The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Appeal court

  • Appeal Court declares Ondo Rep’s seat vacant

    •Lawyers file appeal today

    The Appeal Court sitting in Akure, the Ondo State capital declared vacant yesterday the seat of the lawmaker representing Akure South/North Federal Constituency at the House of Representatives, Mr Ifedayo Abegunde.

    Abegunde’s counsel Segun Akanmode condemned the judgment, saying he would file an appeal today at the Supreme Court.

    The lawmaker approached the appellate court to set aside the judgment of Justice G.O Okeke of the Federal High Court, which earlier declared vacant the seat of the legislator in May 2012.

    Abegunde, a former member of the Labour Party (LP) defected to the defunct the Action Congress (ACN). He took the LP to court, justifying his defection and claimed that his former party had crisis which led to divisions.

    While upholding the judgment of the lower court, the appellate court, presided over by Justice A.G Mishella, said Abegunde’s appeal lacked merit, saying that there was no division in his former party.

    The court then asked the appellant to vacate the seat, having violated Section 68 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution.

    Abegunde, through his aide, Saka Yusuf-Ogunleye, urged All Progressives Congress (APC) members to remain calm, stressing that justice awaits them at the apex court.

    He said: “We have seen the judgment coming in the same direction since the last sitting for adoption of addresses by counsel to both parties. In fact, we learnt about this judgment was not issued to our lawyers and kept us guessing just in a way to ambush us from further exercising our fundamental rights.

    “We will file our appeal and other necessary things will follow to challenge this miscarriage of justice. We have decided to take the matter to the apex court and confident that we will get justice there.”

    Ogunleye noted that Governor Olusegun Mimiko has indicated interest to defect to the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP) from the LP. He added that Senator Boluwaji Kunlere defected from LP to PDP a few weeks ago.

    Kunlere is the senator representing Ondo South.

    “We don’t know the moral justification why Mimiko is using tax payer’s money to pursue Abegunde, while he has abandoned his electoral promises.

    “However, our hope on  judiciary is not lost despite our inability to get justice at the lower and appellate courts. We are keeping hope alive that the apex court will right the wrongs.”

  • Appeal Court nullifies Ebonyi council polls procedure

    •We’re heading to  Supreme Court, says Attorney-General

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Enugu has declared that the open ballot system used in the conduct of the September 28, 2013 local government elections in Ebonyi State was inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution.

    The court, in a 53-page judgement delivered at the weekend, held that Mr. Peter Nwali, the All Progressives Congress (APC) Organising Secretary, was denied the right to his privacy as stipulated in S.5 (1) and paragraph 21 (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the First Schedule to Ebonyi State Electoral (Amendment) and Related Matters Law 2010.

    The court said Nwali’s right to vote and be voted for was violated during the election because the right had not been shown to have complied with Section 45 (1) of the 1999 Constitution.

    Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim delivered the verdict on behalf of Justices Saidu Tanko Husaini and Misitura Omodoere Bolaji-Yusuff in a suit filed by Nwali.

    The APC chieftain, on August 28, filed a suit at the Federal High Court in Abakaliki against the Ebonyi State Independent Electoral Commission, the Speaker of the House of assembly, the Attorney-General of the State and the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC), the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Ebonyi State Government.

    He applied for the enforcement of his fundamental right to privacy, praying for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from using the open ballot system to conduct the local government elections.

  • Ngige: Appeal Court reserves judgment

    Ngige: Appeal Court reserves judgment

    The Enugu Division of the Court of Appeal yesterday reserved judgment in an appeal brought against the ruling of the Anambra State Tribunal by Senator Chris Nwabueze Ngige, and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    It prayed the higher court to overturn the final judgment of the tribunal and nullify the governorship elections of November 16, 2013, later extended to November 17 and November 30 of the same year.

    “Judgment is hereby reserved till a date that will be communicated to learned senior counsel and other counsel,” said Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, who presided over the five-man panel that adjudicated on the appeal yesterday, even as a nationwide strike of judicial workers is on.

    Ngige and APC argued on the basis of a brief based on 17 grounds of appeal through the lead counsel, Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN), who submitted  that the constitutional provision that the display of a voter register must be done within 60 days to the election, and the publication of the corrected register to be used for the election must be done before 30 days to the election.

    Joined in the matter are the Resident Electoral Commissioner for Anambra State, Chief Willie Obiano, candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and APGA itself.

  • Appeal Court sets aside Offa monarch judgment

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Ilorin, the Kwara State capital, yesterday set aside the 2012 judgment of the high court dismissing the counter-claim of one of the claimants to the Olofa of Offa stool.

    In its cross appeal, the Anilelerin ruling house  approached the court, praying it to declare that there is no rotation to Olofa’s stool; a declaration that only Anilelerin ruling house exists and a declaration that the State Gazette of 1970 is not statute-barred.

