The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • ‘How monarch escaped death’

    ‘How monarch escaped death’

    The Oluwa of Lagos and Apapa, Chief Mukaila Lawal Oluwa, has told a Lagos Chief Magistrate’s Court, Ikeja, how he miraculously escaped two attempts on his life by some members of his family.

    He was testifying in the trial of Abayomi Shamsideen Oluwa (62), Ismaila Abayomi Oluwa (67), Tajudeen Ototo Oluwa (58), and Muse Adegboyega Oluwa (56).

    They are facing a three-count charge of conspiracy, forgery and threat to life.

    They pleaded not guilty and were released on bail.

    Oluwa said there was an attempt on his life last November 21.

    He said he was in the family office at Apapa when he had the news that a family land had been fenced without being sold.

    “On moving to the place, I sighted the defendants with other hoodlums, from afar, getting close to Nwokolo Street, Apapa, running towards us, carrying dangerous weapons.

    “I saw the danger and quickly alerted my driver to make a U-turn and so we did and escaped. This was the second threat on my life by the defendants,” he alleged.

    According to him, the defendants, who had instituted series of litigations against his promotion from the chieftaincy to Obaship, in spite of a Supreme Court judgment which was delivered in his favour, allegedly forged a court stamp and a principal registrar’s signature and put up a notice, purportedly from the court.

    “This forged notice was pasted on the wall of my palace and all areas of our homestead, including Araromi, as well as Lagos Island, including my official residence, creating fear in the mind of my people and other residents. As a result I received various telephone calls. They also published a notice in The Punch newspaper in March 2013 as a result of which I received telephone calls from friends and relatives asking me whether I have been removed from the palace,”he said.

    He alleged that the defendants took part of a ruling by Justice Ibironke Harrison of the Ikeja High Court and superimposed words that did not emanate from the judge.

    He tendered the ruling in Suit No: LD/1420/2010, delivered on April 22, 2013 by Justice Harrison as an exhibit.

    In the ruling, Justice Harrison had observed: “From a closer look, it appears that a portion of a regular and valid order of court was super-imposed by whatever electronic means on the said public notice which was alleged to be issued under the hand and seal of the presiding judge.

    “The court agrees with the counsel for the first defendant that the above nefarious act was carried out to give the impression that the said document originated from the court and while the claimants counsel attributes the said action of the defendants (which included smuggling an order that was not granted by the court into the purported public notice) as over zealousness; the court finds that it amounts to forgery and that the said action was condemned in the strongest terms as it was intended to mislead and confuse, and the intention was completely mala-fide,”the judge had ruled.

     

  • Ex-worker sues oil firm for N10m over ‘unlawful’ dismissal

    Ex-worker sues oil firm for N10m over ‘unlawful’ dismissal

    A former employee of Waltersmith Petroman Oil Limited, Mrs Loveline Jaiyesinmi has sued the company at the National Industrial Court (NIC) in Lagos over the alleged wrongful termination of her employment.

    She is seeking N10million damages and an order compelling the firm to pay all her entitlements.

    Jaiyesinmi, through her lawyer Mrs Ifeoma Obi, is claiming that she was employed as a Front Desk Officer on August 1, 2010, but the company, contrary to the terms of her contract, refused to confirm her employment after a six month probation period.

    According to her, she was instead given additional duties and was surprisingly issued a reviewed letter of employment dated June 4 last year, which placed her on probation again despite the fact that her probation ended in February 2011 as contained in her first appointment letter.

    She said she applied for maternity leave and was shocked to receive a termination letter on October 8 last year, the same day she was delivered of her baby.

    The basis for her sack, she said, was that she was not entitled to proceed on maternity leave as she was neither confirmed nor had attained six months in the firm’s employment.

    According to her, her dismissal was “unjustifiable and misconceived” because she had been in Waltersmith’s employment for over three years.

    “The letter of employment in June 2013 merely reviewed some terms of my employment and no more,” she said.

    Jaiyesinmi said despite her protests, the company paid her N200,000 as her final entitlements, adding that all through her employment, her pension deductions were never remitted to any fund administrator.

    The claimant said her former lawyer, the late Bamidele Aturu, wrote to the company, but never got a reply even Waltersmith did not pay her while she was on maternity leave nor gave her any leave allowance.

    Jaiyesinmi, therefore, is praying the court to declare as illegal the termination of her employment; order the payment of her salaries (N83,306.20) from October last year till judgment is delivered; and order remittance of N5,365.24 from August 1, 2010, being monthly pension deductions, till judgment.

    The claimant also claimed N115,883.6, being default fee for failing to remit the pension; N106,557.97, being her leave allowance for three years; N10million as damages for her unlawful sack, and N900,000 being cost of the action.

    But the company said Jaiyesinmi was employed as a contract staff, an appointment which ended on May 30 last year. It said she was only offered a permanent employment on June 4 last year.

