Tag: contract

  • Sounders terminate Apam’s contract

    Sounders terminate Apam’s contract

    Onyekachi Apam’s hope of resurrecting his career has suffered a set back after Major League Soccer (MLS) side, Seattle Sounders, released him and two other Nigerians from the current squad.

    The club, in a statement, revealed they are declining contract options of eight players including defender Apam and forward Sean Okoli, while defender Jalil Anibaba is out of contract.

    “In our league it’s a consistent challenge to keep successful teams together, and these types of decisions are always difficult,” said Sounders FC Owner and General Manager Adrian Hanauer.

    “Having said that, conversations are ongoing with several players about their respective futures with our club, and as we continue to shape the roster for 2015 we’ll have additional announcements to share.”

    The former Nigeria youth international failed to make an appearance for Sounders since joining on a free transfer in September 2014.

    Meanwhile, Sean Okoli played three games before joining second-tier Orange County on loan, while Anibaba played 17 games for Sounders, who have opted not to renew his contract.

    Sounders, winners of the 2014 MLS Supporters’ Shield and the U.S. Open Cup, currently maintain a squad of 23 players including Nigerian Obafemi Martins, who scored 17 goals and made 13 assists in the 2014 season.

  • Keshi to continue work without contract

    Keshi to continue work without contract

    Super Eagles coach Stephen Keshi is set to continue in his role as Super Eagles coach without a contract until after qualification for AFCON 2015 is secured.

    The NFF was ordered by  President Goodluck Jonathan to reinstate Keshi, who was fired after Nigeria picked up their first win against Sudan in the AFCON 2015 qualifiers.

    A source close to the coach said it will be tantamount to a disregard for the country’s president if Keshi insists on a contract before the last two qualifiers.

    “The status quo remains the same,he won’t ask for a contract until after the qualifiers,” he told SL10.ng.

    “Keshi won’t be fair to Mr President if he asks for a contract before working,we are talking about a presidential order here.”

    Since after the world Cup Keshi has been working as coach of the Eagles in the 2015 qualifiers without a salary following the expiration of his previous contract.

    An attempt to renegotiate a new deal with Keshi was deadlocked as both parties couldn’t agree on wages.

    The difference on wages wasn’t resolved until crisis rocked the NFF which lead the Sports Minister Tammy Danagogo to plead with the coach to return and handle the team in their first three games of the AFCON 2015 qualifiers.

  • West: Keshi should be given long-term contract

    West: Keshi should be given long-term contract

    With Stephen Keshi returning as the Super Eagles coach against the popular wishes of most Nigerian football fans, former Super Eagles defender Taribo West has asked for Keshi to be given a long term contract. Taribo believes Keshi deserves a longer contract to continue building the team.

    Taribo sayid the 52-year-old Keshi should at least get a 2-year contract from the NFF, but says it depends on the NFF and what they want, describing the situation as ‘complex’.

    “It depends on the NFF, but I think there’s a complexity in it. But I believe Keshi should be given a long term contract, at least a 2-year contract or more because he has built this team overtime, and let us see how they can rectify every area that needs to be rectified and also help the team to advance,” Taribo said.

    The 2013 Africa Cup of Nations winning coach is to return to the helm as the Super Eagles coach after an apparent ‘Presidential order’ from Nigeria’s President and is expected to conclude the AFCON qualifiers against Congo and South Africa.

    However, the issue of having Stephen Keshi back as the Super Eagles coach is causing so much controversy amongst the fans, with a good number of them believing the former Togo coach is not good enough for the African champions – but Taribo thinks otherwise.

  • ‘Breach of contract’: Court fines Australian bank, firms 1.63b euro

    ‘Breach of contract’: Court fines Australian bank, firms 1.63b euro

    For allegedly reneging on a partnership agreement to establish a polymer currency printing plant in Nigeria, the Reserve Bank of Australia and two other firms, Securency Private Ltd and Innovia Films Ltd, based in Australia, may pay damages up to 4billion euro to a Nigerian firm.

    They are to pay 126 million euro for failing to establish a local polymer plant and an additional 1.5 billion euro for breach of contract to transfer to a Nigerian entity or establish a polymer plant in the country.

    This is the value of what would have been saved if the Australian institution, through its subsidiary firms, had transferred and domesticated the technology in the country.

    The Australian apex bank and the firms are to face legal charges, as an Abuja High Court ruling has granted order to their Nigerian partners, Global Secure Currency, to serve them summons.

    Justice O.O. Goodluck of the High Court, Maitama, in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, in a July 2 ruling, granted Benoy Berry and Global Secure Currency Ltd an order to serve the summons on the three Australian-based firms, including Securency Private Ltd, Reserve Bank of Australia and Innovia Films Ltd, to appear in court.

    At the resumed hearing, Justice Goodluck dismissed the application of the foreign firms asking it to set aside its  ex-parte order of February 2, 2012 against Reserve Bank of Australia on the grounds that the order was made outside its jurisdiction.

    According to the plaintiff, Dr. Benoy Berry, the Australian apex bank agreed, through its subsidiary, Securency, Australia, to set up a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to facilitate the transfer of Polymer Technology, including a 0-pacification facility (Substrate Plant) in Nigeria; and that the marketing of the 1st defendant’s imported polymer products incidental to the general investment in  the local market would be undertaken ahead of the establishment of local production.

    On the strength of the agreement, Dr. Berry claimed that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) awarded the first contract for the printing of polymer notes to the firms, but  the Australian companies reneged on the  terms and insisted on supplying orders and demands from polymer plants abroad rather than set up a plant in the country.

