The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Appeal court

  • Appeal Court dismisses Akume’s, Yaro’s suit

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja yesterday dismissed an appeal filed by S. T. Hon (SAN) on behalf of two All Progressives Congress (APC) chieftains – Senator George Akume and APC State Chairman Abba Yaro.

    The Federal High Court, on the prompting of Sunday  Ibrahim Ameh (SAN), the lawyer to an APC governorship aspirant, Emmanuel Jime, discontinued the case against Akume and Yaro,  which the High Court granted. But the duo objected and approached the Court of Appeal.

    Dismissing the case yesterday, Appeal Court justices agreed with Ameh that the appeal filed by Hon was incomplete and lacked merit.

    Ameh had informed the Appeal Court that by the rules of the court, the records of the appeal were to be transmitted within seven days after the filing of the notice of appeal.

    He urged the court to strike out the appeal.

    Hon was absent in court, although he was represented by another lawyer, Gideon Iorver, who sought an adjournment on the grounds that he did not come to court with the file.

    The lawyer was later provided with a copy of the court’s file.

    In its ruling, the court chastised Hon for bringing an incompetent appeal in a pre-election matter.

    It dismissed the case, which it described as incompetent, incoherent and a blatant waste of the court’s time.

     

  • Appeal Court upholds dismissal of Assemblies of God’s leader

    THE Court of Appeal Court sitting in Enugu yesterday upheld the suspension and subsequent dismissal of former General Superintendent of Assemblies of God Church Rev. Paul Emeka.

    It set aside a ruling by an Enugu High Court for the reinstatement of Emeka.

    The three judges said the lower court lacked the “lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter under Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution”.

    They noted that Emeka’s suit, which was brought under enforcement of fundamental human right, was “inappropriate”.

    Justice Akomaye Adim, who read the unanimous decision on behalf of the three judges, declared that the award of N30 million as damages by the High Court against the Assemblies of God Church was a nullity.

    Justice Adim said the crisis in the church was due to the former General Superintendent’s refusal to carry along other members of the Executive Council.

    The court noted that Emeka was hostile to other council members because they challenged his personal views.

    It said the church leader’s conduct was “a display of autocracy which is against the Majority Rule Principle.”

    On the contention about chairmanship of the General Committee, where Emeka’s suspension and dismissal were affirmed, the court said members of the committee had the right to choose any of them to preside over the meeting.

    It ruled there was no evidence that Emeka’s predecessor, Dr. Charles Osueke, usurped his power by presiding over the meeting after election by members of the General Committee.

    The post of General Superintendent, the court affirmed, was not the exclusive property of Emeka, but that of the members of church.

    It said members of the church have the right to withdraw the mandate given to anyone to act as General Superintendent at any given time.

    The Court ruled that the absence of Emeka from the March 6, 2014 meeting “excludes him from claiming that his right to fair hearing was infringed upon.”

    The judges also granted the request barring Emeka from seeking further relief from any court, saying this was in tandem with the constitution of the church.

    Speaking with reporters after the judgment, the church’s lead counsel, Chief D.C Denwigwe (SAN), thanked the court its positions, which he said will restore peace to the church.

    Attempts to get the reactions of Emeka were unsuccessful as he did not pick calls when contacted.

     

     

  • Appeal court reserves judgment in property suit

    Appeal court reserves judgment in property suit

    The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has reserved judgment in a dispute over the ownership of a piece of land in Asokoro, Abuja.

    A Nigerian in the Diaspora, Mr. Imokhuede Ohikhuare, built two duplexes on the land, but a former Nigerian Envoy to South Africa, Ambassador Shehu Malami, claimed ownership.

    He claimed to have transferred the property to a businessman, Sir Emeka Offor.

    A three-man panel of Justices W. Akomolafe, Tanin Yusuf and Moh’d Yusuf reserved the case for judgment after hearing the parties.

    It is expected that the Appeal Court would deliver judgment on the appeal within two weeks as is the practice of the appellate court whenever it reserves judgment in matters before it.

    At the hearing of the matter on April 1, 2015 the Appeal Court justices confirmed the written briefs submitted to it on the matter and listened to oral arguments by counsel to the appellant, Mr. Paul Erokoro (SAN) and Mr Femi Falana (SAN) as well as the lawyer representing Ambassador Malami and Sir Offor – Chief Udenwa Udechukwu (SAN).

