A Federal High Court in Lagos, has ordered Westcom Technologies and Energy Services Limited to pay $12,064,435 to a Swiss firm Transclear S.A. as accrued demurrage on bulk cement bought on credit by the defendant company.
Justice Musa Kruya was delivering judgment in a suit filed by Transclear S.A. company through its lawyer Olumide Sofowora (SAN).
The Managing Director, Mr Attila Paulovits, while being led in evidence by Sofowora said on September 7, 2009, his company agreed to supply five cargoes of bulk cement to Westcom on credit adding the company was supposed to pay for the consignment as per the terms of the said agreement.
Paulovits said the cement was delivered as agreed but it was not discharged from the vessel by the defendant as and when due.
He said the failure to discharge resulted in the accrual of a demurrage of $8,500,000.
Paulovit said the defendant company pleaded with the plaintiff to continue supply it with cement based on the terms and agreement between them and promised to defray the outstanding demurrage.
He claimed that thereafter, additional four ship loads were supplied, adding that the statement of account of the demurrage accrued on the nine vessels showed the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff to the tune of $12,063,435.
The witness said the defendants promised to pay the debt but till date has failed to do so.
Paulovits tendered seven documents as exhibits to support his claim.
The defendant company Managing Director, Kola Sowande, while being led in evidence by his counsel, C.H. Nwuke, adopted his witness statement on oath and tendered six documents in support of his case.
Under cross examination, he admitted that $12,063,444,96 is being owed the plaintiff.
He, however, contended that the plaintiff’s claim is not truly a claim for demurrage as to confer the requisite jurisdiction on the court to entertain the case.
The plaintiff did not establish any agreement of carriage of goods by sea between both parties, there was no shipping agreement adding that from which a demurrage claim could ensue. The claim, he said, could only be for a simple debt over which the court has no jurisdiction.
Sowande said the $12,064,435 claimed by the plaintiff under the agreement was not supported by any consideration since the acknowledgement agreement of the debt was not made under seal.
In his judgment, Justice Kruya said “I have reviewed the facts of this case, in civil actions the standard of proof on the preponderance of evidence, consequently, it is the duty of the party to an action to adduce evidence which ought to reasonably satisfy a court that the facts sought to be proved is established.
‘’In conclusion, I am of the firm view that based on the admission of the defendant’s witness under cross-examination alone, the plaintiff has proved his case preponderance of evidence entitling it to judgment.
“I am of the further view that the agreement dated October 25, 2011, which was tendered as, exhibit the debt acknowledgement agreement is valid in law to create an obligation on the defendant to pay the sum of $12,064,435 to the plaintiff since it was voluntarily signed by the defendant first before sending same to the plaintiff for execution.
‘’Consequently, judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant as per the writ of summons and interest on the said $12,064,435 at the rate of three percent per annum from September 29, 2011 till the whole amount is paid.’’
President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Mr. Augustin Alegeh (SAN) last week in Sokoto, during the quarterly National Executive Committee meeting of the NBA in Sokoto unveiled lawyers Visa affinity Cards for the members. The cards were produced by the association’s official banker Access Bank.
Alegeh said: “The benefits of this Visa Card cannot be overemphasised. The NBA Visa Card will serve the dual role of an Identification Card as well as a payment card that serves all online payment portals; ATMs and POS terminals.
“The NBA Visa affinity card will also afford lawyers the opportunity to access the various discounted welfare packages of several service providers negotiated on their behalf by the NBA.
“Most importantly the NBA Visa Card when used for payment on the NBA online platform for NBA Conferences, programmes and seminars will attract a certain level of discount”.
In his inaugural speech last Friday, President Muhammadu Buhari spoke of judicial reform to allow for the swift dispensation of corruption-related cases. In this report, Eric Ikhilae identifies key areas that could be tinkered with to allow for the planned reform.
President Muhammadu Buhari, in his inaugural speech last Friday, spoke of reforms in some critical institutions, including the Judiciary.
Many Nigerians support him. They believe that the Judiciary should be overhauled to ensure, among others, swift dispensation of justice, a major prerequisite for the success of the administration’s pledge to tackle corruption.
Although there have been attempts to reform the Judiciary, the third arm of government is still battling with challenges ranging from autonomy, institutional defects, a faulty appointment process to poor funding. There is also the problem of archaic laws and procedural rules, requiring prompt attention.
Observers contend that any judicial reform must first begin with cleansing of the court system to eliminate bad eggs. They argue that corruption must be tackled for any reform initiative to be meaningful.
•CJN Justice Mahmud Mohammed
They note that judicial officers pay little regard to their code of conduct and ethics, part of which informed the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Mahmud Mohammed’s scathing remarks about judges, who write books and launch them while in service.
The CJN said it was “regrettable to note that some petitions received at the National Judicial Council (NJC) were written in respect of books launched by or on behalf of Heads of Court and being attended by litigants in their courts, who have also acted as chief launchers or indeed guests of honour on the occasion.
“Judges must understand that by launching such books while in service, they potentially submit themselves to the publishers and the so called launchers, while opening themselves up to allegations of corruption.
“It is now clear, judging from the public’s reaction to these book launches and the resultant negative media coverage of same, that our ability to be impartial and indeed honest in our judgments, is now regarded with scepticism.”
Observers said it is not enough for the CJN to condemn such conduct among judges, and that he should penalise those found wanting.
They argued that President Buhari’s pledge to ensure independence for the Judiciary within the context of the principle of separation of power must include financial independence as provided in the Constitution. This, they said, would enable the Judiciary provide for its needs, including prompt payment of salaries and other entitlements, procurement of necessary tools, the employment of qualified support staff and continuous training for judges and other court’s personnel.
The continued retention of old laws in the nation’s statute books has to a greater extent impeded the effective operation of the court because they no longer meet today’s requirements. Where, for instance, the penalties for some offences are no longer adequate, the judge is mostly helpless. This problem can only be solved with a review of the laws to bring them to term with current realities.
In line with the CJN’s announcement on May 14, this year of a new procedure for judges’appointment, observers have also called for a continues review of the procedure to ensure that the Bench is populated with men and women of great learning and integrity, who are committed to ensuring justice even though the heavens may fall.
