The Nation Newspaper

Tag: contempt charge

  • Court to hear contempt charge against railway chief Dec 10

    THE Federal High Court will on December 10 hear a contempt charge against Nigerian Railway Corporation (NRC) Managing Director Fidet Okhiria on December 10.

    Justice Muslim Hassan had on Monday issued a bench warrant for his arrest for allegedly disobeying a court order.

    The judge said Okhiria should appear to show cause as to why he should not be committed to prison for contempt.

    Justice Hassan ordered the police to arrest and produce him in court.

    Alhaji Moruf Salami, Mrs. Uyo Nwajei and Alhaja Aisha Gwadabe had sued the NRC and four others over attempts to forcefully and illegally acquire their properties without due process.

    The plaintiffs had earlier filed an ex-parte application against the NRC, the Federal Ministry of Works, Power and Housing, China Construction and Electrical Investment Company Limited, Inspector General of Police and the Attorney General of the Federation.

    They sought  an order restraining the defendants from demolishing, damaging or tampering with their properties on Block 1 House 1, Block B House 1 and Block E House 2, Adisa Housing Estate 308B, Murtala Mohammed Way, Yaba, Lagos pending the determination of their motion on notice.

    The plaintiffs also prayed the court to restrain the defendants from disturbing their peaceful possession of the properties pending the determination of the motion on notice.

    Their lawyer, Akeem Aponmode, asked the court for an order directing the police to arrest the corporation’s managing director and bring him to court to explain why he allegedly violated an August 3 order.

    The judge had granted an order directing parties to maintain status quo ante pending the determination of the motion on notice.

    The plaintiffs said despite the pendency of the suit and the order, the defendants continued to take actions inimical to their interest by demolishing the buildings.

    Aponmode added that when the plaintiffs noticed that the defendants had brought in equipment to demolish their properties, they rushed to the court with Form 48 (notice of disobedience to court order) and also served it on respondents.

    “Despite the service of Form 48 on respondents, they still went ahead and demolished the properties, thereby turning the plaintiffs to homeless people,” Aponmode said.

    The plaintiffs’ counsel added that this flagrant disobedience to court order necessitated the filing of Form 49 – committal proceedings against the defendants.

    Aponmode told Justice Hassan that the matter was adjourned for hearing of the application for the committal of the alleged contemptnor.

    He said the managing director was aware of the proceedings and that all conditions for the activation of committal proceedings had been met.

    “The managing director of NRC chose to deliberately disobey the order of the court,” he added.

    Justice Hassan ruled:  “From the court’s records, the defendants were served with the motion on notice, order of the court directing status quo and forms 48 and 49, yet the first defendant is not in court, with no reason given.

    “I have no reason than to accede to plaintiffs’ counsel request. I hereby issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the first defendant’s managing director.”

     

     

  • Contempt charge: family knows fate Nov. 14

    Justice Lateef Lawal-Akapo of a Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikorodu has fixed November 14 for trial in a suit by the Agbesa branch of Elepe Royal family seeking to commit to prison eight persons for alleged disobedience of a court judgment.

    Trial failed to commence in the matter last week due to the absence of the first alleged contemnor, Otunba Shamsideen Adedapo.

    The applicants, who are claimants/judgment creditors in suit IKD/M/26/2010, are seeking to commit to prison Nurudeen Odele-Agbaje, Oladapo Ogunyinka, Jamiu Babatunde Odele, Adebukola Osho, Fatai Olowu, Adedeji Osho and Ismail K. Thanny.

    Counsel to the applicants, Ade Sanusi, had urged the court to commit the defendants to prison for serial disobedience to a judgment of the court delivered by Justice Akintunde Savage on March 26, 2014.

    He said all the contemnors should be present for proceedings, having been served and responded to applicants’ application dated June 21.

    Sanusi, citing Sections 98 and 99 of Court Sheriff’s Rules of Service, argued that the first contemnor’s absence was contemptuous of the court and urged the court to commit him to prison or in the alternative, issue a bench warrant for his arrest.

    But counsel to the first, third, fifth and seventh respondents, Abayomi Omotubora, said the first respondent was not aware that the court was sitting.

    The defendants/judgment debtors are Oyedeko Ladejobe; Ganiu Ladejobe; Jamiu Awosan; Bashiru Awosan; Alhaji Salawu Ajejiomo Jabita; Fatai Jogbodo Jabita; Adetunde Ogunsanya Awosan and Module Enigbokan Awosan.

