Category: Law

  • And the door closed at Lagos court!

    And the door closed at Lagos court!

    By ‘Dipo Onabanjo

    When in March 2018, I got impatient with a company owing me some months in salary arrears, I sought direction  from a lawyer friend who advised me to take the matter to court.

    I agreed with him but the question was which court to go since court cases take several years, as the wheel of justice here grinds rather slowly, sometimes annoyingly so.

    My lawyer friend opted for the Lagos Multi-door Court House, an arbitration and dispute resolution centre. As the one versed in law, being a learned man who also read mass communication in the school I also attended, I asked him to handle the case. And he did, quite brilliantly.

    By the first week in April 2018, we had held two mediation sessions at the high court complex on Lagos Island with a representative of the debtor company, and myself the complainant, in attendance. A debonair magistrate presided at the sessions.

    I couldn’t believe my eyes that I was getting so close to justice at the drop of a hat! Indeed, on April 18, 2018, the magistrate ruled in my favour since the company only disputed the amount it owed me and we mutually agreed on an amount that should be paid in instalments within five months. I was very happy. It was my second time getting justice in a Lagos court.

    By the end of May 2018, I received a bank alert for the first tranche! “Hey man”, I called my lawyer, “this justice is swift!” and I walked tall, crowing to anyone near me about what that blind lady with a pair of balanced scales holding a sword (the icon of Justice) had done to me! Then, the unexpected happened.

    The company stopped paying! Two, three…..four months, no payments! I got hold of my lawyer friend and back we were at the multi-door courthouse. Certainly, Lady Justice would not allow her order disobeyed, and with impunity, by the erring company!

    My lawyer filed all necessary papers and the waiting game started. The year 2018 went, 2019 followed. Then the Coronavirus became a world-wide pestilence in the year 2020. The year also came and went by.

    Up till the time of writing, there has been no news about the case. The case file is lodged somewhere in the vault of the Lagos Multi-door House probably gathering dust. Neither I nor my lawyer could access it, tried as we did!

    My interpretation: Justice has been locked against me in the Lagos Multi-door Court House! Since then, I have been seeking God’s intervention. I’ve pestered my lawyer so much that he has learnt to say, “Brother, calm down. Let’s exercise some patience.” But is it not said that justice delayed is justice denied?

    Mine is a story told. But how many are Nigerians whose stories at various courts have not been told? How many of such people have died in the course of seeking justice? How many more will die, their prayers in court unanswered forever? Questions, questions and questions! No answer!

    That’s why my ranting will not stop until somebody opens the door of the Lagos Multi-door House and gives me justice. I ask for nothing more.

    Who will God send? The clock continues ticking while the waiting is getting painful, very painful!!!

  • ‘JUSUN strike will enhance rule of law’

    ‘JUSUN strike will enhance rule of law’

    By Robert Egbe

    A former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Ikeja branch chairman Adesina Ogunlana yesterday said the ongoing strike by the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) will enhance rule of law.

    Ogunlana said JUSUN and the Academic Staff Union of Polytechnics (ASUP), who are also on strike, “represent workers’ resistance against the economic attacks on their living conditions.”

    He spoke alongside Juwon Sanyaolu as Co-Conveners of a “national press conference” by the New Nigerian Network

    “We solidarise with the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) in their ongoing strike action for financial autonomy of the Judiciary. We view this struggle as just and constitutional as it will enhance the rule of law.

    “We call on the national leadership of the Nigerian Bar Association to support JUSUN in this struggle. We differ with the leadership of the NBA on their proposal for the reopening of the Federal Courts and continuation of the strike in the States’ High Courts. We are of the view that this will break the solidarity chain of the striking workers. We call for solidarity by lawyers and litigating public with the Judiciary workers in order to win these demands.”

    Adesina, who is counsel to #EndSARS protesters, also weighed in on the 2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices recently released by the United States.

    According to him, the report was too hasty when it declared that “accurate information on fatalities resulting from the (Lekki Tollgate) shooting was not available at year’s end”.

    He contended that the US should have awaited the report of the Lagos State Judicial Panel of Inquiry and Restitution into SARS-Related Abuses and the Lekki Tollgate ’shooting’ incident.

    Adesina said: “We urge the Lagos State Judicial Panel of Inquiry and Restitution into SARS-Related Abuses saddled with the investigation of the Lekki Shooting Matter to proceed unbiased and issue summonses on all parties in order to arrive at the truth.”

    He said he was also aware of fresh cases of police brutality and called for an end to such.

    Adesina said: “One is the spectacular case of Tunde Abass, an #EndSARS activist, who was unlawfully arrested and detained by police officers attached to Onipanu Police Station, Lagos for filming violent extortion of a motorist by the police officers and released after being tortured in detention.

    “The case of Nicholas Mbah, an #EndSARS protester who is still in Prison on trumped-up charges. Solomon Akuma, a Twitter user who tweeted about Buhari’s poor administration is still in prison in Abuja. There is also the case of Kemi Ogunniyi and Opeyemi Ibikunle, #EndSARS protesters who are still in Prison in Ondo State.