According to the CJN the new procedure, as contained in the 2014 Revised National Judicial Council (NJC) Guidelines and Procedural ýRules for the Appointment of Judicial Officers of All Superior Courts of Record in Nigeria, “will ensure that only fit and proper persons and the most intellectually astute, morally sound, meritorious and deserving candidates were appointed as judges”.
Observers have also suggested that institutional reform in the Judiciary should extend to the review of the membership of the NJC, particularly as it relates its headship by the CJN and its membership comprising mostly of serving judge. They argued that the CJN, as a serving judge, whose conduct is subject to the supervision of the NJC, should not be made to head the NJC, which has the responsibility to scrutinise the conduct of the CJN.
They suggested that where the head and membership of the NJC were made up of retired judicial officers and complemented by notable lawyers of integrity, it would ensure an unbiased supervision of judicial activities by the NJC,
This, they argued, would prevent a recurrence of the 2011 crisis between the then CJN, Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu (retired) and then President of the Court of Appeal (PCA), Justice Isa Ayo Salami (rtd), which was taken before the NJC headed by CJN.
• Alegeh
Lawyers, in also reacting to the President’s observation about the need for judicial reform, have equally identified areas requiring urgent attention in the Judiciary. They include President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Augustine Alegeh (SAN) and two of his predecessors, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) and Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN).
Others include Sebastine Hon (SAN), Mahmud Magaji (SAN) and Ade Adedeji.
Alegeh, ina statement on May 29, this year said the NBA expects the new administration to set out as part of its agenda, the amendment and reformation of Nigerian laws to make them meet present day challenges.
“Government policies must be backed by law and to actualise the desired change agenda, there must be reformation of our Laws to give legal backing to the change agenda. The NBA offers its unflinching support to the administration in the exercise of amending, reforming and update of Nigerian laws,” he said.
• Olanipekun
Olanipekun said the needed judicial review must begin with ensuring the independence of the judiciary, then move on to sanitising the judicial sphere. He said his call for the sanitisation of the sector does not amount to a call for the government to pocket the judiciary.
The former NBA President, at a reception in Lagos in honour of Vice President Yemi Osinbajo (SAN), said the Judiciary must be respected and recognised as an independent arm of government, just like the Executive and Legislature, because it is not and never inferior to either of the two.
“Part of sanitising the judiciary entails proper funding and making it self-financing. Thank God for majority of our Judges who shun corruption like a plague, and who would deliver judgments based on facts and law and not on extenuating over-bearings or influences.
“However, my take has always been that a single bad egg can and will always give our judiciary a bad name, and stigmatise the vast majority of excellent judges. Thus, the few bad eggs, when and where identified, should be shown the way out, while more thorough and painstaking efforts should be put in place at appointing new judges.
The judiciary itself, through some of our serving judges should stop the fanfare of randomly issuing ex-parte orders of injunction against theNational Judicial Council (NJC) in the performance of its constitutionally assigned duty of putting machineries in motion at disciplining erring judges, as this practice has virtually crippled the council.
The Judiciary has been constitutionally ‘unitarised’. This is unfair and unjust. An agenda for decentralising the judiciary should be quickly put in place. State or Regional Courts of Appeal and Supreme Courts should be allowed to flourish and decide cases to finality within their different spheres, zones and regions.
‘’The Federal Government has no business establishing a federal judiciary to handle state matters, whether criminal or civil,” Olanipekun said.
• Akeredolu
Akeredolu, who spoke in an interview shortly after the President’s inauguration in Abuja, said the President’s pledge to ensure the independence of the Judiciary was welcome, saying the country’s Judiciary needs free hand to operate. He urged the President to put in place the necessary mechanism for the reformation of the Judiciary.
Hon advocated the need for any reform in the Judiciary to commence with statutory and constitutional amendments that will put the Judiciary on a good pedestal. This, he said, is because the nation has archaic laws that impede the process of litigation and due process of law.
He also suggested a review of the procedure for the appointment of judges. “They will do well, especially for the appellate court, to be appointing lawyers from private practice and intermingling them with judges from the lower courts. This will allow for a find blend of people from outside and people from within, because we have had such experience before, and it produced fine result.
“There should be true independence for the Judiciary, particularly on the issue of finding. If there is no financial independence, then, we are only being academic on this issue of reform. They should discipline erring judges with dispatch. This is because it is no more a hidden fact that there is corruption in the judiciary and among judicial officers. So, they should discipline judges, who are found wanting with dispatch,” Hon said.
• Magaji
Magaji, who is concerned about the need to ensure prompt conclusion of corruption-related cases, argued: “If we are to make headway in the fight against corruption, some courts should be dedicated to treating corruption related cases. And in doing that, the head of that court can devise a means, like the practice direction, to aid the quick dispensation of justice. That, I think should be the best approach.”
Adedeji argued thatdespite the President’s urge for reform in the judiciary, such could only be effected internally, with the Executive only making recommendations and playing some roles in law reforms, but not to be involved in the reform of the Judiciary as an arm of government.
He said the President could only achieve his aim if he is able to win the support of those within Judiciary, who possess the power to effect the needed changes.
• Adedeji
“If Mr. President is talking about encouraging independence of the Judiciary and Separation of Powers, it will amount to conflict in terms, if at the same time he is talking of reform in the Judiciary. If the Judiciary is to be reformed, it can only be reformed by those people within the Judiciary.
“I believe the President was just being a politician. I do not believe that, as the President of this nation, he can reform the Judiciary and yet, to a great extent, encourage Separation of Power and the independence of the Judiciary. But he is not properly positioned to actually reform the Judiciary.
“Why I say the President’s suggestion of reform in the Judiciary is a contradiction is term, is that it is not his primary responsibility to reform the Judiciary. He cannot interfere in the internal affairs of the Judiciary for the purpose of reforming it,” Adedeji said.