    The case, numbered CA/A/370/2012, has been before the Court of Appeal since 2012.

    Ohikhuare, a businessman and appellant in the matter, said he bought the land in 2006 for N50 million, and built residential apartments valued at about N1billion on the land.

    He said for four years, Malami and Offor did not lay claims to Plot 1809 Asokoro. He was living with his family in the property until he was allegedly ejected from it, on the strength of a verdict by Judge A.S. Umar of an Abuja High Court.

    In March 2010, Ambassador Malami filed a suit at an Abuja High Court before Judge A.S. Umar against the minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the Federal Capital Development Agency (FCDA) and a former Minister of Transport, Alhaji Mohammed Habib Aliyu, who sold the land to Ohikhuare.

    Ohikhuare only learnt of this suit as he was not joined in the matter by Malami even when it was apparent that Ohikhuare was in legitimate possession of Plot 1809, Asokoro. Consequently, Ohikhuare sought to be joined in the matter.

    Malami had claimed that the land was originally allotted to him in 1984, but was unlawfully revoked in October 2005 by the FCDA, which, thereafter, assigned Plot 1809 to Alhaji Aliyu, who eventually sold the land to Mr. Ohikhuare.

  • Appeal Court reserves judgment on suit against Aregbesola

    Appeal Court reserves judgment on suit against Aregbesola

    The Akure Division of the Federal Court of Appeal Monday reserved judgment on the appeal filed by the Governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the August 9, 2014 Governorship election in Osun state, Senator Iyiola Omisore against the ruling of the state Elections Petition Tribunal which nullified his petition.

    The five- member panel of Judges of the court announced through Justice Gana Mcshella at the end of Monday’s hearing which lasted for over six hours

    He said that the date of final judgment on Omisore’s appeal would be passed across to all the parties in the matter through their counsels.

    Omisore who appealed against the ruling of the Election Petitions Tribunal delivered on February 6, is asking the appeal Court to set aside the ruling of the tribunal.

    He argued that the tribunal headed by Justice Elizabeth Ikpejime failed to examine the issues raised in his petition properly.

    The 2014 PDP governorship candidate also hinged his appeal on the ground that the tribunal in its assessment failed to evaluate the evidences submitted by him through experts.

    Omisore had approached the Elections Petition Tribunal following his defeat in the August 14 Governorship election, challenging the results of the election in 17 Local Government Areas of the state where he argued that there were electoral malpractices and rigging.

    At the hearing Monday, Lead Counsel to Senator Omisore, Alex Isiyoung (SAN) argued that the tribunal erred in its ruling as it failed to examine all the allegations and issues raised by the petitioner passionately.

    He argued that the tribunal failed to address the allegations of corrupt practices and non compliance to electoral acts in the election that produced Governor Rauf Aregbesola and therefore urged the Appeal Court to discountenance the judgment of the tribunal.

    He maintained that Aregbesola failed to get the total number of lawful votes in the August 14 Governorship election which eventually produced him, and thereby prayed the court to upturn the ruling of the tribunal.

    Isiyoung stressed the need for the Appeal Court to declare Omisore as the winner of the August 14 Governorship election in Osun state.

    According to him, his client had the highest number of lawful votes in the election.

    However, counsel to Governor Aregbesola, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Chiefs Akin Olujimi (SAN) and Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN) respectively objected the grounds of the appeal, arguing that the tribunal was clear and unbiased in its ruling.

    Specifically, the Lead Counsel to Aregbesola, Chief Olujimi said the ruling of the Elections Petition Tribunal which upheld the victory of Governor Aregbesola was unchallengeable as according to him it was decided after thorough investigations.

    According to him the appellant made no case at the tribunal as only seven out of 230 witnesses he called made allegations of rigging during the Governorship election.

    He however argued that out of the seven people there was no polling agent among them, stressing that only polling agents could testify to allegation of rigging in any election.

    He said “even the principal witnesses presented as expert witnesses failed to present expert testimonies. They only looked at electoral materials and made comments, which any literate person could as well do.”

    Olujimi who cited the case of Ngige versus INEC in his submission, maintained that the appeal of the appellant lack in merit and prayed the court to dismiss the case.

    In his submission, counsel to the APC, Chief Akeredolu who prayed the court to strike out the appeal, stressed that there was no reason to fault the ruling of the tribunal in the interest of justice.

    Also, counsel to INEC urged the court to strike out the appeal, arguing that “the entire evidence elicited by INEC under cross examination is deem to be the evidence of INEC.”