    “What all these attacks represent is that police brutality has not ended. To add insult to injury, the Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT) which was created to replace the proscribed Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) has now been deployed by the new Inspector General of Police, Usman Bakar Baba to all the states of the Federation. We reject this action in its entirety as it is another means of restoring the old SARS through a new bottle , without carrying out comprehensive reforms in the Nigeria Police Force as contained in the “5 for 5” demands of the #EndSARS movement.

    “On the whole, we call for resistance against brutality by all security agencies to continue as same has not ended. We restate the ‘Five for five’ demands of the #EndSARS movement and call on government at all levels to meet the demands.”

  • Boat accident: Court orders driver to enter defence

    Boat accident: Court orders driver to enter defence

    By Adebisi Onanuga

    Justice Josephine Oyefeso of an Ikeja High Court has ordered the driver of a boat, Happiness Elebiju, who allegedly killed 13 passengers in a boat mishap that occurred on July 29, 2020 on the Kirikiri waterways in Lagos to prepare his defence.

    The trial judge said Elebiju  has a case to answer.

    Justice Oyefeso  made the order while  ruling on a no-case submission filed by the defendant.

    The judge said she had considered  the totality of the evidence before the court and found that  there are many questions begging for answers.

    “The defendant indeed does have a case to answer. I overrule the no-case submission and call on the defendant to open his defence,” Oyefeso said.

    Following the ruling, the case was adjourned to April 14 for the defendant to open his defence.

    Elebiju is facing an eleven-count charge of manslaughter and operating without a license before the court.

    Five prosecution witnesses, including survivors, have testified during the trial and prosecution had closed its case on February 4.

    According to the Lagos State Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Mrs Olayinka Adeyemi, Elebiju drove his boat, with the inscription “Mount Zion Transport” in a reckless and dangerous manner causing the death of some of the passengers.

    Elebiju who was scheduled to open his defence on March 18, had on that day, filed a no-case submission through his counsel, Mr Samuel Ogungbamila.

    Ogungbamila had  the court to discharge the defendant noting that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against his client.

    The DPP had however opposed the defendant’s application.

  • ‘We will discipline erring lawyers’

    ‘We will discipline erring lawyers’

    By Adebisi Onanuga

    The President and Chairman of Council of the Institute of Construction Industry Arbitrators (ICIArb), Kola Awodein (SAN), has urged lawyers to desist from engaging in unethical conduct in the practice of arbitration.

    He however warned that the institute will henceforth clamp down heavily on erring members who breach the institute’s rules, saying: “henceforth, the Institute will not hesitate to discipline erring members and to also report such erring members to all professional bodies and statutory bodies that can discipline them.”

    Awodein, who spoke at the investiture of Fellows and induction of new members of the Institute at the Eko Hotel & Suites, Lagos.

    He observed that there are “numerous reports of arbitrators, especially legal practitioners, making a seeming mockery of the Arbitral process by demonstrating obvious bias and partisanship and blatantly refusing to do justice to the parties and in most cases, without appropriate sanctions being meted out to them.”

    Warning that the Institute would no longer condone such malpractice, Awodein, who was represented by the Institute’s President-elect, Mr. Felix Okereke-Onyeri (FNIQS, FICIArb), said: “It is important to sound it loud and clear that this is a practice and conduct that we do not welcome or tolerate in our Institute especially now that there is increasing interest in joining the Institute.”

    He urged the new fellows and members to “comply with expected standard required of an arbitrator, not only in matters of disclosure but in all aspects, and in particular, in the actual conduct of the arbitration, to be fair and just to all the parties and hold the scale evenly between them in the dispute over which they adjudicate as arbitrators.

    “Every member of ICIArb MUST comply faithfully with the ethics of the Body as we are determined to enforce the ethics especially in the light of the damage that is being done to the practice of Arbitration by Arbitral panels.”

    In his address, the Secretary General of the Institute, Bar. Emmanuel Dike (FICIArb) noted the confidence reposed in the body by the inductees “and trust that you will be ambassadors of the Institute as far as construction industry arbitration is concerned.”

    Noting that construction involves immense multidisciplinary and inter-disciplinary activity “governed by layers of simultaneous contractual relationships,” the Secretary General stated that “an understanding of the technical principles for the purpose of dispute resolution provides an edge to the professional equipped with the relevant skillset. Admission to this prestigious body is therefore an opportunity to join the league of successful sought-after arbitrators.”

    According to Dike:  “given the ongoing need for continuous professional development within the Institute, our members who belong to the primary institutions governing their professions, such as the Nigerian Institute of Architects, the Nigerian Bar Association, the Nigeria Society of Engineers, the Nigeria Institute of Quantity Surveyors – to mention but a few – are encouraged to attend courses by other certified professional bodies to enhance their skills and competence.”

    Among those inducted as fellows are former Attorney-General & Minister of Justice, Mr. Bayo Ojo SAN; leading arbitrator, Mrs. Funke Adekoya SAN; Mr. Adeniyi Adegbonmire SAN; Mrs. Funke Agbor SAN; Mr. Godwin Omoaka SAN and Mrs. Obosa Akpata. Also honoured posthumously was Arc. Umaru Aliyu, the Institute’s past Vice President and former president of the Nigerian Institute of Architects (NIA).