Criminal procedure in Nigeria is governed by two principal legislations which were handed down to us by the British Colonial Administration, namely: the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA)1 and the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC)2. Each state in Nigeria has either adopted the CPA or the CPC. These laws have been applied for many decades without significant improvement. As a result, the criminal justice system has lost its capacity to respond quickly to the needs of the society to check the rising waves of crime, speedily bring criminals to book and protect the victims of crime. The ACJA2015 responds to Nigeria’s dire need of a new legislation that will transform the criminal justice system to reflect the true intents of the Constitution and the demands of a democratic society, eliminate unacceptable delays in disposing of criminal cases and improve the efficiency of criminal justice administration in the country. Indeed the Buhari Administration should urgently commence the implementation of the ACJA to prosecute its campaign against corruption and allied crimes.
The provisions for the reform of Administration of Criminal Justice were first developed in 2005 by the National Working Group on the Reform of Criminal Justice in Nigeria. The Group which was established by the then Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN was maintained by his successor, Chief BayoOjo, SAN. The Group consisted of individuals drawn from all segments of the criminal justice sector. The immediate Attorney-General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN upon assumption established the Panel on Implementation of Justice Reform (PIJR) in 2011to implement the proposals for reform produced by the National Working Group under the earlier administrations. The Panel conducted a detailed review of the proposals, brought them up-to-date and adopted an improved version.
The ACJ proposals merged the provisions of the two principal legislations, CPA and CPC into one principal federal Act which is intended to apply uniformly in all federal courts across the entire Federation. Substantially, it preserves the existing criminal procedures. But it introduces new innovative provisions that will enhance the efficiency of the justice system. In other words the ACJA 2015 builds upon the existing framework of criminal justice administration in the country. However, it fills the gaps observed in these laws over the course of several decades. The contents as revised and updated by the Panel on Implementation of Justice Reform (PIJR), with the support of the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies have now been enacted into law. The House of Representatives have turned the proposals to a Act and passed them wholly into law.
Purposes of the Act
The main purposes of the ACJ Act (ACJA) 2015 include the following: To promote efficient management of criminal justice institutions and speedy dispensation of justice, protect the society from crime, and Protect the rights and the interest of the defendant and the victim. The purposes of the ACJ Act are captured in section 1 of the Act. These indicate a deliberate shift from punishment as the main goal of the criminal justice to restorative justice which pays attention to the needs of the society, the victims, vulnerable persons and human dignity.
The general provisions of the ACJ Act apply to criminal trial in court except where express provision is made in the Act or in any other law in respect of any particular court or form of trial. Specifically, section 2 of the Act provides that its provision shall not apply to a Court Martial.
Unlawful Arrests
Unlawful arrest is one of the major problems of our criminal process and it is one of the reasons why police stations and prisons are overcrowded. Arrests are sometimes made on allegation that are purely civil in nature or on a frivolous ground. By section 10(1) of the CPA, the police could arrest without a warrant, any person who has no ostensible means of sustenance and who cannot give a satisfactory account of himself. This particular provision has been greatly abused by the police who use it as a ground to arrest people indiscriminately. The ACJ Act has deleted this provision.
There have been several instances where the police arrested relations or friends and close associate of a crime suspect to compel the suspect to give himself up even though that person is not linked in any way to the crime the suspect is being accused of. Section 7 of the ACJ Act specifically prohibits arrest in lieu.
Apart from the police, other agencies vested with power of arrest e.g. the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), etc had abused this power to arrest and detain relatives and close associates of criminal suspect in lieu of the suspects where they had challenges in apprehending the suspects. Section 7 should curtail this kind of abuses.
Notification of cause of arrest
Sections 5 of the CPA and 38 of the CPC provide that a police officer or a person making an arrest is to inform the arrested person of the reason for the arrest, except where he is being arrested in course of the commission of the offence or is pursued immediately after the commission of the offence or escaped from lawful custody. It has been argued that this provision falls short of the contemporary requirement3. The ACJ Act 2015 retains this provision in section 6. However there is a proviso which mandates the police officer or any other person to inform the suspect of his right to: (a) remain silent or avoid answering any question until after consultation with a legal practitioner or any other person of his own choice; (b) consult a legal practitioner of his choice before making, endorsing or writing any statement or answering any question put to him after arrest; (c) free legal representation by the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria where applicable.
This provision re-affirms section 35(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which provides that any person who is arrested or detained shall have the right to remain silent or answering any question until after consultation with a legal practitioner or any other person of his choice.
It is necessary to state here that the proviso in section 6 (2) is quite laudable since the suspect will have the benefit of not only being informed of the offence he has committed but also an additional advantage of counsel assisting in securing his immediate release on bail and ensuring that trial is expeditious. This would in turn prevent prolonged detention of suspects and hopefully bring about decongestion of the prisons.
Humane treatment of an arrested Person and prohibition of arrest on civil cases
The ACJ Act 2015 reiterated the human right constitutional provision of the right to dignity of person. Section 8(1) of the Act provides that: a suspect shall- (a) be accorded humane treatment, having regard to his right to the dignity of his person. (b) Not be subjected to any form of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Section 8 (2) deals with the longstanding problem whereby people employ the machinery of criminal justice wrongly for civil matters. It is not uncommon for people to maliciously instigate the arrest and detention of others for a breach of contract, failure to pay debt owed or for other civil wrongs. This provision that “a suspect shall not be arrested merely on a civil wrong or breach of contract.” is a laudable one. It is believed that it would check arbitrary arrest of persons and torture by law enforcement and security agencies.
Mandatory Inventory of Property
In order to encourage accountability and transparency, the ACJ Act introduced in section 10 a provision which states that a police officer making an arrest or to whom a private person hands over a suspect, shall take an inventory of all items or properties recovered from the suspect. The inventory must be duly signed by the police officer and the suspect. However, where the suspect refuses to sign, it shall not invalidate the inventory. This provision also directs that a copy of the inventory shall be given to the suspect, his legal practitioner, or such other person as the suspect may direct.
This provision permits the police to release such property upon request by either the owner of the property or parties having interest in the property pending the arraignment of the suspect before a Court. Where a police officer refuses to release the property to the owner or any person having interest in the property, the police officer shall make a report to the court of the fact of the property taken from the arrested suspect and the particulars of the property.
It is now entirely for the court to decide whether to release the property or any portion of it in the interest of justice to the safe custody of the owner or person having interest in the property. This provision further provides that where any property has been taken from a suspect in section 10 of the ACJ Act, and the suspect is not charged before a court but is released on the ground that there is no sufficient reason to believe that he has committed an offence, any property taken from the suspect shall be returned to him, provided the property is neither connected to nor a proceed of crime.