    The five members Appeal Panel Judges therefore reserved judgment in the case, assuring that the judgment date would be communicated to all parties involved in the matter.

  • Appeal Court dismisses Elerewe’s case

    Appeal Court dismisses Elerewe’s case

    The Court of Appeal sitting  in Akure has dismissed an appeal filed by the Elerewe Family of Owo over a land dispute.

    An Owo High Court had earlier held that the land belonged to the Sadibo family of Oke -Ogun , Owo.

    Dissatisfued, the family appealed, praying the appellate court to overturn the lower court’s verdict.

    The Appeal Court, presided over by Justice Cordelia Jombo-Ofo,  dismissed the applicant’s appeal for lacking in merit.

    It re-affirmed  the lower court’s judgement delivered by Justice  Olaseinde Kumuyi  that the land in dispute belongs to Sadibo family.

    The court did not  award any cost.

    Justice  Jombo-Ofo held: “This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. I hereby affirm the judgement of  the High Court of Ondo State, sitting at the Owo Judicial Division and delivered by Hon.Justice Olasehinde Kumuyi on March 25, 2010 in suit No: HOW/ 24/2002.”

    In his reaction, the head of Sadibo family, High Chief Wilson  Babatunde Sadibo said he had been vindicated.

    “It was a landmark judgment. It was indeed a very sound judgement, very articulate, detailed and precise. It did not leave room for controversy. It was a brilliant adjudication,” he said.

     

     

  • Appeal Court clears Jonathan to contest election

    Appeal Court clears Jonathan to contest election

    THE Court of Appeal in Abuja held yesterday that President Goodluck Jonathan was qualified to contest the next presidential election.

    The court held that Jonathan had never taken the oath of office as elected president, except in 2011 and could not be said not to be qualified to further stand election.

    In a unanimous judgment by a five-man bench, the court held that President Jonathan could not be said to have taken the of office as President twice before now, because he became President after the death of President Umar Yar’Adua, not through election, but by mere constitutional provision.

    The judgment was on an appeal filed on April 16, 2013 by Cyracus Njoku, who challenged the March 13, 2013judgment by Justice Mudashiru Oniyangi (then of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), but now of the Court of Appeal).

    Justice Oniyangi had dismissed Njoku’s suit and held that President Jonathan was eligible to contest in 2015.

    On whether Njoku has locus standi to initiate the suit, the appellate court agreed with Justice Oniyangi’s finding that he did not by virtue of the fact that the case was speculative and imaginary, and that none of the reliefs conferred any benefit on him.

    Justice Datijo Yahaya, in the lead judgment, upheld Justice Oniyangi’s finding as to the eligibility of President Jonathan for the next presidential election.

  • Appeal Court reserves judgment in suit challenging President’s re-election

    Appeal Court reserves judgment in suit challenging President’s re-election

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja yesterday reserved judgment in the case challenging President Goodluck Jonathan’s eligibility to stand for re-election.

    Presiding Judge Datijo Yahaya, after entertaining arguments from lawyers representing parties, said they would be informed of the judgment date. Other Justices on the five-man panel that heard the appeal include Mrs. Akomolafe Wilson, T.Y. Hassan, J. E. Ekannem and M. Mustapha.

    The appeal was filed on April 16, 2013 by Cyriacus Njoku, who is challenging the judgment of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court delivered by Mudashiru Oniyangi (now of the Court of Appeal) who had earlier ruled that Jonathan was eligible to contest.

    Yesterday, appellant’s lawyer, Okon Obon-Obla urged the court to allow his client’s appeal and grant his prayer to reverse the decision of the lower court.

    He equally urged the court to hold that it was wrong for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to declare President Jonathan as its presidential candidate and proceeded to adopt him in the capacity while the appeal was not yet decided.

    Obono-Obla also urged the court to hold that, as against the respondents’ contention, Njoku has the locus standi (right to sue) to file the case.

    President Jonathan and the PDP, represented by the party’s National Legal Adviser, Victor Yusufu Kwon, urged the court to dismiss the appeal.

    Kwon said Jonathan, by presenting himself for election, was acting within the provision of the law.  He said the PDP’s adoption of Jonathan as its presidential candidate was supported by the existing judgment of Justice Oniyangi.

    “The party nominated Dr. Goodluck Jonathan as its Presidential candidate and in doing that it was in line with the extant judgment, so it is wrong for anybody to suggest that the PDP acted lawlessly in adopting the President”, Kwon said.