    Waltersmith said the claimant was not entitled to leave having only just become a permanent staff, adding that she could only proceed on vacation after producing a medical certificate signed by a doctor, which the claimant allegedly did not do.

    “The claimant did not meet the requisite criteria for proceeding on maternity leave neither did she obtain the required approvals,” Waltersmith said.

    The case has been adjourned till December 1 for hearing.

     

  • Firm faults govt’s take-over of Cross Country boss’ trial

    Firm faults govt’s take-over of Cross Country boss’ trial

    A firm, AG Moeller Limited, has faulted the Federal Government’s bid to take over the trial of Cross Country Limited’s Chief Executive Officer Bube Okorodudu.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) charged Okorodudu, Cross Country and Car Link Limited with nine counts of conspiracy, stealing and forgery at the Lagos State High Court.

    It accused them of stealing N82.8 million through the fraudulent sale of 17 units of Volkswagen Transporter buses belonging to AG Moeller, which they denied.

    The Federal Government, through the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice Mohammed Adoke (SAN) had sought to take over the trial.

    The AGF’s office, in a letter to the EFCC by the Federal Director of Public Prosecution, Akin Akintewe, had demanded to takeover the case with the view to forming an opinion on what to do considering the existence of a sister case at the Federal High Court in Lagos involving Okorodudu.

    Subsequently, an order was obtained during the Lagos High Court’s long vacation empowering the AGF to take over the case.

    But AG Moeller’s President and Chief Executive Officer, Kemi Adeloye, in a petition to Adoke, insisted that the AGF lacked the constitutional power to take over the case filed under state laws.

    Adeloye said given Adoke’s antecedents of outstanding success in the legal profession, he (the petitioner) had every reason to believe that the AGF was wrongly briefed by his officers as to the facts of the case.

    According to him, there had been a court decision that the charge against Okorodudu and his companies was not an abuse of court process.

    Adeloye, who insisted that there is no other authority that can be superior to the courts, argued that Akintewe’s letter to EFCC demanding to take over the case was done in utter contempt of court.

    To him, the Federal prosecutor arrogated to himselve the power of adjudication when reaching the conclusion that the charge is an abuse of court process, as against the subsisting ruling delivered by Justice Lawal Akapo of the Lagos High Court on May 26.

    Adeloye alleged there is a bid to frustrate and lay a foundation for eventual failure of the case, thereby denying him justice for the alleged fraud committed against him and his company.

    He added that despite two bench warrants issued by Justice Akapo, Okorodudu had allegedly refused to appear for trial, adding that it would be absurd for the AGF to be associated with an absolute illegality.

    Adeloye, therefore, urged Adoke to investigate the circumstances of Akintewe’s letter to the EFCC demanding to take over the case.

    He further wants the AGF to direct Akintewe to immediately cleanse himself of alleged contempt of court by retracting the September 4 letter.

    Adeloye also urged Adoke to initiate the process of vacating the order empowering the AGF to take over the case because vital facts were allegedly concealed before it was made.

  • SLP: Court hears suit against NBA today

    SLP: Court hears suit against NBA today

    The  Imo State High Court in Owerri will today hear  a suit by a former Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) President  Mrs. Boma Ozobia and Mrs. Bunmi Ibraheemm against the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) president Mr.  Augustine Alegeh (SAN), Mr. Babajide Koku (SAN) and others.

    The plaintiffs are challenging the unilateral  annulment of the election of council members of the NBA Section on Legal Practice (SLP) by Alegeh.

    Alegeh had announced the council’s election annulment in his inaugural speech n August 31. He said the process that produced Mrs Miannaya Essien (SAN) as the section’s chairman did not comply with NBA’s constitution.

    He appointed Mr. Babajide Koku (SAN) as the interim chairman.

    The plaintiffs are seeking an interim injunction restraining Alegeh, Koku and others from parading themselves as officers of SLP and from going on to hold its scheduled conference in  Uyo, Aka Ibom State pending the determination of the substantive suit challenging the powers of  Alegeh to dissolve the council.

    At the last hearing, the court said it was necessary to preserve the res in order not to render the eventual decision nugatory.

    The court retrained parties from “interfering with  the subject matter of this suit in any manner whatsoever pending the determination of the motion on notice.”

    The case was adjourned till today to enable NBA file its defence.

    Essien said: “The NBA SLP is made up of lawyers, who hold tenaciously to all due and democratic processes. All I can say is that all processes and procedure relating to the elections were strictly followed and adhered to. As a senior member of the Bar it will be inappropriate for me to say more as I am aware that the issues have been placed before the Federal High Court and the High Court in Owerri to be determined.

    “I know that there were efforts to resolve the issues with the president. Let us not forget that disputes are a fact of life without which lawyers would not have worked! It may be considered unusual that they went to court, but that depends on your perspective.”