Recording of Arrest
The ACJ Act makes provisions for mandatory record of personal data of an arrested Person. This is contained in section 15 of the Act. Such personal data of the arrested person shall include:
(a) the alleged offence(s);
(b) the date and circumstances of the arrest;
(c) name, occupation and residential address of the suspect; and
(d) the suspect’s identification which include his height, photograph, fingerprint impressions, or such other means of identification.
Subsection 2 of section 15, further provides that the process of recording shall be concluded within a reasonable time, not exceeding forty-eight hours. This is intended to check prolong pre-trial detention in the guise of recording the personal data of the arrested person.
Establishment of a Police Central Criminal Registry
Section 16(1) of the ACJ Act makes provision for the establishment, within the Nigeria Police, a Central Criminal Record Registry. Subsection 2 of section 16 provides that there shall be established at every state police command, a Criminal Records Registry which shall keep and transmit all such records to the Central Criminal Records Registry.
Subsection 3 mandates the Chief Registrar of the courts to transmit the decisions of the court in all criminal trials to the Central Criminal Records Registry within thirty-days after delivery of judgment. Where there is default by the Chief Registrar to transmit records within thirty days after judgment, he shall be liable to disciplinary measures by the Federal Judicial Service Commission for misconduct.
The establishment of Central Criminal Record Registry will ensure that all arrests and judgments are well documented. This is intended to avoid a repeat of what happened in the case of Agbi v. Ibori4. The central figure in this case was Chief James OnanefeIbori, the then Governor of Delta State. At the time of commencement of this action at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja he was a candidate for the 2003 general elections. In an action before the said High Court two persons suing as Plaintiffs began a joint action to challenge Ibori’s qualification to stand as a gubernatorial candidate for the 2003 election having been an ex-convict. The action did not succeed before the High Court, however on appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court in a unanimous judgment allowed the appeal of the Plaintiffs, set aside the judgment of the High Court and ordered that the case be heard afresh by another Judge of the High Court.
The proceedings commenced at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory and one of the main issues was whether the record of proceedings of Bwari Upper Area Court in case N0. CK 81-95 (Exhibit A) wherein one James OnanfeIbori was convicted was sufficient to act against the 5th Defendant/Appellant (James OnanfeIbori) as an ex-convict. During the trial the Area Court Judge came to court and testified that James OnanfeIbori was an ex-convict. James OnanfeIbori on the other hand, contented that Exhibit A did not conform to section 157 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court gave judgment in favour of James OnanfeIbori and the matter was dismissed.
With the new provision in the ACJ Act, cases like this would no longer pose a major problem as there would be sufficient information on all convicted persons which would make it easy to identify them in subsequent proceedings.
Electronic recording of confessional statement
Section 15(4) of the Act provides that where a person arrested with or without a warrant of arrest volunteers to make a confessional statement, the police officer shall record the statement in writing or may record the making of the confessional statement electronically on a retrievable video compact disc or such other audio visual means. Subsection (5) of section 15 provides that notwithstanding the provision of subsection (4), an oral confession of arrested suspect shall be admissible in evidence. This provision of the ACJ Act conforms to the position of the law as contained in the Evidence Act.
The role of the law in ensuring the development of the society can not be underestimated; law has been described as a binding force by which the society is held together as a single unit which ensures growth and development of the people.
Law should therefore respond to the yearnings and aspirations of the people at all times. At the birth of the industrialisation era in first world countries, laws were passed to square up with the arising societal and developmental challenges created by industrialisation. This definitely has been one of the bait by which first world countries left the third world countries behind to wallow in penury and backwardness.
Law as the society is transient, dynamically fundamental to national growth and development; but is law in itself the determinant of national development? NO.
Law as a tool for national development can not be functional until certain principles are religiously upheld and worshipped and to such class belongs legal equality. The concept of legal equality has stemmed out from the age long philosophy of liberalism; legal equality advocates that everyone is equal before the law. Anatole France, stated: “in its majestic equality, the law forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread”.
This principle has received international affirmation in Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which states: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without discrimination to equal protection of law”. Thus, the law should not give regards to anyone on the basis of race, gender, nationality, colour, ethnicity, religion and disability.
Legal equality has of necessity involves creation of opportunities for all on merit and not on mediocrity. This principle definitely forms part of the basis for the creation of government as an institution to cater for all citizenry regardless of their place of birth or even economic status. Adherence to this principle should therefore not be compromised by frivolous provisions of the law, law should rather complement legal equality. Law must never be used as a tool to encourage the creation of inequalities in the society; law must promote equality, which includes but not limited to equal distribution of facilities and amenities, equal access to opportunities and equal treatment of all classes of persons.
Law must be entrenched in legal equality, which is in itself is based on merit and not mediocrity. Every society that is seriously interested in her development must ensure the entrenchment of her laws in equality and not promote any form of mediocrity in her developmental plans. First world countries seem to have long understand this age-long principle of equality and as such entrenched their laws in legal equality; putting away all forms of affirmative actions that tend to slow down their national development.
Affirmative actions was in itself designed to promote the attainment of equality of persons who had either been subjugated by other members of the society or had been discriminated against based on extrinsic factors.
Affirmative action is the policy of favouring members of a disadvantaged group who had suffered from discrimination within a nation in order to accelerate their integration into the society. This principle has been applied in different countries across the globe, from America to Europe, to Asia and even down to Africa. The United Nations through her Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CEAFRD) has given regards to this principle, Article 2.2 stipulates: “States parties shall, when the circumstances so warrant, take, in the social, economic, cultural and other fields, special and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging to them, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms…”.
This principle would, therefore, be laudable when applied in the appropriate context and not based on some frivolous pretext of ethnically discrimination. The application of this principle should be corrective; hence once the purpose has been achieved it should be expunged from the laws. A recourse to Article 2.2 CEAFRD, continues by stating “…these measures shall in no case entail as a consequence, the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved”.