    Njoku had, in 2012 filed the suit before the FCT High Court and sought among others, a declaration that Jonathan’s tenure of office as President began on May 6, 2010 when his first term began and his second term shall end on May 29, 2015 after taking his second oath on May 29, 2011.

    He had argued that by virtue of Section 136 (1) (b) of the Constitution, no person (including the Jonathan) could take the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Office prescribed to in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution more than twice.

    Njoku sought an order of injunction restraining Jonathan from further contesting or attempting to vie for the office of the President of Nigeria after May 29, 2015 when his tenure ends.

    He also asked for an order restraining the PDP (2nd Defendant) from sponsoring or attempting to sponsor Jonathan as candidate for election to the office of the President in the 2015 presidential election after the expiration of his two terms on May 29, 2015.

    In his judgment on the March 13, 2013, Justice Oniyangi dismissed the case and held that President Jonathan was free to contest the 2015 presidential election on the platform of the PDP.

  • Appeal Court fights delay

    •Inaugurates new rules, case management system

    THE Court of Appeal has unveiled new rules to frustrate delay by lawyers.

    The Court of Appeal (fast track) Practice Direction, 2014 and Active Case Management Process – were unveiled before stakeholders, comprising members of the Bench and Bar in Abuja.

    President of the Court of Appeal (PCA), Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, told the gathering that the Fast-Track Practice Direction is a set of directions, with the fundamental objective of enabling the court to deal with fast-track appeals quickly and efficiently through the introduction of the Active Case Management (ACM).

    She explained that the ACM process allows the court to adopt the best skills and case management techniques to secure efficient and speedy administration of justice.                       According to the PCA, the court is empowered, under the new Practice Direction, to sue motu (without being prompted), exercise the various case management techniques to abridge time for compliance with any rule, practice direction or court order; brig forward a proceeding, convene a case management conference and consolidate proceedings.

    Also, Paragraph 8 of the 2014 Practice Direction retains the provision in the 2011 Rules, which stipulates the size of briefs. Briefs in interlocutory appeals are limited to 15 pages, while final appeals are limited to 25 pages. It also stipulates the type of paper to be used, the font size and line spacing to adopt in preparing a brief.

    Paragraph 14 provided that the requirement that a document should be signed is satisfied and the signature is printed by a computer or other mechanical means. For instance, a document served via electronic means will be deemed to have been signed by the person, who owns or subscribed to the electronic source account if the signature appears on the document or its cover message as the sender.

    The Fast-Track case management process will be applied to appeals relating to debt cases, corruption, human trafficking, kidnapping, money laundering,  rape, terrorism and appeals involving  agencies involved in the protection of human rights, intelligence, law enforcement, as well as prosecutorial or security agencies like the Economic and financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the department of State Services (DSS).

    Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Lagos, Justice Amina Augie said the innovations were informed by the need to curb the delay being experienced in the handling of cases in the court. She was optimistic that the measures would go a long way in curbing delay in the court process.

    The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta agreed with Justice Augie’s observation that lawyers use the Court of Appeal to stall cases by filing interlocutory appeals, which they mostly do not prosecute.

    He urged Justices of the court to be firm in applying the new Practice Direction and case management system because lawyers will try to resist the innovations. He assured that appellate court Justices of the support of his court in ensuring the success of the new ideas.

    The Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Ibrahim Bukar, said similar measures introduced by his court some years back failed because the lawyers resisted. He said the success of the initiatives by the appellate court was dependent on the willingness of the judges to ensure they succeed.

    “What we need most to ensure that these initiatives succeed is the judges coming together to ensure its success in achieving quick dispensation of justice. I want to believe that if the leadership of the Judiciary will stand by the judicial officers, some of these abuses will reduce,” he said.

    Justice Bukar said where lawyers intimidate judicial officers by writing frivolous petitions to the NJC was not only distracting, it was discouraging. He said judges, who go about their duties conscientiously, will only be encouraged where he is sure the leadership of the Judiciary will protect him/her.

    The General-Secretary of the NBA, Affam Osigwe, who spoke for lawyers, said it required the commitment and collaboration of the Bench and Bar to eradicate delay in the judicial process.

  • Appeal Court upholds Lagos monarch’s title

    Appeal Court upholds Lagos monarch’s title

    The Onigbanko of Igbankoland, Badagry,  Oba Babatunde Adekunle. Lawal, has won a major legal battle to retain his title.