    On what is the status quo to be maintained, Essien said: “ I heard an interim injunction was granted ordering parties to maintain status quo. I am informed that counsel to the defendants in that case Dr. Livy Uzoukwu, (SAN) and Nnawuchi (SAN) were in court. Although I am not a party to the suit it is obvious that as at last August some people were elected and were in office in SLP before the purported appointment of a so-called ‘Interim Chairman’, a position unknown and alien to the NBA Constitution and the SLP Bye-laws.

    “It is said, you cannot resort to an abnormality to create a status quo. Therefore, the status quo in my view and based on the law is that those who occupied those positions in August are properly there pending the resolution of the motion on notice and the dispute in court.”

     

     

     

     

  • Tambuwal’s security withdrawal sparks anger

    Tambuwal’s security withdrawal sparks anger

    It all began with an announcement by House of Representatives Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal last Tuesday that he was no longer a member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).  Citing the development in his home state, Sokoto, as well his people’s yearnings, he told his colleagues that he had joined the All Progressives Congress (APC). He also attended APC’s convention in Abuja.

    Rattled by the development, President Goodluck Jonathan was said to have held an emergency meeting with Deputy Speaker Emeka Ihedioha and others. Barely 24 hours after the convention, the acting Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Suleiman Abba withdrew Tambuwal’s security details saying that  he acted on the basis of Section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

    The action, expectedly generated reactions, with lawyers unanimously condemning it. The IGP, they said, cannot interpret the Constitution; only a court can do so. Analysts accused the police  of usurping the judiciary’s powers.

    Observers have argued that the IGP was not in the position to interpret the Constitution, and that he could only act on the basis of a court order. Many believe Abba was simply acting out the script of the PDP-led Federal Government

     Election and removal of Speaker

    Some analysts have seen the withdrawl of Tambuwal’s security as an admission that it may not be easy to remove him from office. Under Section 50(2)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the senate president or Speaker of the House of Represenhtatives can only be removed by “two-thirds” of all the members of the house, which is 240. Presently, the PDP has 206 members; APC, 151; Accord Party, two and Labour Party one, making a total of 360.

    The section states: “The President or Deputy President of the Senate or the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives shall vacate his office (a)   where he ceases to be a member of the House while the House has not been dissolved; or (b) where the House of which he was a member first sits after any dissolution; or  (c) if he is removed from office by a resolution of the Senate or of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of the members of that House.”

    According to Section 50(1)(a)(b): “There shall be: (a) a President and a Deputy President of the Senate, who shall be elected by the members of that House from among themselves; and (b) a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, who shall be elected by the members of that House from among themselves,” without stating whether the Speaker must come from the majority party.

    The Constitution is not ambiguous on defection of legislators from the platforms they won elections on to another. It expressly gives conditions for legislators to cross-carpet in Section 68(1) and 109(1) for National and State Houses of Assembly.

    Section 68(1)(a-g) state the conditions for which a lawmaker ceases to be a member of the National Assembly. Subsection (g) of 68(1) states that  a defecting member shall not lose his membership if he proves that the reason for his defection is due to divisions in his former political party or if it merges with any other party.

    Currently, PDP’s division is still a subject of litigation. A ‘new PDP’ was at one point created out of the main party, with many lawmakers defecting to APC on that basis.  Several elected officials including some lawmakers in Kogi, Ondo, Ekiti, Anambra and Edo States recently left the parties on whose platforms they were elected into the various state Houses of Assembly and the National Assembly to other parties without losing their seats.

    Legislators, including Ehigie Uzamere (ACN), Uche Ekwunife (APGA), the late Wahab Dosunmu, Adeseye Ogunlewe, Musuliu Obanikoro and Iyiola Omisore all of (AD); Chief Arthur Nzeribe, John Nwanunu and Dr. Usman Kadir of the (ANPP), as well as Satti Godwin (AC) all jumped ship to the PDP and the Federal Government never moved against them. Recently, Ondo State governor, Olusegun Mimiko defected to the PDP and there was not a fuss.

    Tambuwal’s situation has raised the issue of double-standards by state agencies, who, instead of showing loyalty to the people who are their real employers, have resorted to partisan politics and impunity.

     

    Tambuwal’s position

    Challenging the withdrawal of his security details, the Speaker has approached a Federal High Court in Abuja seeking an order of mandamus against the IGP reinstating his security aides.

    He also wants a perpetual injunction restraining the PDP and its National Chairman, Adamu Muazu; the House of Representatives; the Deputy Speaker of the House; the acting IGP; the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) from taking steps to remove him as Speaker before the expiration of his tenure on June 5, next year.

    Tambuwal stated that he had been a member of the ‘New PDP’ when the party became factionalised, adding that his faction of the PDP merged with the APC on November 26, last year. He said by virtue of the merger he became a member of the APC.