In Nigeria, the principles of affirmative actions can be found in the federal character principle, which has also been enshrined in the constitution. Section 14 (3) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 3rd Alteration states: “The composition of the Government of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few state or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that Government or in any of its agencies.”
In applying the literal rule in interpreting this provision it would seem that the provision was put in place to as a pre-emptive provision against any form of domination by any group of people in Nigeria. However, the essence of affirmative action is curative and not pre-emptive; such that it is applied in situations where there has been subjugation of another ethnic group within a nation or in cases of gross racial or class discrimination. The purport of the principle is to ensure even development among all classes of citizens in state, after incidence of ethnically subjugation or gross racial discrimination. The provision is not intended to be a lifelong, but temporary has it loses value as soon as that par development has been achieved.
The principles of affirmative actions was never designed to encourage mediocrity has it is been witnessed in Nigeria today at all levels of the society. The composition of public parastatals, appointment into public offices, award of scholarships and even admission into public institutions is now based on the federal character or the quota system. In handing down employment to citizens, people are considered by their state of origin at the federal level or their local tribe at the state level; the federal ministers must be appointed on the basis of state representation Sec. 143(7) CFRN 1999 3rd alteration; award of scholarship is based on geo-political zones of the applying scholars; while admission into universities is now classified into merit, catchment area, educational disadvantaged states. These are few areas where the federal character is manifestly obvious and causing more attendant problems than the intended national integration. These various forms of affirmative actions are against the provision of Sec. 15(3) CFRN 1999 3rd alteration which declares: “accordingly, national integration shall be actively encouraged, whilst discrimination on the grounds of place of origin, sex, religion, status, ethnic or linguistic association or ties shall be prohibited.” This provision is in tandem with the age-long tradition of legal equality where there is no basis for any sort of subjugation and discrimination. It is obvious that sec. 14(3) and sec. 15(3) CFRN 1999 3rd alteration are in contravention of each other; sec. 14(3)CFRN 1999 3rd alteration promotes the principles of affirmative actions and the resultant effect is the federal character that has led to high level of mediocrity, bribery, corruption and national disintegration.; on the other hand, sec. 15(3)CFRN 1999 3rd alteration provides for legal equality, a merit based decision-making devoid of all forms of discrimination and extrinsic factors.
Any nation that is serious about her national development must as of necessity arise above mediocrity and ensure that decisions are merit based and not on some frivolous classifications. There has been no incidence in Nigeria that warrants the inclusion of sec. 14(3) into the constitution of Nigeria, no ethnic group has suffered such level of gross discrimination and subjugation that warrants the provision of the federal character into the constitution of Nigeria. In the twenty-first century, this principle of affirmative action is fast becoming obsolete and countries are committing themselves to a merit system that promotes equality and national development.
Therefore, if Nigeria must make progress the federal character provisions must be expunged from the constitution, the federal character philosophy must give way and all decisions must be based on merit and consideration of national development. Sec. 15 (3) CFRN 1999 3rd alteration could read as follows: “The composition of the Government of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the diversity of Nigeria and promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that all decisions are based strictly on merit, in fairness and in a transparent procedure by the government or in any of its agencies.” The constitution must also ensure that the provision can be enforced in the court and not just an administrative provision. If Sec. 15 (3) CFRN 1999 3rd alteration is amended to promote a merit based system that is subjected in fairness and transparency, then Nigeria would be on the path to addressing issues that has held her bound in penury, disorderliness and wanton corruption. The spirit of sec. 14(3)CFRN 1999 3rd alteration, which is currently dead would also comeback alive with a new zeal that promotes national development and integration.
Citizens would definitely perform better and believe in prowess more than in their social connection. An equal platform would have been created for all strata of the country to achieve their dreams and contribute to national development. The age-long principle of legal equality would be entrenched not just in words but also in deeds. This principle of legal equality has no doubt paid off in first world countries, who are now severing paths with affirmative actions that tend to hold down their national development. Nigeria must follow suit; Nigeria must wake up to this reality to journey into the economic development and national prosperity.
An American oil services firm, Tidewater Marine International Incorporated, has lost its bid to stall the hearing of a suit seeking to, among others, compel it to pay outstanding tax liabilities and other statutory charges it allegedly owes some Nigerian agencies.
Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, in a ruling last week, refused the firm’s application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of an interlocutory appeal it filed against an earlier decision of the judge.
The judge, who held that the application by Tidewater lacked merit and that it amounted to a gross abuse of court process, noted that the appeal, for which it sought to stay proceedings, had not been entered and that it failed to seek and obtain the mandatory leave to appeal.
Tidewater’s estranged local partner, PhoenixTide Offshore Nigeria Limited, had initiated the suit in 2013 following alleged refusal by Tidewater, who acted as PhoenixTide’s agent while their business relationship lasted, “to make full disclosure and deliver all paper trails on its management and operations, and revenue in US dollar and naira from the plaintiff’s time charter party.”
Other defendants in the suit marked: FHC/L/CS/609/2013 include Tidewater’s agent in Nigeria, Tidex Nigeria Limited, Total E & P Nigeria Limited, Total Upstream Nigerian Limited and Total E & P Deepwater Limited.
The plaintiff averred, in its supporting affidavit, that contrary to the 2011 terms of settlement and non-prosecution agreement it entered with the Nigerian government to operate in the country in accordance with existing laws and regulations, Tidex has allegedly concealed all facts on its operations with the aim of avoiding its tax liabilities and other statutory charges accruable to government agencies.
It stated that the “failure on the part of Tidewater and Tidex to honour their financial obligations, including taxes to relevant agencies of the Federal Government will expose it (PhoenixTide) to the risk of being slammed with criminal charges, which will not be in its the interest.”
PhoenixTide is praying the court to, among others, compel the 1st defendant (Tidewater) to make full disclosure and provide necessary information for the assessment of its tax liabilities and other statutory charges by the relevant government agencies, and an order directing Tidewater to pay its tax liabilities and other statutory charges, as may be assessed by the relevant government agencies, in consultation with, and satisfaction of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff also wants the court to declare that it is entitled to be paid N1, 595,848,985.10 and $3,366,813.30 being payments for the performance of several contracts for the provision of vessels and logistics services entered into by the plaintiff and the 3rd to 5th defendants (Total E & P Nigeria Limited, Total Upstream Nigerian Limited and Total E & P Deepwater Limited).