    The respondents allegedly disobeyed the orders of the enrolled consent judgment delivered by Justice Savage on March 26, 2014.

    The order includes that the landed property (of the Elepe Royal Family) be partitioned into four and shared to each of the four branches.

    The alleged contemnors prevented the order of the court from being carried out when they allegedly stationed fully armed thugs on the land, which action has prevented accredited representatives of the family from going to the land contrary to the enrolled order.

    The contemnors were alleged to have advertised themselves as head of Elepe royal family of Ikorodu, instead of Oyedeko Olorunwo Ladejobi, “by signing documents and advertising yourself as head of family contrary to paragraph 5 of enrolled order; selling of family land at Aga, Ikorodu, behind General Hospital contrary to paragraph 2 of the enrolled order of the court”.

    They were also alleged to have “stopped the surveyor from carrying out physical demarcation of the land as ordered by the court vide its order of September 15, 2015, even after possession has been handed over to the applicants by sheriff of the court”.

     

     

  • Court strikes out Honeywell’s contempt charge against Ecobank

    Court strikes out Honeywell’s contempt charge against Ecobank

    The Federal High Court in Lagos Friday struck out a contempt charge filed against Ecobank Nigeria Limited by Honeywell Flour Mills Plc.

    Justice Ibrahim Idris held that the Form 48 and Form 49 (with which contempt proceedings are initiated) were not properly served on the alleged contemnors.

    The judge declined jurisdiction, but directed parties to maintain status quo until the order is set aside by the Court of Appeal.

    The judge said a party seeking to jail another for disobeying a court order was duty bound to ensure that processes in contempt proceedings were duly served.

    Breach of such proper service, he said, “will wrought consequences on the proceedings.”

    Honeywell and its sister companies Anchorage Leisures Limited and Siloam Global Services Limited accused the bank of disobeying an earlier directive by the judge that all parties should maintain status quo ante-bellum.

    They sued Ecobank over disagreements regarding an alleged debt owed the bank by the group.

    Justice Idris had last August 10 made an order of interim injunction restraining the bank from publishing the plaintiffs’ name as debtors.

    The judge also ordered parties to maintain status quo pending hearing of the plaintiffs’ suit against Ecobank.

    But while the suit was pending, Ecobank filed other suits before other judges in a bid to recover its debt from Honeywell Group and its chairman Oba Otudeko.

    Honeywell, through its lawyer Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), filed the Form 48 and Form 49, urging the court to hold the bank in contempt.

    Declining jurisdiction, Justice Idris held: “What I can see from a close examination of form 48 is that the form is stamped; the wordings are however illegible. I can see that the stamp has the date of 19th November 2015. The same applies to Form 49.

    “A valid proof of service of the same forms must have endorsed therein the following, as stated by the Court of Appeal: (1) particulars of the person serving; (2) date of service; (3) time and place of service and (4) the person that accepted the service.

    “I’m afraid that it appears that the Form 48 and 49 were not properly endorsed with the particulars of service. In effect, there is no reliable or authentic information before the court as to the service of the Form 48 and 49 on the defendants herein.

    “This issue goes to the issue of the jurisdiction of the court. This court must act with caution. I decline jurisdiction.”

    He, however, warned parties against taking any action that could incur the court’s wrath.

    “Let me warn that orders of court are binding and enforceable until set aside by an order of court of competent jurisdiction. The order of this court that the parties maintainstatus quo ante bellum remains valid and binding on all the parties until set aside.

    “Whenever the disciplinary jurisdiction of this court is properly invoked, this court will descend heavily without any fear on whichever party is found guilty of contempt of this court. This court barks and it bites.

    “I hold that the jurisdiction of this court has not been properly invoked in respect of the contempt proceedings and same is hereby struck out,” Justice Idris held.

    He adjourned till February 26 for hearing of Ecobank’s motion for stay of proceedings.

  • Honeywell files contempt charge against Ecobank

    Honeywell Flour Mills Plc has initiated contempt proceedings against Ecobank Nigeria Limited at the Federal High Court in Lagos.

    The company accused the bank of disobeying an earlier directive by Justice Mohammed Idris that all parties should maintain status quo.

    Ecobank had challenged the court’s jurisdiction to hear the suit filed by Honeywell and its sister companies – Anchorage Leisures Limited and Siloam Global Services Limited.