    “I know as a fact that all efforts to harmonise the factions of the PDP in my home state in Sokoto has failed as there are still factions in the state. I informed the members of the 3rd defendant (House of Reps) whilst announcing my decision to join the New PDP faction, which merged with the 2nd plaintiff (APC) that my membership of the 2nd plaintiff was based on the circumstances in my home state,” he said.

    He stated that he was aware that the court had in two deferent cases, held that the seats of other former members of the New PDP, who are now members of the APC cannot be declared vacant, citing the case of the PDP and  other vs. Honourable Rasak Atunwa and 20 others, in suit No: FHC/IL/CS/6/2014 delivered on June 26; as well as the case of Ibrahim Magaji Gusau and two others vs Honourable Lawal Mohammed Zyyana and 20 others, in suit No: FHC/S/CS/4/2014 delivered on July 3.

     

    Lawyers’ speak

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) was among groups and individuals who condemned the IGP’s action.

    Its President, Augustine Alegeh (SAN), in a statement  insisted that the police lacked the competence to determine whether or not a provision of the Constitution has been violated.

    ‘That is a function reserved for the courts of law exclusively. The NBA outrightly condemns this action as it is a breach of the constitutional duty of the police to provide police escort and security details to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Tambuwal still remains the Speaker of the House of Representatives and he is entitled to the full paraphernalia of his office including all his Police escort and security details.

    “We must state that the mere fact that Tambuwal defected from one party to the other whilst being the Speaker of the House of Representatives, does not automatically strip him of his position as Speaker and the attendant protection by the Police. The Speaker is not elected by any one political party, but by a majority of members of the House of Representatives,” said NBA.

    Former NBA President, Olisah Agbakoba (SAN) said the decision  to redeploy police personnel attached to the Speaker as a result of his defection is not legal.

    Agbakoba said it is honourable for Tambuwal to resign after defecting to another party, failure to which other affected parties can approach the court demanding same.

    He said: “What the police has done is to interpret and enforce Section 68(1)(g) on its own. This is unconstitutional because it is the duty of the Court to interpret the constitution, not the police. The duty of the police is to enforce the law.”

    Lagos-based lawyer, George Oguntade (SAN) said the IGP misapplied the law in withdrawing Tambuwal’s security, since Abba is not obligated to interpret the constitution on his own volition.

    Oguntade said: “I have no doubt  in my mind that the action of the Acting IG of Police is wrong and certainly cannot be predicated upon the provisions of Section 68(1) (g) of the Constitution as he purports to do.

    “As a preface, it is important to restate that the police institution should detach itself from any involvement in partisan politics. Its constitutional role and functions are clearly delineated. Section 68(1) (g) is quite clear and imposes no duty or obligation whatsoever on the IG of Police.

    “In the event that the Speaker does not vacate his seat as the constitution clearly enjoins him to do, the necessary legal machinery will then be invoked to enforce the provisions of the Constitution.

    “It is only when he has been lawfully removed by an order of court that he would no longer be entitled to security details and then the acting IG will be entitled to act. By acting now, the acting IG has acted prematurely and unconstitutional. In my mind, this kind of action does not augur well for the upcoming general elections,” said Oguntade.

    To a former General Secretary NBA, Olumuyiwa Akinboro, the IGP by his action constituted himself not only as a court, but also as an executive.

    He said: “What the IGP has done is to suo  moto pose to himself the scenarios whether there is division in the PDP or a merger, answered his own questions and executed his belief thereby constituting himself not only to be the court, but also the executive.

    “Was it not in the news that the chairman of the BOT of PDP was in Sokoto about a week back, with other party heavyweights to reconcile faction? Do you reconcile when there are no division? These are some of the questions.

    “The action of the IGP is unconstitutional, undemocratic, autocratic as he lacks not only the constitutional powers, but also the ability and capability to determine the vacancy or otherwise of the seat of the Speaker.”

    Former Lagos State House of Assembly member Babatunde Ogala called it an act of impunity.

    “This is impunity for the Police to take the laws into its hands and withdraw the security details of the Speaker, which the law prescribes for his office under some spurious interpretation of the Constitution.

    “The police and presidency have no role in this.  And it is for the House members to determine that he would no longer be their Speaker by removing him. Neither the presidency nor the police have such powers in law.”

    Lagos lawyer and rights’ activist Mr Theophilus Akanwa, said there is nowhere in the Constitution where the IGP is empowered to withdraw the security details of an elected officer not constitutionally removed from office.

    “The IGP’s action is in  fact,  a breach and contravention of the Speaker’s fundamental rights as provided in Chapter IV of the Constitution as it affects his freedom of association. It is only when the Speaker ceases to hold office that his security can be withdrawn. The IGP should be reminded that the security attached to that office is not solely for Tambuwal as a person, but for that exalted office funded by tax-payers’ money. The Speaker’s security should be restored immediately in the interest of our nascent democracy.”

    Mr Stephen Azubuike said there is nothing in the law which expressly empowers the IGP to withdraw the security details of any senior government official.