    The Institute of Construction Industry Arbitrators was inaugurated on the October 15, 1993 as a multi–disciplinary institution with members drawn from the professions related to the construction industry and has become the leading arbitral institution in the construction industry in Nigeria. As a specialized alternative dispute resolution (ADR) body, in the construction industry, the Institute provides a one-stop shop for the resolution of disputes arising from construction contracts in order to free the construction industry from protracted litigation and the uncertainties inherent in construction related disputes.

  • Court sentences Badagry prince to three years imprisonment

    Court sentences Badagry prince to three years imprisonment

    By Adebisi Onanuga

    Justice Oluwatoyin Taiwo of an Ikeja Special Offences Court has sentenced a Badagry Prince, Semasa James to three years imprisonment for uttering documents to administer the estate of his father, late Oba Afolabi James of Kweme land, Badagry.

    The court however gave the prince an option of fine in the sum of N450,000.

    Semasa was charged  alongside his personal assistant Afolabi Kazeem before Justice  Taiwo.

    He is accused of defrauding his 26 siblings of N500million inheritance while administering the estate of the deceased king.

    Prince Semasa faced a seven-count charge of forgery, uttering of false document and fraudulent disposal of trust property proffered against him by the Special Fraud Unit (SFU) of the Nigeria Police Force.

    Kazeem, his  personal assistant faced a charge of receiving stolen property.

    Justice  Taiwo in her judgment found Semasa not guilty of the charges of forgery and fraudulent disposal of trust property noting that the prosecution failed to proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

    The trial judge however found the first defendant guilty of three-counts of uttering of a false documents.

    She convicted and sentenced him to one year in prison on each count which is to run concurrently or an option of N450,000 fine.

    She said: “Based on the oral and documentary evidence, I find that the prosecution failed to prove the three-counts of stealing beyond reasonable doubt.”

    The court however absolved the prince of the offence bordering on fraudulent disposal of trust property.

    The court also declared the second defendant, Kazeem, not guilty of receiving stolen property.

    Justice Taiwo held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that N2million was stolen and that he received same knowing it was stolen.

    “The first defendant is hereby sentenced to one-year imprisonment or N450,000 fine.”

    Prior to convicting and sentencing the first defendant, the judge had said that the case could have been resolved amicably in the family without the warring princes and princesses resorting to litigation.

    “It is unfortunate that such a problem cannot be resolved amicably, instead of washing of the family their dirty linen in public.

    “One wonders what legacy  the elders in the family are leaving behind for the younger ones.

    “It is suggested by the court that the family wipes clean the slate and start afresh,” she said

    The court however suggested that avoid future strife, the family should appoint more administrators to administer the estate of late Oba Afolabi James.

    Justice Taiwo said that the  administrators should be transparent to the beneficiaries of the estate and a neutral body should also manage the account of the estate and open fresh books and records to avoid mismanagement funds.

    In his allocutus,  the defence counsel, Martins Oyigbo asked the court to temper justice with mercy.

    “He is a first time offender my lord and he had no intention of defrauding the family.

    “My lord should please give an option of fine as the family will take the advice of the court and resolve the matter amicably,” Oyigbo said.

    During the trial, the 12 witnesses testified for the prosecution while six witnesses testified for the defence.

    According to the SFU prosecutor, Mr Oluwafemi Olabisi, Semasa had fraudulently converted N500 million property belonging to the late king, between 2000 and 2017 in Lagos.

    The prosecution alleged that Semasa fraudulently sold a property located at Plot 1440, Ilesanmi St., Itire Road, Surulere, Lagos to a private individual.

    He was accused of illegally leasing another property located Plot 282 Ajose Adeogun St., Victoria Island, Lagos to Ecobank Plc.

    Semasa also allegedly forged some purchase receipts of his late fathers property as well as the signature of the late king on the Corporate Affairs Commission documents of  CAJ Industrial Enterprises.

    Also, the SFU said that Kazeems had allegedly received stolen estate funds from the first defendant.

    Kazeem is alleged to have connived with Semasa to defraud the beneficiaries of the late kings estate of N150 million, which was part of the proceeds of sale of a property located at Dideolu Estate, Victoria Island, Lagos.

     

  • ‘Why female lawyers must diversify their practice’

    ‘Why female lawyers must diversify their practice’

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has urged lawyers, especially the ‘men in skirt’ to diversify their practice areas through training and retraining to enhance the productivity, writes JOHN AUSTIN UNACHUKWU.

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has urged lawyers, especially the female lawyers to diversify their practice areas through training and retraining to enhance their productivity.

    NBA President, Mr Olumide Akpata in his address at the International Women’s Day Conference organised by the NBA, Women Forum, NBA-WF in Lagos countered the widespread belief that the country has more than enough legal practitioners.

    The reverse, Akpata reasoned, is  actually the case.

    He said: “Relative to our population, we do not have too many lawyers in Nigeria. We just have too many of our lawyers concentrated in the same geographical area and crowded in the same practice area.

    “I have therefore made it a cardinal policy of my administration to emphasise the opening up of new frontiers of practice for our lawyers.

    “To achieve this, we must devote significant time and resources to the training and retraining of our lawyers, especially the female lawyers.”

    Akpata expressed enthusiasm for a training session for young female lawyers on the women empowerment principles and gender gap analysis tool.