    Dismissing the preliminary objection, Justice Idris held that a cursory glance at the statement of claim shows that the plaintiffs’ claim arose from banking transactions.

    This, he said, places the suit within the court’s jurisdiction as provided in Section 251 (1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution.

    “The plaintiffs’ claim arose from a banker-customer relationship, as such this court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter,” the judge said.

    He held that Ecobank’s preliminary objection lacked merit and awarded N10,000 cost in the plaintiffs’ favour.

    Justice Idris adjourned to Monday for hearing of the contempt proceedings.

    In a related case before Justice Okon Abang of the same court, Ecobank had, on October 16, filed a motion exparte, praying for an orders restraining Siloam Global Services Limited and chairman of Honeywell Group, Dr. Oba Otudeko, from operating or dealing with funds in any bank or financial institution pending the determination of the motion on notice for the appointment of a provisional liquidator or interim receiver.

    The bank also sought an order directing and compelling all the banks and financial institutions in which Siloam Global Services and Otudeko have accounts, to furnish Ecobank with their details.

    It also prayed the court to restraining Siloam Global Services and Otudeko from removing its funds, investments in all banks and financial institutions or alienating/ disposing their fixed and moveable assets within Nigeria.

    Justice Abang, however, did not grant the prayers. Rather, he directed Ecobank to put Siloam Global Services and Otudeko on notice.

    Meanwhile, Otudeko’s lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), filed a December 7 motion on notice praying the court to strike out the petition and discontinue proceedings in deference to arbitration.

    Yesterday, Olanipekun argued that the court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter.

    Ecobank’s counsel, Mr. Kunle Ogunba (SAN), argued that the court ought to determine Ecobank’s exparte application of October 16 first.

    But Olanipekun argued that his clients had given valid reasons to compel the court to determine the challenge to its jurisdiction before determining the bank’s motion exparte.

    Ruling, Justice Abang held there was the need for the court to first determine if it has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter before proceeding hearing Ecobank’s application.

    He adjourned till January 13 for the hearing Siloam Global Services and Otudeko’s application challenging the court’s jurisdiction.

     

  • Lawyer files contempt charge against NERC boss

    Lawyer files contempt charge against NERC boss

    Activist-lawyer Toluwani Adebiyi has initiated contempt proceedings against Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) chairman Dr Sam Amadi over his claim that judges were frustrating reforms in the electricity sector.

    The NERC chair made the claim in an August 7 letter to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta.

    Amadi, who noted that the judges were ignorant of the sector, accused them of handing out improper injunctions, which could discourage investments.

    The Federal High Court in Lagos had restrained NERC from increasing electricity tariff, following an ex-parte application by Adebiyi, who sought an injunction to stop NERC from raising power consumption bills without steady power for 18 hours a day.

    Adebiyi filed the Form 48 yesterday, which requires Amadi to appear in court to justify his statement or risk a jail term.

    The application is entitled: “Notice of consequence of derogatory, unlawful, misguided accusations of Federal High Court Judge, same which is contemptous of the integrity of the court as contained in contemnor’s letter to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court and published on page 12 of The Nation newspapers of 18th august 2015.”

    It reads: “Take notice, that unless you can substantiate and justify your accusation as contained in your letter to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court dated 7th August, 2015, published in The Nation Newspaper of 18th August, 2015, of which you contemptuously in a very insulting and derogatory manner accused the court, casting aspersions in a way so prejudising, in a matter pending before the court, you will be guilty of contempt of Court and will be liable to be committed to prison.”

    Amadi had stated that such injunctive reliefs against legitimate business operations of licensed electricity companies were not well considered.

    “MY Lord, permit me to bring to your notice a subtle threat that can undermine the success of the power sector reforms. This threat is in the form of an increasing spate of seemingly reckless and inconsiderate interim injunctions that have been issued against the commission and electricity distribution companies at the instance of consumers, who have not made out clear case meriting such intervention by the court,” Amadi wrote.

    But Adebiyi believes that the accusation that judges were granting “reckless and inconsiderate injunctions” was contemptuous.

    To him, the NERC chair has derogatorily directed the judges to always exercise restraint and defer to his commission in the exercise of their judicial power, an act that cannot be separated from an intention to subjugate, undermine and intervene with the Judges’ lawful responsibility.

    Amadi is expected to appear before Justice Mohammed Idris, who gave one of the restraining orders, on September 23.