    “It is worthy of note that the courts have the exclusive powers to interpret the Constitution and other laws in exercise of the judicial powers  conferred by Section 6 of the1999 Constitution. Hence, any controversy as to the position of Tambuwal as the Speaker may be channeled to the court by any concerned person or authority.

    “So long as no competent court of law has ordered Tambuwal to vacate office, he remains the Speaker and is absolutely entitled to security details.”

    A Lagos lawyer, Mr Chijioke Emeka, said it is all politics, adding: “When did the IGP become a Court to decide when a seat is vacant? This may be a Freudian Slip admitting PDP’s lack of confidence in its ability to wield its majority to unseat Tambuwal. The PDP has consistently shown that its centre cannot hold against the wind of centrifugal forces from its internal contradictions.”

     

     

  • Court hears Braithwaite’s N10b suit against bank today

    Court hears Braithwaite’s N10b suit against bank today

    Hearing will resume today in a N10billion suit filed by elder statesman, Dr. Tunji Braithwaite against a bank at the Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja.

    The court presided by Justice Doris Okuwobi would decide whether to allow the claimant lead his witness with the presentation of a video evidence in the matter.

    Dr. Braithwaite had approached the court, seeking an order declaring as illegal, the erecting of a 14-storey commercial building and multi-level car park by Standard Chartered Bank in Victoria Island, Lagos.

    The claimant had told the court that he is uncomfortable with the bank’s installation of giant industrial generators directly opposite his house with the fumes and noise shattering the serenity.

    At the last hearing, Braithwaite, through one of his witnesses, had wanted to use an electronic devise to demonstrate the hazards associated with the 14 storey structure, with giant generators on upper floors and a multilevel car park, being constructed by the bank, opposite his residence in Victoria Island, Lagos.

    Counsel to the bank, Adeniyi Adegbomire  objected to the move to use an electronic devise to lead the witness in evidence.

    The expert witness, who is an associate professor in the department of Urban and Regional Planning of the University of Lagos, Dr. Tunji Adejumo, had wanted to give evidence in support of the claimant, using a visual aid.

    But Adegbomire had argued that the witness cannot make the video presentation because he was not subpoenaed to the court.

    The applicant, according to him, did not apply to rely on  video evidence during the trial.

    He claimed also that the device has not been served to them, and that they are not privy to the content of the video.

    Adegbomire insisted that allowing the witness would impede their ability to cross-examine him.

    “They did not serve us nor frontloaded it so that we can see the document. How am I expected to cross-examine in this matter? I urge your lordship to direct them to serve us the copies of what they want to show us so we can study it,” he prayed.

    But Braithwaite in his response, said the video evidence which his witness sought to demonstrate in the open court, is already in evidence.

    He explained that paragraph 30 of the statement of claim had indicated that they would be relying on video evidence on technical report.

    The lawyer denied the defendants claim that they were not served a copy of the electronic device.

    He told the court that one of his lawyers went to the office of the defendant’s counsel  to deliver a copy of the electronic evidence a day before the sitting of the court.

    He tendered before the court the  proof of acknowledgment of the electronic device.

    He, therefore, urged the court to dismiss the objection as lacking in substance.

    “Paragraph 30 of the statement of claim gave notice and indicated that we would be relying on video evidence on technical report which is already in evidence.  “If they said they needed a copy, they were already given. A lawyer delivered a copy of the tape to their office yesterday. They were served a copy of what had already been pleaded.

    “I urge your lordship to dismiss his objection as lacking in substance.”

    Adegbomire, having seen the acknowledgment of the video,  pleaded for short adjournment.

    He argued  that notwithstanding  the service of the device to his office, they would need time to study it and  require an expert advice before they could file a response.

    The plaintiff is praying the court to grant him N10billion in damages and for a demolition of the building.( The Court of Appeal, Lagos had earlier stopped further construction of the building at level two.

    Braithwaite told the court that in spite of the stop order of  the Court of Appeal,  the bank  went on to complete the structure.

  • Airline sued over ‘missing’ luggage

    A Jos, Plateau State-based businessman, Adejo Yakubu has  faulted a claim by Ethiopian Airlines that he was not entitled to compensation despite its inability to account for his luggage four years after he boarded the airline’s flight from Beijing, China  to Abuja, Nigeria.

    Last week, Yakubu, through his lawyer, James Attah Adokwe, put a lie to an earlier claim by the airline that what he lost was just hand luggage which weighed 10kilogramm, and for which he was only entitled to US$200 compensation.

    An official of the airline, Gii Emmanuel, an Ethiopian citizen, told a Federal High Court in Abuja, while being cross-examined by Adokwe, that Yakubu actually paid for extra luggage outside the hand baggage, evidence that contradicted his company’s claim that the passenger had just his hand baggage.

    Yakubu, who is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Global Photos and Accessories Nigeria Limited, flew the airline on November 4, 2010 on a return flight from Beijing after a business trip to China. On his arrival at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja on November 5, his luggage, which was duly checked-in   at the departure in Beijing, was discovered missing.

