067,500.00 being its own share of the cost of Arbitration.

The Court concluded by saying that the argument put up by the Respondent and accepted by the learned trial judge that the contract is void because the Respondent as named is not a legal entity smacks of an overt show of bad faith which cannot hold.

ISSUE 2- Whether an arbitral award can be challenged after three months of its delivery.

Upon weighing the parties’ argument on this issue, the Court posited that there is no challenge to the award itself by the Respondent. However, the Court refuted Respondent’s argument that the objection to the enforcement of the award is not an attempt to set aside by stealth, the award.

The Court pointed out that if indeed, the Respondent were aggrieved by the fact that they were not proper parties to the award or the sums awarded, they were wrong to have folded their hands from when the additional award was made on 6/5/15 till 19/4/16 when the summons was issued to enforce the award. the Court concluded by saying that Section 29 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 2004 is enforceable to prevent the Respondent from trying to set aside the award by subterfuge in the circumstances of this case. There the failure to challenge the legality or merit of the award within 3 months as provided by the Act prevents the Respondent from doing so by the time it did.

HELD

Both issues formulated for the determination of this appeal were resolved in appellant’s favour. Thus the appeal was allowed.

The Court further held that the circumstances of this case are such that unnecessary hardship would be visited on the Appellant if the case is sent back to the trial Court. The motion filed by the appellant on 10/4/16 was thus found meritorious and granted as prayed.

Judgment was entered in terms of the arbitral award in respect of the total sum of N25,347,174.52 in favour of the Appellant to be paid by the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital Board of Management. N100,000 costs was also awarded to the Appellant against the Respondent.

Copyright: (2018) LPELR-43781(CA)

 By Adebisi Onanuga

 

 

No fewer than 50 houses situated at Kudeti Street, Akora Villa, Adeniyi Jones, Ikeja, Lagos State have been marked for demolition by the Ministry of Physical planning and Urban Development.

This followed the decision of the  Lagos Land Grabbers Taskforce, which looked into a petition by the Akinniyi Family on a disputed land between it and the Akinole Oshiun family.

The houses on the streets affected include Oluyemisi Olajide Street, Oluyemisi Olajide Close, Kudeti Street, Adebola Adenuga Court and Awori Close.

They were adjudged illegal structures not in conformity with building regulations.

Akinniyi family’s lawyer, Mrs Yetunde Fashesin-Souza, told reporters that a petition was written to the state’s Ministry of Justice, Land Grabber Task force  unit between 2017 and 2018 on behalf of Akinniran’s family against Akinole Oshiun’s family.

She said both families were invited to a peace meeting at Alausa, Ikeja, where they were asked to furnish the office the title documents to aid the investigation.

Part of the minutes of the meeting held with the parties reads thus.

She said: “At the last meeting on the 23rd May, 2018 the coordinator noted that  both parties agreed with this office to submit their Survey Plans and Title Documents.”

According to her, “The coordinator stated that this office investigated the title claimed by both parties by requsting for Certified True Copies from office of the Registrar of  Title, Lagos for instruments tendered which were registered as 22/22/1394 and 95/95/1967, both of which were sent to us.”’

”The coordinator also informed the parties that this office then  wrote to the office of the Surveyor-General requesting that a composite survey plan be done using  the survey plan in the registered title documents sent to us from the registrar of titles.

”Parties were shown copies of the composite plan done with the report stating that there is an overlap on the land of both parties, however, the land in dispute fall solely within the expanse of land belonging to the Akinniran family (petitioners).

”Given out it verdict, the coordinator said as far as this office is concerned our work in respect of this matter is done as it is evident from our investigation that the Akinniran family should be in possession of the land and any disturbance of their enjoyment of possession should be reported to this office for necessary action to be taken”.

Mrs Fashesin-Souza added: “The first notice had been given and the second notice had also be given on 27th May, 2021 so as to give enough room for the illegal occupants on the encroached three acres of land room to tender their title documents to the appropriate authority to avoid demolition of their properties if not strictly complied with.

By Adebisi Onanuga

 

 

No fewer than six judges of the Lagos judiciary will be retiring from the bench in the next six months.