    The Court of Appeal also declined to comment further on the matter as it is before the Supreme Court.

    The appellate court affirmed the existence of two ruling houses in the ancient town.

    The two ruling houses are Anilelerin and Olugbense.

    The appellate court in July, last year declared the selection and installation of the Anilelerin candidate, Alhaji Mohammed Mufutau Gbadamosi, as the Olofa of Offa as illegal.

    The state High Court sitting in Offa in 2012 dismissed the counter-claim of Anilelerin ruling house as statute-barred, though the trial court had declared legal Gbadamosi’s selection and installation.

    Mr. Justice Suleiman Akanbi of the High Court said: “The people of Offa and honest kingmakers, guided by their conscience, are to determine the Olofa of Offa.

    “The gazette, which gives room for the two ruling houses to exist, was ominously silent on rotation.

    “What then is the business of the court to do otherwise?”

    But in a unanimous judgment, the three-man panel, led by Justice A. G Mshelia, said the “manner in which the judge handled the counter-claim was inequitable and perverse”.

    Other members of the panel include Justice A Jauro and Justice R.N Pemu.

    The judgment, which was read by Justice Pemu, added:  “The aspect of the judgment that says the counter-claim is statue-barred is hereby set aside”.

    On the gazette (Exhibit J), which was made by the military government of Kwara State in 1970, the appellate court said it was decided in the earlier judgment of this same court, adding that that  is covered by issue estoppels.

    The court added “that the issue is now before the Supreme Court in the appeals by the deposed Oba and that  by kingmakers.

    “That issue is the paramount issue and the court can no longer decide on it.”

  • Appeal Court to Edo lawmakers: obey our orders

    The Court of Appeal in Benin City has dismissed the application for a stay of execution brought before it by the four suspended lawmakers of the Edo State House of Assembly.

    It said the appeal by the lawmakers was “undue haste and jumping the gun”.

    The court said the lawmakers must obey court orders.

    The lawmakers sought a stay of execution on an order of a Benin High Court, which restrained them and the police from entering the Assembly and the legislative quarters.

    In a unanimous judgment read by Justice H.M Ogunwumuji, the court held that the applicants were hasty in filing the appeal, instead of allowing the motion on notice to be heard by the lower court.

    It held that it was a court that decides the nullity and validity of its decision and not the parties involved. The court said the appeal was premature.

    Taking a swipe at Festus Ebea, Patrick Osayimwen, Jude Ise-Idehen and Friday Ogieriakhi, Justice Ogunwunmiju ruled that a party, who was in contempt of a court order, cannot be allowed to seek or obtain any relief from the court while the contempt persists.

    She held that a party, who believes that an order against him was made without jurisdiction, is still bound to obey same, until it is set aside.

    Justice Ogunwumiju said the parties could not be in contempt of a lower court and be seeking a higher court orders. She dismissed the appeal and awarded no cost.

    The four lawmakers approached a Federal High Court in Benin City and obtained an interim order to restrain the Speaker from declaring their seats vacant, in line with Section 109 of the 1999 Constitution.

    They also prayed that both the Speaker and the House should be restrained from suspending them.

    The Federal High Court ordered Speaker Uyi Igbe not to declare their seats vacant, pending the determination of the suit.

    It, however, refused the prayer for an injunction restraining the applicants from being suspended from the House.

    Justice A.M Liman ruled: “The disciplinary power of the House is not subject to the judicial review of the court.

    “Accordingly, the application to restrain the second respondent from suspending the applicants from the House is hereby refused.”

    On June 9, the four lawmakers were suspended from plenary by the Assembly for “gross misconduct”, in accordance with the rules of the House.

    Igbe and the House approached the State High Court to restrain the four suspended members from forcing themselves into the chambers, pending the determination of the case the House instituted against them.

    The State High Court granted an interim order restraining the four suspended members from forcing themselves into the chambers.

    In flagrant disobedience of the court order, the four lawmakers have continued to sit in the chambers.

    A court bailiff, Oarhe Sule, who was at the House of Assembly to serve contempt notices on the four suspended lawmakers was insulted and sent away by Ebea.

    Ebea said: “You want to serve me papers here. You are mad. Leave my sight.

    “This idiot said he wants to serve me papers. That is how you go about to procure cheap and fake papers. Go to hell with it.”

    Counsel to the lawmakers Ferdinand Orbih said they would study the ruling and react appropriately.

    The respondent counsel, Ken Mozia, said the contempt committal was kept in abeyance because of the appeal.

    He said: “Now the court has said they have a duty to obey the orders of the court restraining them from going into the premises and you cannot be in disobedience and come to court because you thought the order was not made validly. The decision belongs to the court.

    “The order restraining them has been reemphasised and there is no further bar on the committal proceeding as long as they remain in contempt by refusing the order of the court restraining them from going to the House.”

    He said they were waiting on what the commissioner of Police would do because the court has told them they have to obey court orders.

    Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lawmakers who were in court wore long faces after the ruling. Their supporters, who accompanied them, left the court premises sad.

  • Jonathan approves elevation of 25 judges to Court of Appeal

    Jonathan approves elevation of 25 judges to Court of Appeal

    President Goodluck Jonathan has approved the elevation of 25 judges selected from High Courts across the country for appointment as justices of the Court of Appeal.

    The new justices of the nation’s appellate court, whose elevation was announced about two weeks ago by the National Judicial Council (NJC), are to be sworn-in by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Aloma Mukhtar.(CJN) on March 24, 2014 at 12 noon in the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

    The President’s approval of their appointment now brings the number of justices of the Court of Appeal to 90 from 70.

    NJC’s Acting Director, Information, Soji Oye said, in a statement Monday, that the elevation of the judges followed NJC’s recommendation, which is in line with the new Court of Appeal (Amendment) Act, which increased the number of justices of the court from 70 to 90.

    He said their elevation was also informed by the vacancies “occasioned by the demise, retirement and elevation of some justices of the court to the Supreme Court.”

    The affected judges include Justices Bolokuromo M. Ugo (Bayelsa State), Biobele A. Georgewill  (Rivers State), Oludotun A. Adefope-Okojie (Ogun State), Misitura O. Bolaji-Yusuf   (Oyo State), J.O.K.Oyewole (Osun State) and O.E. Williams-Dawudu  (Lagos State)

    Others include Justices Hamma Akawu Barka (Gombe State), Joseph Jude Jella (Taraba State), Bitrus G. Sanga (Bauchi State), Muhammed Mustapha (Borno State),Yargata Nimpar (Gombe State), Sa’idu Tanko Hussein (Kogi State), Mudashiru N. Oniyangi (Kwara State) and Amina Audi Wambai  (Niger State).

    Also affected are Justices Ridwan Maiwada Abdullahi (Nasarawa State), Tani Y. Hassan (Kano State), Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu  (Jigawa State), Kadi Musa Hassan Alkali (Kaduna State), Jamilu Y. Tukur (Katsina State), Paul Obi Elechi (Ebonyi State), Ugochukwu A. Ogakwu (Enugu State), Nonyerem Okoronkwo (Imo State), Joseph E. Ekanem (Akwa Ibom State), F.E. Oho (Delta State), Abimbola O.O. Adejumo (Edo State).

  • Appeal Court validates Econet’s five per cent shares

    Appeal Court validates Econet’s five per cent shares

    The Appeal Court, Lagos judicial division last week validated the five per cent shares of Econet Wireless International (EWI) in the Econet Wireless Nigeria (EWN) as its equity contribution for the operation of a Global System for Mobile Network (GSM) in Nigeria.

    The judgment, read by Justice Habeeb Abiru, upheld the decision of Justice M .L Shuaibu of the Federal High Court, Kaduna delivered on January 24, 2012, which restored EWI to its rightful position within the GSM 13 years ago.

    The appellate court held that the Arbitral Tribunal chaired by Hon. Justice Emmanuel Sanyaolu, was in order for declaring that the Offer Letter made by Celtel Nigeria BV to Econet Wireless Limited was right.

    EWI had dragged EWN to the Federal High Court and claimed among others, that the plaintiff is still a shareholder and member of the 1st Defendant’s company; that the 1st defendant’s letter of November 24, 2003 removing the plaintiff’s name as shareholder and member of the first defendant’s company is illegal, null and void; that all general meeting (be it annual or extra ordinary) of the first defendant held after November 13, 2003 and to which the plaintiff was not put on notice are irregular, illegal, null and void; that all resolutions passed by the company in lieu of the holding of general meeting pursuant to the provisions of Section 234 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990 to which the plaintiff is not a party, is irregular, illegal, null and void.

    EWI also sought from the court a declaration that pending the determination of the suit and suit No. FHC/CS/962/2003 between the parties, pending before the Federal High Court, the first defendant could not and should not transfer its assets(including the license granted to it by the defendant) for the operation of GSM Networks(GSM) in Nigeria, to any company incorporated and jointly owned by the first defendant and Vodacom and any other company; that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 234 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, a resolution to effect a change of name of the first defendant cannot be validly effected without complying with the provisions of Sections 31 (3) and 45(1) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act amongst other provisions.

    The company asked the court for an order setting aside all resolutions and decisions taken at any such meeting as referred to in clause 3 and 4 above; an order of injunction against the second defendant from giving any effect to any request made to it by the first defendant for the transfer of the license granted to it by the second defendant until the determination of the suit and suit No. FHC/L/CS/ 962/2003 and an order of injunction restraining the first defendant from doing any of the acts set out in claim 7 above.

    It further asked for an order setting aside the resolution circulated by the 1st Defendant pursuant to the provisions of Section 234 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act.