    He said: “I have always said that we have not scratched the surface in terms of the role that the legal profession in Nigeria can play in, and for, the Nigerian economy.

    “There is a well-known African proverb that says ‘If you educate a man, you educate an individual. But if you educate a woman, you educate a nation.’

    “Permit me to add to that by saying that the enlightenment of our female lawyers, especially the young ones is the key to the statement of the modern legal profession that we all dream all. I, therefore, encourage all young female lawyers to take advantage of this fantastic initiative by taking part in the training tomorrow.”

    The NBA President noted that there had been considerable progress in accelerating women’s equality.

    “Regrettably, however, there remain those less talked about issues and unconscious biases which have historically contributed and continue to contribute to the suppression of the female folk,” Akpata added.

    In her contribution, the first female Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Folake Solanke, expressed concern over government payment of ransom to criminals, who kidnap school students, noting that it was worsening security in schools across the country.

    She called on women lawyers to speak up against the kidnapping of schoolgirls, some of whom are still being held by their abductors, for over six years now.

    Solanke, who spoke via a web link, said young girls were kidnapped, though boys were kidnapped also, the girls are held for years and the government seems not to be doing enough to get them freed, while the bandits who kidnap them are not punished but given money.

    She added that criminality should be punished but that it appears criminality is rewarded and this would continue to encourage and embolden them and others would join in that way of life.

    She cautioned lawyers against corruption, charging NBA-WF to focus on women, as it was not only men that are involved in corruption, saying: “If we are corruption-free, the whole country will be corruption-free.”

    Chief Solanke also charged NBA-WF to do more by way of speaking out against the ills in society and assisting indigent persons.

    “Speak up against those who cannot speak for themselves. Let’s speak in the language of the youth. Visit schools, visit hospitals. What assistance do we offer those who cannot help themselves? We should assist rape victims. We should be the voice of the society” Solanke stated

    The theme of the conference was: Pathway to Diversity: Challenging Blindspots and Powering up for Inclusion.

    A former Education Minister, Dr Obiageli Ezekwesili, who declared the conference open, called for the closing of the parity between males and females in the workplace, stating  that research had shown that where more women were involved in running a business, the business had done better.

    In her opening remarks, the chairperson of the conference planning committee and Vice-Chair person of the NBAWF, Mrs. Chinyere Okorocha said: “Indeed, women in diverse fields and in law have come a long way in rewriting the stereotypical narratives our society has imposed upon us.

    “Today, we can give a little girl born in Sokoto State or in Sapele, Delta State, the dream of not only becoming a lawyer, but of striving for and attaining the very pinnacle of the legal career – whether as a private practitioner, an in-house counsel, a public defender or on the Bench.

    “And whilst many challenges still abound, we must recognise that the price for the successes achieved so far, did not come easy and the onus is therefore on us to ensure that their sacrifices were not in vain and we must now push further and harder until the work is done.

    “We are here today to celebrate the labours of our heroes past. Our very arrival on the scene is predicated on the fight fought by very brave women, against a system that prejudiced them simply on the basis of their gender.”

    She stated that with the emergence of a new era, “we have new challenging blindspots to address and the need for female lawyers to power up and press for female inclusion at all levels is now more critical than ever before.

    “Today, in line with the International Womens Day theme, we choose to challenge the narrative that female lawyers are “gentlemen in skirts”…. We refuse to be stereotyped based on our gender and we aspire for equality at all levels of the bench and at the bar.”

    She noted that issues of leadership inclusion for female lawyers, whether in private or public capacities, sexual harassment “is a continuing concern, career growth and achieving a work-life balance that enables us thrive and not just survive are all issues that must be addressed to ensure that the narrative changes.”­

    The conference was attended by the First Lady of Taraba State,  Anna Isiaku,  her Imo State counterpart, Chioma Uzodimma. Chairperson NBAWF,   Professor Oluyemisi Bamgbose (SAN), Secretary NBAWF,  Mrs. Nsidibe Aideyan  Treasurer NBAWF, Hajiya Safiyah  Balarabe.

  • ‘Studying law was more of a challenge’

    ‘Studying law was more of a challenge’

    Rhoda Awosunle is a 2018 law graduate of Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife. She told ADEBISI ONANUGA why the Law School programme should be remodeled into university programme.

    Family

    I was born into the family of six to late Mr. E.I. and Mrs.  M.A Awosunle. I am the last of the six children. I hail from Ile-Ife, Osun State.

    Educational background

    I started my elementary studies in Durable Foundation School, Lagos, after which I proceeded to First Zion High School, Lagos, where I completed my secondary education. I am a graduate of  Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife Osun State and I was called to the Nigerian Bar in 2018.

    Why law

    Well, studying law as a course came as a child’s play first before it became a reality in my case. I remembered growing up as a child when I was being asked what I wanted to become, even without the knowledge of what it meant to me, my reply would always be ‘I want to become a lawyer’. That little thought I nursed as a child, became stronger as  I grew up and it became a reality.

    Motivating factor

    Also one of the things that stood as a motivating factor was shortly after I graduated from secondary school, I had this delay in gaining admission into the University for a number of years. Then, concerned friends, neighbours and some family members came with different ideas for me to change of course, that I no longer had much time on my side  being a girl-child that I was and all of that. But I  saw it  as a discouragement.  I saw it more as a challenge and thank God for today here I am, a lawyer.