    He complained to the airline officials, who gave him the necessary documents to endorse and give description of items contained in the missing luggage, pledged to help retrieve the missing luggage. About 21 days later when the airline could not produce his luggage, Yakubu’s lawyer wrote the airline, who in a letter dated March 2, 2011, offered to pay US 200 as compensation, claiming that what was missing was hand baggage weighing 10kg.

    In subsequent letter dated August 4, 2011 written by its lawyer, Chris Uguwnayi of the firm of Tayo Laleye and Company , the airline raised its offer to US500 claiming that it was acting on “goodwill basis,” an offer Yakubu rejected, and subsequently proceeded to court and instituted the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/195/2012, with Ethiopian Airlines as sole defendant.

    Yakubu is praying the court for among others, an order directing Ethiopian Airline to pay him N9,584,022 in general and special damages following its inability to account for his luggage and the psychological and emotional  trouble the airline action has caused him.

    He also wants the court to declare that the airline “was negligent/or failed in ts duty to deliver the plaintiff’s baggage on November 5, 2010 and up to date.”

    Alternatively, Yakubu wants the court to order the defendant to pay to him US6,658 as a result of its negligence, which led to the loss of his luggage.

    While testifying last week before Justice Gabriel Kolawole, Emmanuel , who  adopted his witness statement on oath, Emmanuel admitted that the plaintiff was on his company’s flight from Beijing between November 4 and 5, 2010.

    He also admitted that the plaintiff complained about his missing luggage subsequently. He however denied knowledge of the actual content of the missing luggage.

    Justice Kolwole adjourned till January 15 next year for adoption of written addresses.

  • Court restrains ALGON chiefs

    Justice Abdulkadir Abdulkafarati of the Federal High Court, Abuja has restrained Nwabueze Okafor and Ibrahim Dikko, claiming to be National Chairman and Chairman, Board of Trustees of the Association of Local Governments of Nigeria (ALGON) to desist from parading themselves as such.

    Justice Abdulkafarati, while ruling on a suit filed by the Registered Incorporated Trustees of ALGON, Uthman Kassim Ibrahim (Chairman Board of Trustees of ALGON and Prince Cornelius Nnaji on behalf of all serving Local Government Chairmen, specifically ordered parties to maintain status quo ante bellum as at when the suit was filed.

    The order, which is to subsist until the determination of the suit, was informed by arguments by lawyers to parties in the case.

    Plaintiff’s lawyer, Ted Iseghohi-Edwards urged the court maintain status quo as at March last year. He drew the court’s attention to a subsisting judgment where it was held that Okafor and Dikko are not members of the Incorporated Trustees of ALGON and could not institute a case on their behalf.

    Iseghihi-Edwards also drew the court’s attention to two existing orders of the court; one for an order directing Okafor, Dikko and Shittu Bamaiyi Yakmut to show cause, and the other for parties to maintain status quo pending the determination.

    He urged the court to hold that the two orders made on October 15 this year subsists, a request the defendants’ lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) opposed, insisting the  preliminary objection raised by his cleints should be determined first.

    The plaintiffs are, by their suit, challenging the “continued flouting” of an earlier judgment in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/33/2014, dated March 28, 2014, where Justice Abdulkafarati dismissed the suit filed  by the defendants in this case, challenging the eligibility of the plaintiffs to be on the board of ALGON.

    Justice Abdulkafarati held, in the judgment attached to the fresh suit as exhibit: “The irresistible conclusion is that the 2nd and 3rd plaintiff (Okafor and Dikko) are not members of the Incorporated Trustees of ALGON and so, they do not have the locus standi to institute this action in their names and institute the action in the name of the 1st plaintiff (Incorporated Trustees).

    “Having come to conclusion, I hold that the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs have no locus standi to bring this action in their names on behalf of the 1st plaintiff. Secondly, they do not have the locus standi to authorize the institution of this action on behalf of the 1st plaintiff and in its name.

    “On the whole, I hold that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. This suit is an abuse of court process and same is hereby dismissed.”In the fresh suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/719/2014, the plaintiffs are of the view that the either the Registered Trustees led by Kassim Ibrahim or a duly elected Executive of serving Local government Chairmen, is the only body currently recognised by law to run the affairs of ALGON.

    The case has been adjourned to November 20 next yearfor hearing.

  • Southeast roads and Jonathan’s re-election

    The Onitsha-Enugu highway is undoubtedly the worst among the so called expressways in Nigeria today. The tar on that road was completely excavated across several kilometers, more than two years ago, and it has now developed craters at several points. The abandoned road has also been made worse by erosion, which is a major challenge in the Southeast. Travelling on that road last week, I was amused that Anambra State which perhaps has the highest number of high-profile supporters for the re-election of President Goodluck Jonathan has been treated with such ignominy by the government they want re-elected, at all cost.