    EWI had claimed that by the provisions of the CAMA 2004, it was a member of EWN validly holding five percent of the shares of EWN and that by the provision of Section 90 of CAMA, EWN had no power to delete its name from EWN’s register of members without the sanction of the court. The company further argued that the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) had no right in law to change its name in spite of its protest. EWI therefore, urged the appellate court to determine:

    (i.) Whether the lower court was correct when it held that the appellant did not make out a credible case showing that the share certificates issued to the first respondent as the registered owner of five million of its ordinary shares fully paid up were wrongly, unlawfully or irregularly given or were given in error without authorisation by its board of directors, or upon a mistake or misapprehension and misrepresentation and that the entry without sufficient cause;

    (ii.) Whether the lower Court was correct when it held that the Board of Directors of the appellant was not, in the circumstances of this case, empowered under the provisions of members by deleting the name of the first respondent thereon without first seeking or obtaining the leave or sanction of a court to do so.

    Justice Abiru’s judgment, which was endorsed by Justices AbuduAboki and Ita .G. Mbaba upheld the decision of Justice Shuaib, which initially dismissed the submission of CAC that it had the right to change the name of EWI.

    Justice Mbaba in supporting Justice Abiru reasoned that: “Appellant can not be taken serious to say that it made and lived under the alleged error or mistake, considering the fact that first respondent’s acceptance and registration as shareholder in the Appellant had passed through intense negotiation and scrutiny (which even included a court process and order, as per suit No. LD/1408/2001, which admitted the minutes of the board meeting of the Appellant, held on 19/6/2001 (Exhibit C2), allotting the five million ordinary shares to the first respondent). And the Extra ordinary general meeting of the Appellant, held on October 6, 2003, as per Exhibit D4!

    “How come the Board of Directors now alleges making mistake or error in the registration of the 1st respondent as shareholder, after their final decision had been ratified at the Extra Ordinary General Meeting of the Appellant, reached in October, 2003,” he held. Justice Shuaib had granted the plaintiff’s declarations and held that: “In the light of the above and considering my findings, judgment is accordingly entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants to the effect that the removal of the plaintiff as shareholder and member of the first defendant was illegal and that the meetings held after November 13, 2003 to which the plaintiff was not put on notice was also illegal, null and void. Consequently, the resolutions and decisions thereby taken as well as the effects given by the second defendant are hereby set aside.”

    The appellate court, confirming the decision of the lower court, held that EWI was duly registered as a member of EWN.

    The upper court also dismissed the counter-claim of EWN that it suffered cash losses as a result of EWI’s inability to pay for its shares. On the arbitral tribunal issue, Celtel Nigeria BV had earlier dragged Econet Wireless Limited; Delta State Ministry of Finance Incorporated (DSMFI); O&O Network Ltd; DTSG Ecoshares Limited; FBC Asset, AkwaIbom Investment & Industrial Promotion Council; Ibile Holdings Limited; First City Telecoms Limited; LAC Telecoms Limited; All speaks Nigeria Limited; S&D Ventures Limited and Oceanic Securities International Limited before a Lagos High court presided by Justice Oludotun Adefope-Okojie .

    Other respondents are Mr. Boye Olusanya; Mr. Tunde Hassan Odukale; Condor Investments Limited; Mr. Bolaji Balogun; Broad Communications Limited; Mr. Oba Otudeko; Ms. Foluke Otudeko and Mr. Ayo Adeboye. Since it is a consolidated suit, Ibile Holdings Limited also sued all the respondents listed above including Celtel BV.

    The third suit, which was consolidated before Justice Adefope-Okojie, was initiated by DSMFI and DTSG Ecoshares Limited listed the same respondents while the suit by Akwa Ibom Investment and Industrial Promotion Council was the fourth suit where the same respondents were listed. The relief sought from the court by Celtel Nigeria BV include:

    (i) An order setting aside the Partial Final Award dated September 22, 2011 and made by the Arbitral Tribunal, constituted of Hon. Justice E. O. Sanyaolu (rtd), Mr Fidelis Oditah QC, SAN and Mr Stephen Bata and

    (ii) An order of injunction restraining all respondents identified above by themselves, their servants, agents and or privies from taken steps by doing anything whatsoever towards reconvening, reconstituting and/or participating in further arbitration proceeding subsequent to the Partial Final Award dated December 22, 2011 before the arbitral panel constituting Hon. Justice E. O. Sanyaolu (rtd) Mr. Fidelis Oditah QC, SAN and Stephen Bata by any means whatsoever, including electronic mail communications, video conferences or any other means towards concluding procedure in respect of the final award of damages.

     

     

     

    Six issues that were raised for determination Celtel Nigeria BV, which are similar to the issues raised by other parties include:

    1. Whether the Akwa-Ibom, applicants are out of time and should be granted an extension of time to set aside the Arbitral Award?

    2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to set aside an international commercial award and what test should this Court adopt in deciding whether or not to do so?