    All for law

    In reality I would never have thought of any other course within Art/Humanities  closely related to law. Well it would have been something entirely different like Medicine and Surgery but I wasn’t good in anything Science so I think it would still have been law.

    First lawyer in immediate family

    I am the only lawyer in my immediate family but in my extended family I know of two of them.

    A mentally exerting Law School

    Law school programme was mentally exerting. It will help if law school curriculum could filter into the university degree curriculum so that the academic burden in law school would reduce.

    Present practice

    I practise in Akinlolu Omoyinmi & Co. and my principal is Abayomi Akin Omoyinmi Esq.

    Relationship with principal

    It is more of an employer and employee relationship with a bit of learning in the process.

    First day in court

    The feeling was kind of strange owing to the fact that my wig and gown was still very much new. So it was evident that I was a new wig. Though I appeared calm, I was burning inside with a whole lot of thoughts going on in my mind. I was before Honourable Justice Eya in Enugu State.

    Most memorable day in court

    It was the day I was going to object to a bail application in court, and I was going to announce my appearance without being led by a senior. That was about two months into my service year. I was glad that I did that the very first time and I was able to kill the fear of having to address the court.

    Most embarrassing day in court

    It was still that very day. Unknown to me, I was served with two different bail applications on the same matter, filed on different dates, well because there was an amendment. I was on the other hand supposed to make a consequential amendment reflecting the changes made but I, immediately after the applicant withdrew his first application and moved his motion, opted to adopt the counter-affidavit which was withdrawn instead of having already filed another counter-affidavit. All I heard while I was addressing the court was ‘Rhoda what are you doing? Where is the consequential amendment you filed? This is a criminal matter that you are taking so lightly, this is somebody’s life that you are taking for granted! If this was a civil matter I would have awarded cost against you, you better get your act together’. I felt really bad but not discouraged, not disappointed but a warning to brace up.

    Judge, SAN or Prof?

    Professor of law? No, SAN most likely.

    Marriage to a lawyer?

    Why? No.

  • Legal consequences of planned defection of Zamfara State governor from PDP to APC

    Legal consequences of planned defection of Zamfara State governor from PDP to APC

    Can a candidate who was nominated and sponsored by a political party, legally defect to another party, without vacating the seat which he occupies on behalf of the sponsor party? Nkem Okoro argues that Zamfara State Governor Dr Bello Matawalle could face be dire legal consequences if he attempts to do so.

    A story captioned “APC Extends Registration As Matawalle Set To Join Party” was reported by Daily Trust Newspaper on Friday, the 2nd of April, 2021 refers.

    This article is intended to review the legal consequences of such alleged intended defection from the Peoples Democratic Party to the All Progressive Congress, by the governor of Zamfara State, given the circumstances under which Dr. Bello Mohammed Matawalle emerged as governor.

    Dr. Bello Mohammed  Matawalle emerged as the governor of Zamfara State, by virtue of the judgment and order of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, hence any step taken, by him, contrary to the judgment and order of the Supreme Court, will not only be  illegal but also immoral. By the subsisting order of the Supreme Court, All Progressive Congress, did not contest election in May 2019 in Zamfara, and the candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party, were all declared winners of the various elective post in the State. By the judgment of the Supreme Court, the occupant of the seat of the governor of Zamfara State, must be a Peoples Democratic Party, faithful and not All Progressive Congress.

    Though the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is silent, on the issue of defection of a sitting governor, from the party under which he won his election to another party, one believes, that this reoccurring issue of defection by governors can be put to rest by the courts in Nigeria, whenever the opportunity is presented to the courts to determine the issue. A  court of law can declare the office of the governor and deputy governor of any state vacant, where the occupants of such seats defect from the party, which nominated and sponsored them to contest the gubernatorial election in Nigeria  and under whose platform, they won elections as candidates of the said party.

    Section 221 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, provides as follows:

    No association other than a political party, shall canvass for votes for any candidate at any election or contribute to the funds of any political party or the election expenses of any candidate at an election.

    The Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of section 221 of the Constitution had variously held that independent candidature in election is not applicable in Nigeria, that, in reality and in keeping with section 221 of the Constitution, it is the party which sponsors a candidate in an election that wins the election since a candidate cannot contest an election without being sponsored by a party. Thus, votes are garnered on behalf of the political party in an election. See the case Faleke V INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1543) 61 (P. 173, paras. D-F).

    It is not in dispute that Dr. Bello Mohammed Matawalle was nominated and sponsored to contest for the post of the governor of Zamfara State, in May 2019, by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). This clearly means that the governor of Zamfara State, cannot abandon the party that nominated him, and sponsored his election as the governor of Zamfara State, without legal consequences. The legal consequences can only be determined by a court of law, in a case properly brought before it, in accordance with the provisions section 6(6b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, which provides for the judicial powers of the court in all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to civil rights and obligations of that person.