It equally wants the court to issue an order, directing Total E & P Nigeria Limited, Total Upstream Nigerian Limited and Total E & P Deepwater Limited to pay to the plaintiff N1, 595,848,985.10 and $3,366,813.30, including all future out-standings, being payment due and outstanding on the performance of several contracts for the provision of vessels and logistics services between the 3rd to 5th defendants and the plaintiff, for the purpose of fulfilling all its obligations and others lawful liabilities.
Justice Abang had in a March 6 ruling dismissed with cost, Tidewater’s preliminary objection to the suit and assumed jurisdiction to hear it, a decision the company claimed to have appealed by neglected to take the necessary accompanying steps.
“In the final analysis, the motion on notice dated May 28, 2013 lacks merit, same is hereby dismissed with cost of N25,000 awarded in favour of the plaintiff, payable by the 1st and 2nd defendants (Tidewater and Tidex),” Justice Abang held in his earlier ruling.
President Muhammadu Buhari, GCFR, Commander-in-Chief, Nigeria Armed Forces, Federal Republic of Nigeria and his deputy Professor Yemi Osinbajo, (SAN), GCON, surely deserve our congratulations on their successful inauguration in Abuja, on May 29. Their ascension to the prestigious offices were momentous, consideringthe palpable fear that had overwhelmed Nigerians,prior to the last general elections. Their success also elicits excitement, because of their pedigree, particularly as persons who have never shown the predilection for ostentatious lifestyles and the concomitant corrupt self-aggrandisement. It is, therefore, hoped that their tenure will bring improvement in the material, spiritual and psychological well-being of Nigerians.
As we read this piece, the reverie from the inauguration parties across the country should have worn out. If it hasn’t, it should, considering the enormous challenges facing the country. While many commentators have continued to taunt the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), over their challenge in transforming from the ruling party to the opposition party; they fail to appreciate that the challenge facing the All Progressive Congress (APC), in transforming from the opposition party to the ruling party is even more enormous. The job of the opposition is to propound alternative programs, while the job of the ruling party is to execute successful programs.
So, for APC, it is time to walk the talk. I guess the first task facing the leadership of the party is to select those who have the integrity and the quality to rouse the expected change across the country. Such men and women would be required to sit down with the President and the Vice President, to share their vision for the country, in the next four years. With the presidential vision as guide, the egg-heads would brainstorm, and chart a policy direction and mission for the administration and the country. With a vision and mission in place, governance becomes a standard routine, with less stress for the leaders.
Luckily for Nigeria, between the two leaders, we have a potentially benefitting combination.While one has untrammelled bravery and force, the other possess intellectual power and methodology. If the two fail to harmonise, the presidency would be less effective, and our country would be the worse for it. But if the two and the contending forces they represent agree to work together, then there would be efficiency, just like in a new automobile or indeed any technology, which is a synchronisation of forces, to achieve a goal.That is why APC and her leaders must agree on a common vision, mission and the processes to achieve all that they hope to achieve, within the next four years.
Nigeria in many respects,therefore, represents Charles Dickens’s the Great Expectations. Also, APC, Buhari and Osinbajo figuratively represents the great expectations for Nigerians.While Nigeria is a woven tale of ‘wealth and poverty, love and rejection, and (hopefully) the eventual triumph of good over evil’ likethe Great Expectations; the new presidency represents for Nigerians, the beacon of great expectations; and if you ask many, the solution to all the problems of Nigeria and Nigerians. As the President was reported to have observed to the Vice President during their campaigns, many of those shouting ‘change’, would when their expectations are not quickly met, join to curse and complain, against them.
For this column, like many other Nigerians, that great expectations has to be met. While it will be unfair to expect magic from the new administration, I guess the presidency already know, that Nigerians would not be willing to accept excuses, for any failure.To meet the great expectation, what is needed from the presidency is to tap into the vast human capital that abound in Nigeria. I believe that once President Buhari and his government show the inflexible determination to do it right, to all manner of people without fear, favour or ill-will, the majority of Nigerians would join them, to achieve the great expectation.
Across the states, the governors must also show the willingness to join, to achieve the great expectation. When it comes to governance, it is the wish of many Nigerians that partisanship should take the back seat, particularly as the next general elections are four years away.Of note, unless there is a change in the national economic structure of the country, the Buhari administration can only make a dent, on the gargantuan economic, social and political challenges facing the country. The reason is simply because there is little or no economic activities going on in most of the states of the federation, save the monthly gathering, to share the money received from the federation account.
As this column has severally canvassed, the states across the country must be given greater economic opportunities, if we hope to have a real national rebirth. While the presidency should walk towards reducing the items in the exclusive legislative list, for the federal government, in favour of the states; the President can immediatelygrant more economic opportunities to states, willing to walk the talk. For instance, states willing to mine minerals in their backyards, build and use rail lines within their states, generate and use their own electricity, dredge and use the water ways and harbours within their domain, build highways, among other economic activities, presently tied to exclusive legislative list, should be encouraged and granted the rights by the Federal Government.
Unfortunately for Buhari and Osinbajo, most governmentsin recent years, failed to meet the great expectations of Nigerians, and the international community. The result is that Nigeria is commonly referred to as a potentially great country. Now, it is expected that all the past challenges of the country would be resolved by the twosome and their party, that rode into power, with the mantra of change.
Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has urged President in line with their anticorruption credentials.
The group contended that declaration would in the best interest of transparency and accountability.
SERAP’s request followed the declaration of assets last week by the President and Vice President to the Code of Conduct Bureau as required by the Constitution.
In a statement, the group’s Executive Director, Adetokunbo Mumuni, said: “We welcome the official declaration of assets by the President and Vice President. This clearly complies with the requirements of the Nigerian Constitution as contained in Chapter VI Section 140. However, the declaration before the Code of Conduct alone falls far short of the commitment to publicly declare their assets.”
The organisation recalled that the President had said before the election that he would publicly declare his assets and liabilities, and encourage all his appointees to publicly declare their assets and liabilities as a pre-condition for appointment.