    3. Whether the Arbitrators misconducted themselves in assuming jurisdiction and deciding the parties’ right under the Shareholders Agreement dated 30th April 2002 when there was a pending action filed by Econet Wireless Limited in Suit LD/841/2006 under the Offer Letter Contract dated 2nd May 2006 thereby constituting an abuse of process?

    4. Whether the Arbitral Tribunal was properly constituted in accordance with Clause 25 of the SHA and/or Section 7(3)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?

    5. Whether the Arbitral Tribunal has power to award money damages in lieu of the relief sought to unwind the previously executed sale of shares?

    6. Whether the Court should set aside the award?

    The tribunal first held that “with regard to international arbitrations, this court does not have authority to extend the time to set aside an international commercial award, time limit for which as stated in section 29 (1) of ACA to be three months. I hold the Originating Motion of the Akwa-Ibom Applicants as time barred and strike out their application. I resolve this issue against the said Applicants”.

    To resolve the issue, Justice Adefope- Okojie raised six issues for determination when the arbitral matters were brought before her.

    She held that the court has jurisdiction to set aside an international commercial award. While endorsing the tribunals award, the court agreed with the tribunal that “the claims in LD/841/2006 are for alleged breaches in the Offer Letter and which Offer Letter Contract, Econet seeks for an order setting aside the sales of Celtel whereas the claim before the Tribunal is for breache of the SHA in relation to Econet’s rights of pre-emptions”.

    On whether Justice Abdullahi Mustapha, the successor to Justice RoselineUkeje as Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, had power to constitute the Arbitral Tribunal, the Court held that, “with the rule in question do not preclude the incumbent CJ of FHC from exercising the power of appointment given by Clause 25.1 of the Shareholders Agreement (SHA)”.

    Justice Adefope-Okojie held that, “I do not see any decision made by the Tribunal on these claims which are wrong and vicious. The fact that this Court may have arrived at a different decision is no reason. I hold, to set aside an Arbitral Award, the parties, by Clause 25(2) of the SHA have agreed would be binding on them.

    “Having decided all the issues for determination against the Applicants and in favour of Econet, I dismiss the Originating motions filed by the Applicants, Celtel Nigeria Ltd, Delta State Ministry of Finance Incorporated, DTSG Ecoshares Ltd, akwa-Ibom Investment and Industrial Promotion Council and Ibile Holdings LTD, for the setting aside of the Partial Arbitral Award or part thereof made by the Arbitral Panel on 22nd December, 2011, I refuse the other prayers sought in the said applications”.

    It was this decision that was taken to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Judicial division before the panel of Justices Sidi Dauda Bage, Joseph Shagbaor Ikyegh and Tijani Abubakar. In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Ikyegh, which was endorsed by Justices Bage and Abubakar and upheld by JusticeAdefope-Okojie, the court ruled and held:

    “I conclude that the clause in the Offer Letter Contract which arose from the performance terms of Clause 17.2.2. of the Shareholders Agreement as it related to the Shareholders Agreement, that the arbitral tribunal decided did not determine the crux of the Offer Letter Contract itself, therefore the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its mandate in deciding and making the arbitral award, in my view.

    “The arbitral declaratory award, therefore, did not materialize into giving the 1st respondent a self-executory and/or enforceable toothless, as it had no enforceable element in it. It is the award of some damages to be sorted out at a future date that the arbitral tribunal made that had the teeth to bite. So, the practical and tangible take home arbitral award in favour of the 1st respondent was the damages. Accordingly, I do not agree with the appellant that the tribunal committed a misconduct by awarding double compensation (if any) to the 1st respondent.

    “In conclusion, I find no convincing basis to disturb the decision of the court below upholding the arbitral award which is good on its face. The appeal, though rigorously argued by the appellant, and rigorously resisted by the first respondent, has no merit. On the whole I see no substance in the appeal and hereby dismiss it and affirm the decision of the Court below presided by Justice Adefope-Okojie).

     

  • Tenancy dispute: Appeal Court reserves judgment in Odili’s suit

    The Court of Appeal in Lagos has reserved judgment in a suit filed by Essential Logistics Limited, challenging a judgment by Justice O.A. Dabiri of a Lagos High Court, which ordered the firm to vacate Chief Victor Odili’s property.

    The appellate court reached its decision after counsel to Odili, Dr. Fabian Ajuogwu (SAN) adopted the respondents’ written address.

    Justice Dabiri in 2009, in a suit filed by the firm against Odili and another company, Trevi Foundation Limited, said the defendant (Odili) acted in accordance with the law when he issued a quit notice from his property at 27A, Bishop Oluwole, Victoria Island, to Essential Logistics.

    Odili, who rented the property to the firm for two years in 2005, had obliged the company a three-month notice of owner’s intention to recover possession for the purposes of constructing a multi-storey building.