    In fairness to Anambra politicians, that mess called expressway, stretches all the way to Enugu State, forcing motorists to make a detour into the old Onitsha-Enugu road, starting from Awka to 9th Mile, since the Enugu State government had renovated her portion of the stretch, few years ago. Interestingly, the spate of abandonment of vital infrastructure and monuments in the south-east by the Jonathan administration, first hit me as I passed the Onitsha head bridge, where a perennial joke is played on the south-east, each time a new administration comes into power in Nigeria, in the name of an inland port. In fairness to President Jonathan, it was former President Shehu Shagari, who started that ridicule of announcing the development of a port, without dredging the waterway.

    Of course in vain did I stretch my eyes in search of the new Onitsha bridge, or any tale-tale sign of it, despite the President’s promise to the people when he came asking for their votes in 2011. As I peered into that ancient and combusting center of commerce, and arguably the host of the biggest market in West Africa, I could hear the regal voice of the Obi of Onitsha, Igwe Ofala Okagbue, as he chided President Jonathan less than two years ago over his unkempt promises.  My sense of shame, as a south-easterner, ricocheted as I passed the residence of the late Owelle of Onitsha, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, where the abandoned mausoleum in his honour, confirmed irrevocably that the Azikiwe stunt in President Jonathan’s name which paid off handsomely in the last election was not borne out of any reverence, for that grand patriarch of Nigeria’s independence and statehood.

    Yet the south-east perhaps have their best chance under the current political dispensation to ensure budgetary provisions to completely repair the Onitsha-Enugu highway, among other abandoned roads in the region. As a senior friend pointed out to me as we remonstrated over the tragedy of the politics of Ndigbo, the south-east has prominent persons in President Jonathan’s government who should be held responsible for the abandonment of critical infrastructure in the south-east. He mentioned the Secretary to the Government of the Federation Anyim Pius Anyim, the Coordinating Minister for the Economy and Minister for Finance, Dr. Ngozi Okojo-Iweala, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on works, Senator Anyogu Eze, the Chairman of the House of Representative Committee on Works, Honourable Ogbuefi Ozomgbachi, as the chief culprits.

    We both wondered how such high profile persons could be in their privileged positions and yet were unable to ensure that adequate provisions were made in the national budget for the rehabilitation of that import artery in the south-east. We also reminisced that former Governor of Anambra state, Peter Obi (Okwute) who is a strong supporter of President Jonathan, travels on that road, and yet despite the abandonment, is so vociferous in his unalloyed support for the reelection of President Jonathan, in 2015. We mentioned Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu, Chief Arthur Eze, and several other high profile Peoples Democratic Party bigwigs, who are very outspoken that south-east is securely in the pocket of President Jonathan, as far as the 2015 election is concerned.

    Knowing that President Jonathan travels for short distances in a Helicopter, maybe because the roads are not safe, it is possible that he will land in Onitsha or Awka for his reelection campaign and will be regaled with the falsehood that he is the best thing to have happened to Ndigbo in recent times. I can see President Jonathan in Enugu, dancing to the Atiliogwu dance towards his 2015 reelection campaign, dressed in native attires of Ndigbo, bearing falsely the name Azikiwe, and roaring kwenu, kwenu, in greetings, without knowing that those who travelled on the Onitsha-Enugu highway to attend the rally may be cursing him under their breath, unless of course they had been handsomely settled to attend the rally.

    Talking of settlement, it is interesting that the best know campaign organ for the reelection of President Jonathan, the Traders Association of Nigeria (TAN), sorry, the Transformation Ambassadors of Nigeria (TAN) is also founded and headed by Mr. Ifeanyi Ubah, who is from Anambra state. While many will rail at me or curse me, if I begrudge the business mogul for his ‘acumen and foresight’ in founding and promoting the prime marketing company for the reelection of President Jonathan in 2015, I am worried that he might have to lie to the President should any potential voter query the state of that road, during a campaign stop in his home state. Of course, many believe that reelection campaigns have nothing to do with performance in office.

    In years to come, Sociologists and Anthropologists will be required to unravel the reasons for the uncommon support south-east political leaders have extended to President Goodluck Jonathan starting from 2010 when political fortunes smiled at him, up to the present. On the part of President Jonathan, what is responsible for his shabby treatment of the infrastructure needs of the south-east, despite the harvest of unprecedented support that saved his presidency when it mattered most, may require psychoanalysis?

     

  • Substitution of candidate complete if within stipulated time

    This is an appeal against the judgment  of the Court of Appeal, Benin Division delivered on the 22nd day of May, 2013, in which the Court set aside the decision of the trial Federal High Court that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter instituted after the conduct of the main election as well as the finding of that Court that Edoja Rufus Akpodiete (2nd Respondent) did not withdraw his candidature from the election conducted by INEC (1st Respondent) for Ughelli North Constituency II on 26/4/2011. Accordingly the 2nd Respondent was returned the winner of the election and was issued with a certificate of return.