The development will deplete the number of serving judges of the Lagos bench from 61 to 56.

It was learnt that  two judges have already retired from the bench after attaining the statutory retirement age of 65.

Justice Grace Onyeabo retired from the Lagos State Judiciary last month.

Justice Onyeabo, until her retirement, was the Administration Judge, Ikeja High Court.

Sources said Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo about same time retired voluntarily on health grounds.

Both Justices Babajide Candide-Johnson and Iyabo Kasali, it was learnt, would be retiring from the Lagos State Judiciary this month,  also on attaining statutory  65 years.

While Justice Owolabi Dabiri will be retiring in September, Justice Marian Olajumoke Emeya will be retiring from the bench of the Lagos Judiciary later in the year.

 

 By Adebisi Onanuga

 

 

The Lagos State government has launched an electronic platform, ‘Justice Clock’, for tracking case files and case management.

‘Justice Clock’, the first of its kind in the nation’s judiciary sector, is also intended to fast track issuance of legs advice.

Speaking at the launching of the platform, the state’s Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN) described the platform as a remarkable development that would be sustained for improved justice delivery.

Despite efforts,  Onigbanjo said, issuance of legal advice remained a contentious issue as litigants frequently complain that case files stay too long in office of Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) without legal advice.

“So, we have decided to deploy technology to further improve the process of issuing legal advice”, he said.

“Anybody wanting legal advice can simply log on to our website, www.lagosstatemoj.org, to confirm if legal advice has been issued in respect of his case”, adding that such a litigant or lawyer can even apply for a certified copy of the legal advice on line for a fee.

He said litigants, lawyers, magistrates and judges can track movement of case files and find out if legal advice has been issued on any matter before the court.

He disclosed that case files for the period between January  2020 to date had already been uploaded on the website.

Onigbanjo said technology had been identified as one of the developmental processes for effective justice delivery.

He said this explained why government partnered Citizen’s Gavel on the deployment of the new application.

“We recognise the importance of technology and it is in light of this that we have in partnership with Citizens Gavel, a civic tech NGO, with the support of Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA), deployed a Case management solution to improve on the operational efficiency of the DPPs office”Onigbanjo added.

Director Citizen’s Gavel, Nelson Olanipekun explained that the development of Justice Clock as a solution platform became imperative because of the need to improve access to justice in the period of the pandemic.

Olanipekun said it was also to eliminate pre-trial problems, delay in issuance of legal advice.

The Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Mrs Olayinka Adeyemi said the new platform “will improve efficiency and service delivery and solve many problems associated with issuance of legal advice.

”We will not fail on the time line given for issuance of legal advice as it will enhance our service delivery. There will be no more running after counsels and chasing of files.”­

By Eric Ikhilae, Abuja

 

 

 

 

The Director of Land in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mainasara Babayo; a Special Assistant to the FCT Minister, Sale Sahabi and others have been accused of engaging in  unlawful demolition and land grabbing.

The allegations are contained in a petition to the FCT Minister, Mohammed Bello by two firms – All Weather Techno Ent and Multijoy Hotels Ltd, claiming that Babayo and Sahabi colluded with Yinusa Usman of PPDEZI Nigeria Ltd to unlawfully appropriate their land after illegally demolishing their structures on the parcel of land described as: Plot No. BD/CP/16, measuring about 2.00 hectares, situated at Dutse Alhaji Layout, Abuja.

In the petition written for All Weather Techno and Multijoy Hotels by their lawyer, Professor Yemi Akinseye-Goerge (SAN), the firms said they were surprised that, despite the pendency of their suit at the High Court of the FCT, marked: CV/3093/2013 involving parties, Babayo and Sahabi acted in collusion with Usman to demolish their structures on the land and purported to assume ownership.

The petitioners, who also copied the FCT Commissioner of Police, the Director, Department of State Security, among others, argued that the demolition of the structures on the land in dispute in the face of a pending suit, amounted to an affront to the court’s judicial authority and intended to frustrate the plaintiffs, but also a challenge to public order, peace and security.