    Angered by the development, Essential Logistics approached the court to seek a declaration that Odili (first defendant) has not validly determined the claimant’s tenancy in respect of the premises, and as such, cannot without due process of law, eject the claimant or compel it to give up possession of the building.

    The firm prayed for an injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, servants, privies and successor-in-title from forcefully or unlawfully ejecting it from the premises, and any order deemed fit by the court.

    But when the matter, which started in 2007, was not decided in its favour the claimant appealed the matter by filing a Notice of Appeal and a Motion for stay of Execution dated September 29, 2009, at the lower court to prevent the defendants from executing judgment.

    In a ruling on April 19, 2010, the lower court refused the firm’s request for stay of execution of the judgement of the court delivered on September 17, 2009.

    The firm (appellant) further filed a Motion for Stay of Execution at the Court of Appeal on April 19, 2010.

    In a reply to the appellant’s brief, Ajuogwu filed a Counter Affidavit on July 12, 2010 opposing same.

    At the resumed hearing, Ajuogwu informed the court of the deliberate steps by the appellant to frustrate the respondents since the appeal was filed.

    “On February 17, 2011 when the matter came up for hearing, the court ordered the appellant to ensure that it regularised its appeal since it did not file it within the stipulated time.

    “Several months after the order of court that the appellant should file its Brief of Argument, the appellant still did not comply. The respondents thereafter, filed a Motion on Notice praying the court for an order dismissing the appeal for want of diligent prosecution.

    “Having been served the respondents’ motion for dismissal on May 26, 2011, the appellant went ahead to file its Brief of Argument and also filed a Motion to regularise same for filing out of time.

    “The respondents also filed and served their respondents’ brief of argument and prayed the court to withdraw the motion for dismissal earlier file, which was granted,” he said.

    Ajuogwu, who urged the court to hear the appeal since the matter has lingered at the appellate court for four years, drew the court’s attention to the absence of the appellant and its counsel in court.

    After listening to his submissions, the court adopted the respondent’s brief of argument and reserved judgment in the matter.

     

  • Row over Appeal Court Judge’s property

    Row over Appeal Court Judge’s property

    The property left behind by the late Appeal Court Judge, Justice S. A. Olagunju has become object of controversy as his widow; Mrs. Christianah is fighting hard to enforce her fundamental human rights over the property of her late husband.

    The Sharia Court of Appeal, Ilorin is alleged to have discriminated against her and her daughter on the administration of her husband’s estate.

    Mrs. Olagunju, 74, has already petitioned the President, Court of Appeal (PCA) for quick intervention into the matter.

    Her grievances were contained in a letter written by her Counsel and Akure Lawyer, Charles Titiloye to the President of Court of Appeal.

    The Sharia Court of Appeal, Ilorin reportedly deprived her and the daughter, Omoladun Olagunju of their rights to have a share in the late Justice’s estate on the grounds that she and her daughter were Christians, while the late husband was a Muslim.

    She had earlier petitioned the Grand Khadi of Sharia Court of Appeal, Ilorin to withdraw from the estate on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction to administer the estate.

    This was based on section 277(2)(e) of the Constitution which precludes the court from entertaining a proceeding that involves  non-Muslims; especially when the court took judicial notice that she, as the next of kin of Justice Olagunju, is a Christian.

    However, in a newspaper report, the Sharia Court, Ilorin claimed to have exercised jurisdiction based on section 277(2) (c) of the Constitution which allowed the court to determine dispute on Islamic personal law of the deceased.

    It also stressed that N3 million “gift” has been given to the widow.

    Titiloye described the position of the Sharia Court of Appeal as a misapplication of the constitution. He noted that Nigeria is a secular state and Sharia law cannot be applied to non-Muslims under any guise.

    The lawyer maintained that the PCA which initiated the administration of the estate by the court did not refer dispute on Islamic law to Sharia Court of Appeal, but administration of the estate by a reliable judge for the benefit of wife and children of the late jurist.

    Titiloye further said the religious dimension introduced by the court was aimed at discriminating against the widow and her daughter who are Christians.

    This, according to him, was in total disregard of their fundamental human rights to be free from religious discrimination guaranteed under Section 42 of the Constitution.

    The rights activist noted that the widow has not been given N3 million as alleged by the court in the publication and that her daughter Omoladun was totally excluded by the court on the list of beneficiaries of the estate.

    Titiloye condemned the threat by some relatives of the deceased to use the Sharia Court of Appeal to forcefully eject the widow from her matrimonial home.

    He warned that such a step would be an affront on rule of law and violation of the widow’s fundamental human rights.

    The lawyer urged the President of Court of Appeal to intervene in this matter and re-assign the administration of the estate to the High Court which has unlimited jurisdiction to issue letters of administration to the beneficiaries of the estate irrespective of their religion.