    The Peoples Democratic Party, has a right over who occupies the governorship seat in Zamfara State in view of the planned defection of the governor of Zamfara State from the PDP, to the APC, and is therefore entitled to remedies properly sought before a court of law in the unlikely event that the governor defects. The latin maxim of ubi jus ibiremedium, is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. It is to be noted that  “jus” signifies the legal authority to do or demand something and “remedium” means the right of action or the means given by law for recovery or the declaration or assertion of that right. In other words, the maxim presupposes that where the law gives a right, it also gives remedy, that remedy must be founded on a legal right. See the case of Bello v. A.-G., Oyo State (1986) 1 NWLR 828; Thomas v. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (Part 18) 669.

    However, in pursuing this remedy, one will also consider the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in line with the judicial powers of the Court. It is to be noted that the Constitution did not provide for the removal of a governor from office by virtue of defection to another party, unlike section 68(1g) of the Constitution which provides for the vacation of the seat by a member of the National Assembly who defects to another party before the expiration of his term.

    The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides in section 188 for the removal of the governor from office, but not on the ground of defection to another party. Whereas section 189, also provides for the cessation of the term of office of the governor or deputy governor under certain circumstances which did not also include defection to another party.

    However, the big question is, whether the constitution is conclusive on the mode of removal of a governor or deputy governor from office, or the cessation of office of a governor. The answer to this question, will lie in the judicial interpretation of the provisions of sections 188 and 189 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.  The writer is of the view that sections 188 and 189 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, are not conclusive on the issue of the grounds upon which a governor can be removed from office, especially by a court of law.

    The constitution of any country is usually called the organic law or ground norm of the people. It is the formulation of all the laws from which the institutions of state derive their creation and legitimacy. It is the unifying force in the nation and it apportions rights and imposes obligations on the people who are subject to its operations. The constitution of a nation is, therefore, a very important composite document, and its interpretation is subject to recognized cannons of interpretation known to law and designed to enhance and sustain the reverence in which constitutions are held the world over. See [Shosimbo v. State (1974) 10 SC. 91. A.-G., Abia State v. A.-G., Fed. (No. 2) (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264; Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 113; Nafiu Rabin v. Kano State (1980) 8-11 SC 130; Balewa v. Doherty (1963) 2 SCNLR 155.

    The Constitution could not have intended that a candidate who was nominated by a political party, sponsored by the political party, could defect, under any circumstance to another political party, without vacating the said seat, which he occupies on behalf of the party that sponsored his election.

    Dr. Bello Mohammed  Matawalle, the governor of Zamfara State, should, therefore, have a rethink, while allegedly making plans for defection to All Progressive Congress,(APC), from the Peoples Democratic Party,(PDP), that there could be dire legal consequences, in view of the subsisting judgment and order of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

    • Okoro, Constitutional Lawyer and Human Rights Activist writes from Garki, Abuja.
  • Badore Chieftaincy tussle: Court orders parties to maintain status quo

    Badore Chieftaincy tussle: Court orders parties to maintain status quo

    By Robert Egbe

     

    A Lagos High Court has ordered parties in the chieftaincy tussle of Badore community in Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State to maintain the status quo ante bellum pending the determination of the suit.

    Justice E. I. Alakija (Mrs) made the order in Suit No: LD/7185GCNW/2020 between three claimants and four defendants.

    The claimants are: Alhaji Salia Owolabi Yisa, Alhaji Waliu Adeniran Moye and Alhaji Musaliu Buari Jatto for themselves and on behalf of the Ilu Committee and Community of Badore Village.

    The defendants are: Mr Rasaki Abdullahi Jikoji, Alhaji Muyu Yusuf Jikoji, Mr Kamoru Abdullahi Jikoji and Mr Saheed Abdullahi Jikoji.

    The claimants had sought an order of interlocutory injunction restraining 1st defendant Mr Rasaki Abdullahi Jikoji from parading himself as the community’s head, following his election by the chieftaincy family as Baale of Badore in line with the historical procedures of the settlement.

    Mr Jikoji’s election followed the June 15, 2020 death of the immediate past Baale.

    The claimants averred that the 2nd Claimant Alhaji Waliu Adeniran Moye was also approved as the Baale of Badore by the Eti-Osa LGA on September 2, 2020., adding that he was installed as Baale before the suit was filed.

    But the defendants opposed him via a 14-paragraph counter-affidavit of November 2, 2020, deposed to by Prince Adeola Rasaki Jikoji.

    They prayed the court to dismiss the claimants’ application for “gross disrespect” of the court, arguing that they filed their suit on August 19, 2020 while the claimants, during the pendency and with full knowledge of the suit, installed the 2nd Claimant as Baale on September 16, 2020.

    In her ruling on March 22, Justice Alakija agreed with the defendants argument that the 2nd Claimants was installed while the suit was on, contrary to legal procedure.

    She held: “In the light of the facts before the court, the submission of counsel, it is evident that the act of the 2nd Claimant approval/installation were carried out during the pendency of this suit.”

    The honourable Justice also ordered all parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum pending the conclusion of the suit challenging the selection of Rasaki Abdullahi Jikoji as Baale.

    In his reaction, the Baale-elect, Prince Rasaki Abdullahi Jikoji advised all stakeholders to refrain from transacting business on behalf of the Chieftaincy and Badore community with the Ilu Committe and other claimants pending the final determination of the case as the family will not consider such transactions valid on the long run.

  • When will a party be held to have waived right to pre-trial conference?