“We now expect the President to fulfil this promise to the Nigerian people,” the group said.
The organisation “trusts that the President and Vice President will move swiftly to publicly declare their assets and to publish widely the information on a dedicated website”.
The group argued that public disclosure of assets would give the public a true picture of the assets of the President and Vice President and would send a message that it is not going to be business as usual with this government.
“This will also follow the best practice by former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, boost this government’s fight against corruption and impunity of perpetrators, and fully comply with the provisions of chapter two of the dealing with Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, which among others require the government to take steps to eradicate corrupt practices and the abuse of power,” the group added.
The Journal of the Faculty of Law, University of Ilorin titled: ‘The Jurist’ has become a platform for honouring lawyers who have distinguished themselves and contributed to the development of the legal profession in the last 20 years. The 20th edition of the journal was presented in Ilorin last week in honour of Layi Babatunde (SAN), reports ADEBISI ONANUGA
• Deputy Vice Chancellor, UNILORIN, Prof. Y. M. Fakunle (left) presenting the award to Mr. Babatunde and his wife Adejoke.
Lawyers and other stakeholders in the justice sector, last week converged on Ilorin to honour one of their own, Layi Babatunde (SAN).
This was at the public presentation of the 20th edition of The Jurist, the journal of the Faculty of Law, University of Ilorin.
Babatunde was recognised for his support for the legal education.
Former President, Court of Appeal, Justice Issa Ayo Salami, who was the Chairman of the occasion, in his opening remarks, berated lawyers for failing the society when their services were needed most.
Justice Salami observed that a lot of lawyers have chosen to pursue money to the detriment of the roles expected of them by the society who look up to them to champion their causes in times of troubles.
The jurist cited the recent incident of a journalist who was beaten up in Ekiti State to buttress his disappointment in the conduct of lawyers.
He lamented that not even the Chairman of the state branch of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) did anything to fight the abuse and infringement of the fundamental right of the victim.
“The legal profession is not all about money but a profession that bears society’s problem. Unfortunately, lawyers in recent times have not been carrying out their roles. The lawyers are not doing their role. Where are the lawyers?” he asked.
Justice Salami, however, extolled the virtues of the honouree, who he said, is honest, trustworthy and reliable and a brother who has distinguished himself in the profession.
He also commended Layi’s law publications, particularly “Supreme Court Reports”, saying it is a tool for lawyers work with and that it resolves conflicts in the legal practice.
Former Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice of Ogun State, Mr Wemimo Ogunde (SAN), in his speech titled: ”The three days of a lawyer” also charged lawyers and other stakeholders in the justice sector to discharge their responsibility to the society in line with their professional calling. He to constantly examine themselves with a view to reflect better a tomorrow.
Ogunde went philosophical when he said the journey of life falls into three stages;” that which is past, that which is being spent and that which to come”. He said the existence of today gives the lawyer an opportunity to begin to rectify that which was objectionable yesterday.
He said the ingredients of a legal career, character, competence and confidence are made ready for use in whichever state they find themselves.
According to him,ý “if a legal career has already started on a bad note in the sense that the lawyer in the early years if his career got himself or herself involved in some unethical behaviour, the existence of today affords an opportunity to redress that past.
“ It is what is being done now that ultimately count. How glorious yesterday was, the poor use of today can pollute or degrade the good of yesterday.
“The, today, law continues to use the vast reservoir of yesterday for the purpose of making law improve the society and positively affect the citizenry. It is obvious that law is a flowing river that constantly gathers the floatsam of yesterday, learns from the mistake that brought them forth and clears them away with the powerful current of today’s flow of fresh waters.
“The impact of continuing legal education is seen only in the today of the lawyer since it recognises that the application of law to conduct within the society constantly faces resistance brought about by the complexity of human activity both in the individual and in relationships. The result is that yesterday departs leaving in its wake the debris of error both from the bar and the bench. Some of these errors are costly.
“They mighty have resulted in wrongful convictions, deprivation of settled rights and some others acts of misfortune. The beauty of today is that it prevents a repetition or perpetuation of such errors bringing about new life for tomorrow which are evident in law reforms, judicial activism and intellectual reviews.”
The learned silk, therefore, counselled lawyers must be honest in self examination. “ Constant examine of self with a view to reflect on how he stood yesterday whether for good or for ill. The reflection on how yesterday was always affords a better use of today,” he stressed.
Earlier in his address,the Vice Chancellor of the University of Ilorin, Prof. Abdulganiyu Ambali, congratulated the leadership and the members of the law society on its recent acknowledgment as the best law faculty in the country by the Council of Legal Education Nigeria, urging them to keep the flag flying.
He also admonished the students to equip themselves “sufficiently, reading voraciously, learning vigorously and prepare seriously for the future.
“On this note, I want to urge the final year studentýs of this society to sustain the tempo and maintain the standard established by their predecessors by being better by far than others when it is their time to be in the Nigeria Law School.
“I have no doubt about it, the training you have received and you are still receiving from the University of Ilorin is such that can make you stand out among your pairs all over the world. So my charge to you on this occassion is that you should keep it up, continue to stand out and you will be outstanding.”
The vice chancellor also urged the students to emulate the honoree, Babatunde (SAN) who he described as a scholar of high repute, noting has edited and published 480 editions of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Nigeria (S.C.Report ) with 22 indexes dating back to 1972.
The Dean of the Law Faculty, Dr. Yusuf Arowosaiye, also appreciated the students for their thoughtfulness in recognising the leading lights of character and integrity who deserved to be honoured for their contributions to the development of law profession in the country and Nigerian law and jusrispudence.
Arowosaiye said: “The Jurist, our signature students’ publication has proud 20-year-history of existence with this year 20th edition in honour of a well-deserved legal icon, Babatunde (SAN). The jurist has experienced changes in terms of quality of its content and production since it’s first issue. This a welcome development and am hopeful that very soon the Jurist will compete favorably well with other leading and reputable students publication such as Havard Law Review, Honk Kong Law Review, The Idaho Law Review to mention but few.”
He further said: “We have a strong legal education program, we train our students to begin successful legal careers right here on campus. We offer many opportunities for students to pursue focus areas of study of law. Our legal clinics, proposed externship programmes by our law clinic are among best of any law faculty in the country.The clinical legal education offers our students real-world legal experience.