  • Families’ land tussle shifts to Appeal Court

    Families’ land tussle shifts to Appeal Court

    A parcel of land measuring 117.188 hectares in Itele-Aiyetoro, Ado-Odo/Ota Local Government Area of Ogun State was given last October to a family, courtesy of an Ijebu-Ode High Court verdict.The same family also got the statutory/customary right of occupancy. The other family in the dispute claims the judge erred in law and it is challenging the verdict at the Court of Appeal in Ibadan, Oyo State, reports Seyi Odewale.

    The Appeal Court in Ibadan has been asked to set aside the October 8 verdict of an Ijebu-Ode High Court in Ogun State, that about 117.188 hectares of land in Itele-Aiyetoro community of Ado-Odo/Ota Local Government Area of the state, belongs to the Adogun Atele family, and not the Odutala family.

    The said judgment was based on suit numbers HCT/7/89 and HCT/212/96, which were consolidated in 2001. Justice O. A. Onafowokan heard the consolidated suits.

    The grounds of the appeal, according to the family represented by the trio of Mr Abiodun Adeniji Odutala, Mrs Fola Adeniji Odutala and Mrs Agbeke Adeniji Odutala, are that, “the learned trial judge erred in law in holding that the appellants’ family are customary tenants to the respondents’ family in the absence of oral and documentary evidence to buttress same”.

    They claimed that “there must be direct or circumstantial evidence before the court to substantiate the allegation that the appellants’family are customary tenants;

    That: “No cogent evidence was adduced by the respondents’ family as their customary tenants.”

    The judge, they said, “erred in law in failing to evaluate the entire evidence adduced before the court, or properly before entering judgment for the respondents by granting all their prayers;

    “The trial judge failed to consider the documentary evidence adduced by the appellants to prove their defence and counter-claim.

    “The learned trial judge misdirected himself of the laws and facts in arriving at his decision and that the judgment is against the weight of evidence.”

    They are seeking these reliefs: “An order setting aside the judgment of the Ogun State High Court, Ijebu-Ode Division delivered on October 8, 2013, and an order granting judgment to the appellants as per their counter-claim before the lower court.” No date has been fixed for the hearing.

    In the first suit, Chiefs Taoridi Dada and Edun Olowookere, on behalf of themselves and Adogun Atele family, sued the Odutalas and five others representing the whole village of Itele-Aiyetoro, otherwise known as Alagbeji Descendants family of Itele-Aiyeitoro village.

    The second suit was between Saibu Olugbode, Chief Kafaru Arowolo, Ayuba Dada and Bili Dabiri, representing themselves and the Alagbeji Descendants family of the same community, and Chiefs Dada and Olowookere, (representing Adogun Atele family) and the Odutalas.

    In his judgment, Justice Onafowokan held: “This is the judgment in two cases that were consolidated to be heard together. The two cases were filed long before I became a judge of the High Court of Ogun State in October 2000, but the lot to hear and determine them fell on me sometime in 2005, when the cases were assigned to my court.

    “The trial started in 2006. My involvement in election petitions assignments in Zamfara and Kano states in 2007 and 2008, and transfers in 2008 and 2011 from one judicial division of the High Court to another with attendant consequences, in my view, contributed greatly to the delay in early conclusion of the trial.”

    The judge said: “The first case, HCT/7/89 was originally commenced by Chief Oluwole Akapo and Madam Owotolu (for themselves and on behalf of the Atele family) against Abiodun Odutala and Madam Agbeke Odutala, claiming damages for trespass and injunction. In the course of the proceedings, the predecessors in the title of the claimants in HCT/212/96, on their applications, were on March, 1989, joined as the 4th to 8th defendants (for themselves and on behalf of Itele Community).

    “Notwithstanding their joinder, they proceeded to institute another action in Suit No: HCT/212/96; this time, suing for themselves and on behalf of members of Itele people, otherwise altogether known as Ogungbemi Alagbeji descendants’ family against the plaintiffs and 1st to 3rd defendants in HCT/7/89.”

    In the first suit (Suit HCT/7/89), according to the judge, the plaintiffs declared, as opposed to those of the defendants, that they “are the persons entitled to customary/statutory rights of occupancy in respect of the vast area of the land situate, lying and being at Aiyetoro Village, Itele in Ogun State of Nigeria, which is more particularly described on plan no. PEG/06/2001/025 dated 28/12/2001 drawn by J.O Olorunkunle (registered surveyor);

    “That the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants are customary tenants of the plaintiffs on the land in dispute.”

    They then wanted “an order for forfeiture of the customary tenancy of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants or of whatever interest or interests they have in the land in dispute on the ground that they have committed acts inconsistent with and in defiance of the plaintiffs’ title to the land in dispute;

    “An order for recovery of possession of the land in dispute from the 1st , 2nd and 3rd defendants by denying the title of the plaintiffs to the land in dispute and by selling and leasing part of thereof, and by various other forms of misconduct;

    “A declaration that all sales, leases or purported sales or any other forms of alienation made by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants affecting the land in dispute is null and void and

    “An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants-their privies, servants or agents from further selling or leasing the land in dispute or any portion thereof or from going on the said land for any purpose at all or from doing anything whatsoever on it.”