    When will a party be held to have waived right to pre-trial conference?

    ACCESS BANK v. SUNSHINE OIL & CHEMICAL DEV. CO. LTD

    CITATION: (2021) LPELR-53348(CA)

    In the Court of Appeal

    In the Ibadan Judicial Division

    Holden at Ibadan

    ON FRIDAY, 19TH MARCH, 2021

    Suit No: CA/IB/88/2016

     

    Before Their Lordships:

    JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA

    Justice, Court of Appeal

    UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU

    Justice, Court of Appeal

    FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO

    Justice, Court of Appeal

    Between

    ACCESS BANK PLC

    Appellant(s)

     

    And

    SUNSHINE OIL & CHEMICAL DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.

    – Respondent(s)

     

    LEADING JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.

     

    By an application filed on 26th January 2016, the Appellantas the Defendant before the High Court of Oyo State, sought for anorder of the Court setting aside the order made by the Court on 19th January, 2016 fixing the suit for trial and for an order dismissing the suit for failure of the Claimant/Respondent to comply with the mandatory provisions of Order 25 Rule 1(1) of the High Court of Oyo State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2010.  At the hearing of the application, the Appellant abandoned prayer one of the application and the same was struck out. After considering the second prayer, the Court in its ruling delivered 18th February 2016held that the provisions of Order 25 Rule 1 (1) of the High Court of Oyo State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2010, which the relief sought in the application was premised upon had been complied with, in consequence of which it held that the application failed and it was accordingly struck out.

    Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

    APPELLANTS’ SUBMISSIONS

    The Appellant’s Counselby virtue ofOrder 1 Rule 1 (1) of the High Court of Oyo State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2010, submitted that the said Rules shall apply to all proceedings including all part-heard causes and matters in respect ofsteps to be further taken in such causes and matters. He posited that the word “SHALL” having been employed in the stipulation, made it mandatory vide CORPORATE IDEAL INS. LTD vs. AJAOKUTA STEEL CO. LTD (2014) 7 NWLR (PT 1405) 165 at 193(2014) LPELR-22255(SC) Counsel relying on UHEMBE vs. PARKES (2014) 3 NWLR (PT 1395) 475 at 502; (2013) LPELR-20273(CA) stated that rules of Court being subsidiary legislation have the force of law.

    Counsel further submitted that trial had not commenced at the time the 2010 Rules of the High Court came into force, as a result of which the Respondent was bound to apply for the issuance of pre-trial conference Notice in Form 17 as stipulated by Order 25 Rule 1 (1) of the High Court of Oyo State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2010.He asserted that non-compliance with the provisions of the said Order 25 Rule 1 (1) attracts the penalty of dismissal of the suit under Order 25 Rule 1 (3) of the Rules and the case of IKEYI vs. CROWN REALTIES PLC (2010) 6 NWLR (PT 1344) 114 at 127.

    Citing MTN (NIG) COMM. LTD vs. WI GATAP & INV. LTD (2013) 4 NWLR (PT 1344) 276 at 296(2012) LPELR-7930(CA)Appellant’s counsel asserted that it was a wrong exercise of judicial discretion for the lower court to have allowed the Respondent’s counsel who did not file any written address to make oral submissions on the application and that an Appellate Court is entitled to interfere with such exercise of discretion.

    Counsel contended that Rules of Court are meant to be obeyed and that the lower Court disregarded the provisions of the Rules and sacrificed justice on the altar of speed when it adjourned the matter for hearing without holding a pre-trial conference. That the failure of the lower Court to schedule a pre-trial conferencewas prejudicial. Relying on Order 25 Rule 3 and the case of IKEYI vs. CROWN REALTIES PLC (supra) at 127.

    Appellant’s counsel submitted that a pre-trial judge is distinct from a trial judge and that the statement of the lower Court that in the High Court of Oyo State, the pre-trial judge is also the trial judge violates the provisions of the Rules of Court. That it is not within the contemplation of the Rules of Court for the same judge to be pre-trial and trial judge or for pre-trial conference to be waived.

    RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS

    The Respondent’s counselsubmitted that it filed the pre-trial Forms 17 and 18 and that even if the Forms were irregularly filed, the lower Court could not close its eyes to the same since Courts are to do justice and not cling to technicalities. The case of UWAIFO vs. A-G BENDEL STATE (1982) 7 SC 124 at 187; (1982) LPELR-3445(SC)was relied upon. Counsel asserted that the Forms 17 and 18 having been filed, knocked the bottom out of the Appellant’s application for the case to be dismissed for failure to file the said Forms and that the lower Court countenancing the said Forms as filed did not occasion any miscarriage of justice.

    He contended that with the several steps taken by the Appellant, it can no longer complain about the failure to file Forms 17 and 18 within time, since it had waived the irregularity by taking steps videAKOCHE vs. OCHENJELE (2013) LPELR-20782 (CA).