“It, therefore, no surprise that the recently released report of the Ad-hoc Committee set up by the council of legal education to investigate the performance of students and faculties at the August 2014 Bar Final Examination adjudge Faculty of Law, University of Ilorin as best and most consistent faculty of law in Nigeria in that report, our faculty came first in the year 2014 and second position for 2012 and 2013 consecutively. We humbled by this achievement and we’ll determined to sustain this pace for long time to come.”
The dean urged the administration of the University to upgrade other facilities in the faculty, calling for urgent attention such as building of a new law library, procurement of relevant online legal databases, provision of projectors in all the classes, among others.
Justice Ganiyu Safari of a Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja will on June 23, 2015 rule on a Motion on
Notice seeking to strike out two defendants in a N12 million suit filed by Abdul Hafisu Bamgbala, the executor to the estate of the Late Alhaji Musa Ahmadu Bamgbala, against Nucleus Ventures Limited and two others over a property situated at 32, Association Avenue, Ilupeju, Lagos.
The application filed by their counsel, A. K. Sanni, is seeking to strike out Nucleus Ventures Limited and Olaide Fowosire who are first and second defendants in the suit filed by Bamgbala through his counsel, Dr. Dayo Amokaye.
The Motion on Notice was brought pursuant to Order 13 Rules 4, 5, 6 and 17 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012 and inherent jurisdiction of the court.
But counsel to the claimants, Dr. Dayo Amokaye, had opposed the motion and filed a reply that the company is one and that the third defendant is the alter ego and managing director of second defendant company.
The defendants, in their application, are praying the court to strike out the two defendants on the grounds that they have no interest in the land, the subject matter of the action filed by the claimant, Bamgbala.
They averred in an affidavit in support of the motion deposed to by one Ayodeji Naiyeju, a legal officer in the employment of the first and second defendants, that “the third defendant has been joined to this suit personally whereas to the best of my knowledge, he only acted at all material times to this action as an officer of the second defendant company”.
They had also averred that it was only the second defendant that has interest in the land, subject matter of this action as contained in the “Deed registered as No 8 at No 5 at page 5 in Volume 2259 in the Registered of Deeds kept at the Lagos State Land Registry establishing the fact that it is the 2nd defendant that has a leasehold interest assigned to it”.
But Amokaye had at the last hearing submitted to the court that from the list of directors and shareholders obtained from Corporate Affairs Commission, second defendant and members of his family are shareholders and that the companies in the suit are family businesses.
He submitted that as Managing Director, the third defendant has actual and instructive notice of all actions of the second defendant company.
In the main suit, the claimant is claiming N5million as general damage for alleged trespass on the parcel of land situated at Plot 32, Association Avenue, Ilupeju, Lagos (now municipally known and called 21A and 21B Association Avenue, Ilupeju, Lagos.
The claimant is also asking the court for N2 million as special damage for alleged unlawful trespass on the land and another N5 million as legal fee and cost of the action.
In his amended statement of claim, the claimant claimed to have been granted legal title and management power over a parcel of land situated at Plot 21A and 21B Association Avenue, Ilupeju covered by a registered Deed of Conveyance dated October 5, 1974 and registered as no 47 at Page 47 in Volume 1470 at the Lagos State Land Registry, Alausa Ikeja measuring approximately 1,654.53 square yards and covered by survey Plan No. AL/87/1973 dated July 31, 1974.
In their amended statement of claim, the claimant claimed to be one of the executor/trustees and beneficiaries of the estate of late Alhaji Musa Ahmadu Bamgbala by the virtue of a will dated March 6, 1976 and Probate certificate No PHC. 16,575 dated May 15, 1992 issued to him by the Lagos State High Court.
Going by the certificate of the Probate, the claimant averred that as executor, he was granted legal title and management power over a parcel of the land situated at Association Avenue, Ilupeju and that by the clause 4 of the will, it was the testator’s wish that the land described in the will be developed and not be alienated at all.
The claimant averred that sometime in January 2013, he received a telephone call from his younger brother, one Yekini Bamgbala that the defendants entered into the property without lawful consent, authority and his knowledge .
The claimant accused the first and third defendants of allegedly damaging the existing fence, cleared the land and deposited sands, granites and bags of cement on the land with a view to erecting structures on the land adding that he, thereby, suffered damage which cost he put at N2 million.
He said he did not get the identity of the person behind the unauthorised entry and construction on the property until recently when it was discovered to be the first and third defendants.
The claimant contended that the entry unto the land by the defendants was unlawful and unauthorised “because the executors have neither sold, assign nor transfer their estate’s interest in the land to the defendants”.
The defendants in their statement of defence filed before the court through one of their counsels, Prince A.A. Adetiloye, denied the averments of the claimants in paragraphs 1 to 10 and 12 and 13 of the amended statement of claim.
They claimed in their defence that the late Bamgbala, before his demise, executed his last Will and Testament dated March 6, 1976 which was admitted to probate by the High Court of Lagos State on March 15, 1992.
They averred that the claimant was not the only executor of their late father’s will and listed other executors to include M. A. Fari, Musa A. Balogun and Musibau A. Bamgbala as first, second and third executors respectively.
The defendants contended that at the time of admitting the will to probate, the first executor was already dead and that probate was only granted three executors including the claimant who they said was the fourth executor of the will.
While the claimant was based in United States, the defendant claimed that he was seised of the conduct of the affairs of the estate.
They averred that there was no where in the will where it was stipulated that the subject matter “shall not be alienated at all” but contended that the specific restriction in clause 4 of the will was that the land is “not to be sold”.
They claimed that the claimant wrote a letter of authorisation dated January 26, 1994 authorising the other two executors, Balogun and Musibau Bamgbala, to act in his absence as signatories for the estate until further notice.
They averred that the estate was unable to develop the land and subsequently offered same for development under development lease to the knowledge of all the executors and other beneficiaries of the estate.
They said the lease was subsequently assigned to the second defendant by Capital Trustees and Nominees Limited by virtue of a Deed of Assignment dated October 6, 2009 consequent upon which they erected a three-storey building, which is now an hotel.