    In the 1st to 3rd defendants’ counter claims against the plaintiffs and the 4th to 8th defendants (Kafaru Abudu Arowolo, Chief Raufu Ilo (Baale of Itele), Mr Saibu Olugbode, Mr Ayuba Dada and Mr Bili Dabiri), claimed “that they are trustees of Odutala family and are entitled to the issuance of the statutory/customary right of occupancy in respect of that area of land situate and being in Aiyetoro and described and delineated by Survey Plan No OGE/ABB/90 prepared by S. Akin Ogunbiyi Esq. Licensed Surveyor on 20/9/90 and known as parcel A,B and C (measuring respectively 88.294 hectares; 2.511 hectares and 26.383 hectares)”;

    “A declaration that the claimants nor the 4th to 8th defendants have any title to the area claimed by the 1st to 3rd defendants.”

    They then sought “a million naira damages against the claimants and the 4th to 8th defendants for trespass committed on the land” and “a perpetual injunction restraining the claimants, the 4th to 8th defendants, their servants, agents and/or privies from further committing acts of trespass on the land”.

    The 4th to 8th defendants also filed their counter claims against both the plaintiffs and the 1st to 3rd defendants. Against the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs, they declared that “the ‘Itele people’ described in another Suit No. 17/43-Alimi Akapo and others versus D.D Olukogbon “are the ten branches of the 4th to 8th defendants’ families in Suit No HCT/212/96, comprising (1) Ipotobo families (2) Iliwo families (3) Isunba families (4) Ijaganna families (5) Ilekemo families (6) Ilegbede families (7) Ilogun families (8) Isalu families (9) Idotele families and (10) Idomo families called ‘Itele people’ who are otherwise all together known as Alagbeji Descendants family of Itele town.”

    They declared: “The first plaintiff (Jimoh Arowolo) is not a blood relation, nor a family member of any of the 10 units of families known and described as ‘Itele people’ (the owner of Itele Village and its vast area of land), who are otherwise altogether referred to as Alagbeji descendants’ family of Itele town.” There were other declarations by them.

    They then sought the “forfeiture of the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs’ customary rights in Itele village for denying the plaintiffs’ family title of Itele village/town and its whole land.”

    They also sought an “order of possession (by the 4th to 8th defendants) of any portion of land held by the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs within the said entire Itele land as in Survey Plan no. BAC/44/OG/97.”

    In their claims against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants (Abiodun Odutala, Mrs Fola Adeniji Odutala and Mrs Agbeke Adeniji Odutala), they declared that their ancestor, Erigi Odutala is a customary tenant of the 4th to 8th defendants;

    That: “First, second and third defendants are not entitled to any statutory right of occupancy in respect of any portion or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Aiyetoro Village which formed part of the whole land belonging to the 4th to 8th defendants as landlords of the said 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants.” All these, among others, were the prayers sought by them at the lower court.”

    When The Nation visited the town there was unease. Some people spoke in hushed tones, others expressed fear that the victorious family could ask them to vacate the land, especially, when Chief Abiodun Adeniji Bada –Odutala (1st defendant) has been asked to stop parading himself as the head of the community.

    “Properties are at a risk, not only our lives,” said Adewumi Adeniji, a resident. “We heard that the opponents had hatched their plans to destroy landed property built here, but I am promising you that they will not go far as we have all documents to back our landed property up,” he added.

    Another resident said: ”I have been living here with my family members for seven years and there was peace until recently when some hoodlums are saying we must vacate our land and relocate to another place because our community head had lost the case. Are we going to leave here and relocate to another area or where are we going to?”

    But the Baale appeared not disturbed by the judgment. “I have gone to the Appeal Court to appeal the case because the judgment of the High Court was improper and could be a mistake. It was the Alake of Egbaland who made me the community head of Ayetoro-Itele  and  seven  months after  my installation  the Olota  of Ota made one Edun Sunday Olowokere,  who is an Awori the head of Ayetoro to cause confusion. I am the 8th Baale, and this Olowokere was the first to be pronounced as Baale.

    “They tell a lot of lies against us. All what Olowokere said in some newspapers are tissues of lies. The Egba own Aiyetoro by conquest and history is there for all to see. Alake is still alive to testify to this. I have never heard how a tenant becomes a landlord,” he said.

    “This town has been in existence for about two centuries, having been founded by the Egba warriors known as the Ajagunnas between 1836 and 1842 and for a judgment to now tell us that we are tenants to people whom we had never paid any tribute to and no demand of such had ever been made; for any judge to say we are tenants on our land is not acceptable and we believe it is a rape of justice. And that is why we are pursuing the matter legally to the highest level the law can take us,” he added.