    In response to the Appellant’s argument that statement of the lower Court that in the High Court of Oyo State; the pre-trial judge is also the trial judge violates the provisions of the Rules of Court, Respondent’s counsel posited that it is an obiter and did not relate to any application before the Court and so did not form part of the ratio decidendi which can be appealed against. Counsel relied on BULET INT’L (NIG) LTD vs. OLANIYI (2017) LPELR-42475 (SC)

    He submitted that by Section 122 (2) (m) of the Evidence Act, the lower Court was entitled to take judicial notice of the course of proceedings and practices of the High Court of Oyo State.That it is the same judge that is pre-trial and trial judge in a matter. The Appellant, Respondent’s counsel asserted, had not complained that, that was not the position. He stated that there was nothing in Order 25 Rule 5 of the Rules of the lower Court, relied upon by the Appellant, suggesting that a pre-trial judge cannot also be the trial judge.

    Respondent’s counsel maintained that the lower Court properly exercised discretion when it allowed the Respondent’s counsel to make oral submissions, since the failure to file a written address was an irregularity cured by Order 5 Rule 1 (2) of the Rules of the lower Court. The case ofOLAIFA vs. ADENIJI (2017) LPELR–42708 (CA)was called in aid.

    Counsel maintained that the failure to conduct the pre-trial conference was a mere irregularity which did not vitiate the proceedings. CitingAUDU vs. GIMBA (2019) LPELR-47403 (CA); UNITY LIFE & FIRE INS. CO. LTD vs. INT’L BANK OF WEST AFRICA LTD (2001) LPELR-3412 (SC).

    Respondent’s counsel submitted that rules of Court were handmaids of justice and that the breach of a rule of practice was an irregularity which does not render the proceedings a nullity since Courts have eschewed reliance on technicality. Relying on the case of MFA vs. INONGHA (2014) LPELR-22010 (SC)

    RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES

    On the argument whether or not it was wrong for the lower court to have allowed the Respondent’s counsel who did not file any written address to make oral submissions on the application, the Court opined that the said submissions are floating as there is no ground of appeal complaining about the issue. The Court by the position of the law stated that arguments or oral submissions on questions that are not covered by a ground of appeal are incompetent and must be discountenanced, citingTHE NIGERIA ARMY vs. ODEBODE (2018) LPELR (46646) 1 at 34-36,

    Relying on IYOHO vs. EFFIONG (2007) 4 SC (PT 111) 90the Court held that the implication of there being no ground of appeal complaining about the issue, had accepted the decision as correct, conclusive and binding and it cannot be heard to argue contrariwise.

    The Court agreed with the Respondent’s counsel that it is an obiter dictum as it was made by the lower Court by the way, after it had determined the application before it. Thatit does not form part of the ratio decidendi of the lower Court for refusing the Appellant’s application.

    The Court held that the part of the judgment or ruling of a Court which constitutes the decision of the Court and which is appealable is the ratio decidendi and not a statement or an unsolicited remark made in passing by the Court which in legalese is referred to as obiter dictum. Relying onORANEZI vs. PDP (2016) LPELR (41533) 1 at 16. The Court further held that an obiter dictum would be a mere academic exercise which would not impact on whether the decision of the lower Court refusing the Appellant’s application is correct, since the said obiter dictum is extrinsic and not part of the ratio decidendi of the lower Court on the application.

    The Court stated that the Pre-trial Conference Notice Forms filed by the Respondent were not filed within the time stipulated by Order 25 Rule 1 (1) of the Rules of the lower Court, but that did not ipso facto make the Forms a nullity and which remained valid until set aside. The Court relying on MANA vs. PDP (2011) LPELR (19754) 1 at 36-37 stated that the lower Court could not have closed its eyes to the existence of the said Forms. The Court held thatit is not every irregularity that can lead to an action being nullified and defenestrated, that the irregularity has to be such that materially affects the merits of the case and occasions a miscarriage of justice. Relying onOrder 5 Rule 1 (2) of the Rules of the lower Court,ODOM vs. PDP (2015) LPELR (24351).

    Sequel to this, the Court held that the lower Court was correct to have countenanced the pre-trial conference Notice Forms which were irregularly filed as it was a procedural irregularity that would not have the effect of operating for the purpose of defeating the course of justice. The case of EGBO vs. AGBARA (1999) LPELR (1036) 1 at 22was cited in aid.

    The Court further cited FAMFA OIL LTD vs. A-G FEDERATION (2003) LPELR (1239) 1 at 13-14and restated the fact that it is not every procedural irregularity that would willy-willy result in the proceedings being nullified.

    The Court opined that the Appellant could not have so contendedthat it suffered any miscarriage of justice as a result of a pre-trial conference not having taken place before the lower Court fixed the matter for hearing because, having been well aware that a pre-trial conference had not taken place, it consented and even suggested dates for the hearing of the matter. That the Appellant, having by its action of consenting for the matter to be fixed for hearing, had waived and abandoned its legal right to the holding of a pre-trial conference. The Court held that the Appellant cannot now contend on appeal that the lower Court was wrong to have assigned dates for hearing of the matter. The caseODU’A INVESTMENT CO. LTD vs. TALABI (1997) LPELR (2232) 1 at 88was referred to on this point.

     

    HELD

    The appeal was dismissed and the ruling of the lower Court refusing the Appellant’s application was upheld.

    Appearances:

    Oluwasegun Ayinde, Esq.

    For Appellant(s)

    Chukwudi Maduka, Esq.

    For Respondent(s) 

    • Compiled by LawPavilion