They stated that before the demolition, some officials of the Department of Development Control (DDC) of the FCT, in collusion with other defendants in the suit, particularly Usman of PPDEZI Nigeria Ltd, went to the land in dispute on May 21, 2021 to drop a purported notice of demolition, giving them (the petitioners) 21 days to either pull down their structures or risk demolition.

The firms added that on May 22, 2021 barely 24 hours after the purported demolition notice was issued, “some persons came to the land in dispute and demolished all the structures,” adding that they were convinced that the demolition was done by the DDC in collusion with Usman of PPDEZI Nigeria Limited, the main party contesting the ownership of the land with them.

The petitioners said they arrived at the above conclusion because on May 5, 2025 when their officials went to drop their letter of complaint at the office of the Director of the DDC, they met the same Yinusa Usman of PPDEZI Nigeria Ltd in the office of the Director.

The suit before the High Court of the FCT, filed in the names of the firms’ directors – Abewojo Kazeem Olanrwaju and Abdulaziz S. Baka – has, as defendants,  the FCT Minister, the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), Babayo, Sahabi, PPDEZI Nigeria Ltd and the Chairman, Bwari Area Council.

The plaintiffs stated, in their second amended statement of claim, that they were originally allocated the land via a letter of conveyance of approval, dated April 21, 1999 with reference number: BAC/FCDA/LP&S/129 issued by the FCT Minister.

They claimed to have also been issued a certificate of occupancy (C of O) dated January 20, 2002 with file number: MISC2027 over the land, a copy of which they exhibited along with other documents filed in the suit.

The firms added that during an exercise of recertification/regularisation of title documents, later introduced by the FCT Minister and the FCDA, they submitted their title documents on the land as required and were subsequently issued an acknowledgement, following which their file number was changed from MISC 2067 to MISC 92262 by the FCT Minister and the FCDA.

They said they have been in peaceful possession of the land since 1999 and have undertaking all the necessary processes and have commenced construction of the building approved for the land in line with the approved building plan when Sahabi suddenly appeared on the land in August 2012, claiming to be a Special Adviser to the FCT Minister and threatened to use his link in government to take over the land.

The plaintiffs added that, although PPDEZI Nigeria Ltd later came to also claim ownership of the land, their investigation revealed that Sahabi, in collusion with some officials of the FCT Minister’s office and the FCDA, particularly Babayo “are the one using the fifth defendant (PPDEZI Nigeria Ltd) as hoax to oppressively and illegally take over the plaintiffs’ land know as Plot No. BD/CP/16 measuring about 2.00 hectares, situated at Dutse Alhaji Layout, Abuja.”

They averred that upon their complaint, the FCT Minister and the FCDA caused an investigation to be conducted, following which a report was issued around May 28, 2015 to the effect that “the allocation of the plaintiffs’ land to the fifth defendant (PPDEZI Nigeria Ltd) was done in error and that the land should revert back to the plaintiffs.

“Despite being aware of the fact that the first and second defendants (FCT Minister and the FCDA) have directed that the plaintiffs’ land should revert back to them, the defendant, especially the fifth, are still threatening to take over the land,” they said.

The plaintiffs, while claiming N300million damages against the defendants, want the court to declare among others, that they are the lawful owners of the land and to perpetually restraining the defendants and their agents from further trespassing and disturbing the plaintiffs’ lawful use and occupation of the land.

The defendants, in their separate statements of defence denied the plaintiffs’ claims and prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

In an amended statement of defence of the first to third defendants (FCT Minister, FCDA and Babayo), filed along with their witness statement on oath made by an official of the FCDA, Fatima Aliyu Yahaya, it was claimed that the plaintiffs  have no valid title documents to the land as they were not allocated the land by the relevant agencies of the FCT lawfully saddled with such responsibility.

They stated that the land, which they described as: Plot 1871 of approximately 2.46 hectares in Cadastral Zone F18 Dawaki, Abuja, was lawfully allocated to the fifth defendant – PPDEZI Nigeria Limited.

The fifth defendant, in its further amended statement of defence, filed with an amended additional witness statement on oath by one of its official, Abel Audu, raised similar arguments as the first to third defendants, claiming to have been lawfully allocated the land by the FCT Minister and the FCDA.