    Edoja Rufus Akpodiete (2nd Respondent) together with Jenkins Giane Duvie Gwede (Appellant) who was the Plaintiff at the trial Court are members of the Democratic Peoples Party (DPP) (4th Respondent), a registered political party. The 2nd Respondent contested and won the primary election of the Democratic Peoples Party (DPP) for the election into Ugelli North Constituency II for the Delta State House of Assembly. Later on, the 2nd Respondent, by notice in writing to the Democratic Peoples Party (DPP) withdrew from contesting the said election, collected his deposit of N2 million paid to the Democratic Peoples Party (DPP) for the purpose of contesting the election as a result of which the Appellant was used by the Democratic Peoples Party (DPP) to substitute the 2nd Respondent. After the substitution, the 1st Respondent, INEC published a list of candidates for the said election which list included the name of the Appellant as the candidate of the Democratic Peoples Party (DPP). However, without any further instruction or input from the Democratic Peoples Party (DPP), INEC released another list in which the name of 2nd Respondent was put instead of that of the Appellant, as the candidate of the Democratic Peoples Party (DPP).

    On his part, the 2nd Respondent denied that he withdrew from the election and also contended that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the action, an election haven taken place as the matter is a pre-election matter. The election in issue was conducted on the 26th day of April, 2011 while the action was instituted on the 29th day of April, 2011. The Appellant herein along with the Democratic Peoples Party (DPP) jointly commenced a suit at the Federal High Count sitting at Asaba. At the conclusion of hearing, the trial Court not only concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter but dismissed same. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Benin Division on seven grounds of appeal and on the 22/5/2013 the Court of Appeal delivered judgment allowing the appeal in part. The Court of Appeal found as a fact that the 2nd Respondent withdrew from contesting the election and that the Appellant was used to substitute him but after agreeing that the trial Court erred, the Court of Appeal refused to grant the reliefs claimed from the trial Court and also refused to grant the consequential orders. Not satisfied with the final conclusion of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on four grounds complaining against that part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal they had reservations about. All the Respondents save the 3rd respondent, Julius Oghenevwegba Bobi Cross-Appealed.

    The Appellant in the main appeal generated four issues for the determination of the appeal.

    Having regards to the facts of this case as found by the Court of Appeal and the applicable law on the issue of nomination and/or substitution of a candidate by a political party, the Supreme Court held the view that the Court of Appeal was in error in dismissing the suit of the Appellant at the trial Court, there being no claim before the Court challenging the validity of the nomination by substitution of the Appellant for the 2nd Respondent. The Court held that the Court of Appeal was therefore in error in regarding the substitution of the Appellant as defective or irregular. The Court stated the decision of the Supreme Court that publication of the list of candidates to contest an election by INEC is an administrative act which does not confer or take away validity from a duly nominated or substituted candidate. Nomination or substitution of a candidate is complete the moment INEC receives the necessary documents effecting same from the political party within the stipulated time. See KUBOR VS DICKSON (2013) ALL FWLR (PT 676) 392 AT 426–427; (2012) LPELR-9817(SC). Issues 1 and 2 were resolved in favour of the Appellant.

    On the 3rd and 4th issues which learned counsel for the Appellant also argued together, the pith and substance of his submission is that the basis for substitution of a candidate at an election is as provided in Sections 33 and 35 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). That once there is evidence of withdrawal of a candidate and this followed by the act of forwarding same to INEC by the Political Party concerned the substitution is completed and effective. It was the further submission of counsel that once a candidate has withdrawn his candidature, the person who nominated him and their nomination cannot be reckoned with any more, relying on Section 32(4) of the Electoral Act, 2010, that the issue of irregularity of the nomination of the Appellant was raised suo motu by the Court of Appeal as it never arose from the decision of the trial court nor on appeal or cross appeal before the Court; that the Court of Appeal was therefore in error in using the issue so raised suo motu in deciding the matter.

    Deciding issues 3 and 4, the Court agreed with the submission of counsel for the Appellant that the issue of irregularity of the nomination of the Appellant was raised suo motu by the Court of Appeal and without opportunity for the parties, particularly the Appellant to address the Court on it. The Court stated that it is settled law that a Court may raise an issue suo motu but where it decides to base its decision on the matter on the issue so raised, the Court is duty bound to invite counsel for the parties to address on it, particularly the party who would be adversely affected by the result of the exercise. The Court held that the Court of Appeal was clearly in error. These issues were resolved in favour of the Appellant.

    In the final analysis, the Court held the main appeal by the Appellant as well as the cross-appeal by the 4th Respondent succeeds and they were allowed while the cross-appeals of the 1st and 2nd Respondents failed and were accordingly dismissed.

     

    • Edited by LawPavilion

    LawPavilion Citation: (2014) LPELR-23763(SC)