    The  Court of Appeal, sitting in  Lagos has dismissed an appeal seeking to set aside the title of Oba Onigbanko of Igbanko land, in Badagry Local Government Area of the state.

    In a unanimous judgment,  Justices of the Court of Appeal, Rita Nosakharepemu, Chinwe Eugenia Iyizoba and JamiuYammamaTurkur, upheld the judgment of a Lagos High Court delivered by Justice Fatai Afolabi Adeyinka  (rtd) on  June 27, 2002 in suit No ID/544/95.

    The appellants,  Benjamin Olayemi Akinyele, Peter  Olufunmi Adeyemi and Salami Agbajelola Ilo, had sued the Badagry Local Government Area and Oba Babatunde Adekunle Lawal before Justice Adeyinka.

    They sought, among others, a declaration that the Oba Onigbanko of Igbanko land (Approval of change of title) Notice: 2 of 1995 is contrary to the recognised custom of Igbanko and Irede Communities.

    They prayed for  an order setting aside the Oba Onigbanko of Igbanko land title.

    They also asked for an order restraining the Badagry Local Government and the Lagos State Government from changing the title of Onigbanko of Irede to Onigbanko of Igbanko land.

    The plaintiff asked for an order restraining Oba Babatunde Adekunle Lawal from parading himself as Onigbanko of Igbanko land.

    Oba Babatunde Lawal, in his counter claim, sought  among other things, an order that only his blood relation and descendants Ogabi Aroporiojoye can be appointed as Ogboni-Isa  and not just anybody from Igbanko Community. He averred that such person shall be a nominee of Onigbanko of Igbanko land.

    Justice Adeyinka upheld the prayers of Oba Lawal. Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellants headed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos.

    The notice of appeal was founded 10 grounds.

    In his lead judgment, Justice  Yammama upheld the historical narration of Oba Lawal that his progenitors emanated from Ile-Ife about 300 years ago and travelled through many places before arriving at Igbanko. He added that the village now known as Igbanko was the founding village that gave birth to the Obaship the subject matter of the case.

    Justice Turkur noted that the first Oba of Igbanko was the founder of many villages around the area, including Irede and that the first Oba of Igbanko was Ogabi Awoporojoye and that the title was change to Onigbanko of Irede during the reign of the second Onigbanko, Oba Ajose Adawongoriokerbaje when he moved from Igbanko to Irede. The trial judge the naration of how Irede then became the headquarters of Igbanko and that “Onigbanko” means the owner of Igbanko who  reigned at Irede.

    The Court of Appeal held that Oba Lawal’s history of Igbanko and its environ “is congent, credible, authentic and represents the truth of the history of Igbanko and its environs’’.

    The judge noted that Ogabi Aworopojeye, the founder and first Onigbanko of Igbanko successively handed the title down to Oba Babatunde AdekunleLawalthe 10th and the incumbentOnigbanko.

    The judge declared that the appellants’ history of Igbanko and its environ “is an after-thought”.

    The Justice of the Court of Appeal said: “ With the resolution of all the issues against the appellants, it naturally follows that the appeal fails and is not allowed. It is dismissed.”

     

     

     

  • Agbaso: Appeal Court orders retrial

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Owerri, Imo State capital, has referred the case between the impeached former Deputy Governor of Imo State, Sir Jude Agbaso, and the state government back to the Lower Court with a warning that cases should not be rushed to the Appellate Court from the lower Court by lawyers and litigants.

    Delivering the lead judgment in the suit number CA/OW/291/2013, Justice Peter Ige ruled on the prayer that the Court of Appeal should make substantial order on the issue at stake, maintaining that the court cannot assume the role of the Lower Court.

    He ordered that the parties should go back to the Lower Court for the continuation and determination of the substantive matter, while advising lawyers and litigants to stop rushing on appeal each time an interlocutory pronouncement was made.

    “The nearness of the Appeal Court should not be a license for lawyers and litigants to come on appeal, while the main issue lies unattended to. Parties should go back to the Lower Court and fully comply with the order of Hon. Justice Nonye Okoronkwo”, Justice Ige stated.

    Agbaso, in the suit number CA/OW/187/2013, had challenged the position of the lower court, where he pleaded lack of fair hearing by the Ad-Hoc Committee set up by Imo State House of Assembly on his impeachment by the house in 2013.