PPDEZI Nigeria Limited also filed a counter-claim, in which it is, among others, claiming N200million against the plaintiffs and an order restraining them from trespassing on its said land.

By Eric Ikhilae, Abuja

 

 

Students of the Faculty of Law of Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria, in collaboration with the university’s authorities, have commend the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Ibrahim Muhammad for his contribution to the development of the Judiciary.

Muhammad was particularly recognised at the public presentation of the maiden edition of their ‘’ANNUR Chambers Annual Journal of Contemporary Issues in Sharri’a and Comparative Law,” held on May 29, 2021, the spokesman to the CJN, Ahuraka Yusuf Isah said in a statement.

Isah quoted a student, Miss Rukaiya Bello, who is the Head/Principal Partner of the chambers, as saying they chose to honour the CJN for his immense contribution to the growth and development of the judicial system in the country.

Bello noted that the CJN is a big source of inspiration to the students of the Faculty of Law of the ABU, Zaria because ‘’he graduated from the institution with LLB (Sharri’a), came back to obtain LLM and subsequently bagged PhD from the same institution.

‘’Beside, Hon. Dr Justice I.T.Muhammad added huge pride to ABU, Zaria with his appointment as the Chief Justice of Nigeria. We are indeed proud of him,’’ she said.

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Abdul Mohammed, who presented a paper on the contributions of the CJN to legal jurisprudence, said although His Lordship is an expert on Sharri’a law, he has decided more cases on other areas of legal disputes.

‘’I can only enumerate a few of the decisions made by the CJN to demonstrate his vast knowledge in law to assist the students on whose behalf this paper is mainly written.

‘’The efforts of the CJN cannot be over-emphasized. As the grand custodian of the law, His Lordship’s feat in the dispensation of justice given the constraints and challenges of the system is remarkable and deserving a commendation’’, the SAN said.

The CJN urged the students not to allow periodic publication of the journal be lost, and they should maintain the aims and objectives of their chambers; which is the first of its kind.

It was learnt that the Annur Chamber was established by the students of the ABU, Zaria Faculty of Law to assist themselves in the areas of moot trial, just as no member of the chambers would appear before any court of law.

The event was also attended by Justices Amiru Sanusi (rtd), Abdu Aboki and Mohammed Lawal Garba of the Supreme Court; Justice Justice H. Muktar of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ishaq Bello,  the former Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), who was the chairman of the event.

Others were Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Federal High Court, Prof Siraj Barau Abdulkarim (who represented the Vice Chancellor, Prof Kabir Bala), Prof Yusuf Aboki, Sen. Ahmed Sani Yerima (former governor of Zamfara State) and Alhaji Tajudeen Oladoja.

By Robert Egbe

 

 

President, African Bar Association (AfBA), Hannibal Uwaifo has said the majority of Nigerians would prefer a new constitution rather than a review of the current one.

Uwaifo, who spoke in his capacity as president of Southeast and Southsouth Professionals (SESSPN), said the majority of Nigerians would prefer a new constitution rather than a review of the current one.

SESSPN, a non-political group, advised that such a constitution must be subjected to a referendum.

It admonished the National Assembly and those currently involved in the exercise of constitutional review to reconsider the venture and not engage in fruitless efforts.

The group also warned the federal government not to undermine the current agitations for structural changes.

“It is the view of SESSPN that the FG should stop believing that the present agitation for structural changes and the deteriorating security challenges would fizzle out without a decisive response to the yearnings of Nigerians for a new constitution and for equity and justice in the affairs of Nigerians,” Uwaifo said.

Reacting to the recent murder in Imo State of a former Special Assistant to former President Goodluck Jonathan, Ahmed Gulak, Uwaifo said: “SESSPN has received with deep regret the unfortunate murder of Gulak. This dastardly act is not only worrisome but represents a significant setback in the struggle for a just, fair and peaceful Nigeria.

“SESSPN hereby condemn this as a very dangerous dimension to the festering insecurity in the hitherto peaceful South-East haven for social and economic activities”.

He also urged all responsible for the wanton killings of security officials, innocent citizens, burning and looting of public properties to sheath their swords and embrace a road map for peaceful and orderly change in the affairs of the country.