    Accusing the foreign partners of unfair business ethics, which included “vicious and malicious international campaigns of misrepresentation and harassment,”  Dr. Berry  alleged that the firms have “subjected Nigeria to perpetual import dependency and colossal haemorrhage of foreign exchange,”

    The defendants’ counsel, Mr. Dindam D.Killi, prayed for an order discharging the exparte order of the court, dated February 2, 2012, whereby leave was granted to the plaintiffs to issue and serve the summons and other originating process, on the defendant herein outside the jurisdiction of the court.

    This, according to the defence counsel, is on the grounds that the plaintiff acted mala fide their ex-parte application dated November 9, 2011 failed to make a full and frank disclosure of the true contractual relationship between parties that would have aided “this court in exercising its discretion to grant leave to issue and serve the originating processes outside jurisdiction.”

    Mr. Killi also argued that “this court was misled in granting the order of issuance and service on the defendant by the non-disclosure of the jurisdiction clause in the agency agreement.

    Justice Goodluck held that “upon the ex-facie examination of the plaintiff’s pleadings, this court is of the view that it validly made the order for the issuance of the summons outside the jurisdiction of this court in the absence of any fact in support of the defendants’ contention,” noting also “that there is nothing in the plaintiffs’ pleadings that could have made this court to decide otherwise than to have allowed the application.”

    She ruled that the order directing the plaintiffs/applicants to issue and serve the summons on the defendants “outside the jurisdiction of this court is valid and subsisting.”

    Justice Goodluck upheld the arguments by Mrs. Gloria Zakka Onen, lead counsel to the plaintiffs from the firm of Messrs Adewole Adebayo Esq. and ruled that her order directing them to issue and serve the summons on the defendants outside the jurisdiction of the court was still valid and disallowed the Australian firms’ motion. She accordingly dismissed it.

  • ‘Revoke Ohafia/Arochukwu Road contract’

    Former Deputy House Leader in the House of Representatives who represented Arochukwu/Ohafia Federal Constituency, Hon. Mao Ohuabunwa has called on the Minister of Works, Mr. Mike Onolememen, to revoke the Ohafia/Arochukwu road contract.

    Ohuabunwa said the call became necessary because of what he described as the contractor’s lackluster performance, stressing that there is no hope that the road will be reconstructed within the stipulated time.

    The former Speaker of the ECOWAS Parliament lamented that the contractor has failed to convince anyone that he has the capacity to deliver on the job, adding that the people from that area are suffering indescribable hardship because of his attitude.

    Ohuabunwa said since the contractor allegedly commenced work on the road, there has not been any significant impact on the road to justify the budgetary allocation for its execution two years after the contract was awarded.

    The present deplorable state of the road despite the fact that the contractor has been mobilised for the job, he maintained, has made the road a nightmare and death trap for motorists and other road users.

    Speaking in Arochukwu when members of executive of the Abia North Progressives visited him at his country home to persuade him to represent Abia North at the Senate in 2015, Ohuabunwa said the deplorable state of the road was a matter of serious concern to him and other well-meaning people of the state.

    Ohuabunwa maintained that the present condition of the road has adversely affected the socio-economic life of the people, stressing that if the contractor is allowed to continue, many lives will be lost on the road.

    He called on members of the National Assembly from the state to liaise with their counterparts in the state Assembly to ensure that all the federal roads in the state were given proper attention to complement the efforts of Governor Theodore Orji in road infrastructure.

    The former lawmaker noted that the federal roads linking the state with its neighbours including Imo, Rivers, Enugu, Cross River and Akwa-Ibom states require urgent rehabilitation.

    He assured that his political position will be made known to them at the appropriate time, even as he told them to remain steadfast and avoid anything that could bring a breach of peace in the zone and the entire state.

  • Osun signs N10b road contract

    Osun signs N10b road contract

    Osun State has inked a N10 billion contract for the rehabilitation and construction of 224.6-kilometre rural roads.

    The Special Adviser to the Governor on Rural Development and Community Affairs, Mr. Kunle Ige, revealed this to reporters in Osogbo at the weekend.

    He said the project, tagged: Rural Access and Mobility Project (RAMP), is supported by the World Bank and French Development Project.

    Ige added that the two foreign organisations have contributed about 75 per cent of the fund while the government paid N2.5 billion counterpart funds, representing 25 per cent.

    The contract, according to him, has been awarded to Messrs Westmidland Construction Company Limited, Messrs Wetland Construction Nigeria Limited and Messrs Lee Fakino Nigeria Limited.

    Ige noted that among the participating four states – Adamawa, Osun, Enugu and Niger states – in the RAMP, Osun was the first to meet up with conditions for the signing of the contract, which would enhance access and mobility in the rural areas.

    The Special Adviser, who noted that the project would boost the state’s economy, said most of the roads to be constructed would lead to farm settlements.

    He added that the road project would make it convenient to transport agricultural produce to the cities after the completion of the roads.

    The governor’s aide said the contractors would be monitored to ensure that they carry out the project according to specifications.

  • Taxation of contract and direct labour procurement of Ministries,Departments and Agencies (Mdas) of government in Nigeria. (1)

    The Nigerian Tax Laws have provisions for the Taxation of contract Expenditure including those of Government, Ministry, Department and Agencies. The withholding tax (WHT) provision was introduced into the tax system in 1997 with limited coverage to rent, dividends and directors fees. Tax deduction at source has since been expanded to include:

    – All aspects of building, construction and related services.

    – All types of contract and agency arrangement, other than outright sale and purchase of goods and property in the ordinary course of business.

    – Consultancy, technical and professional services.

    – Management services.

    – Commissions

    – Interest and Royalty.

    The introduction of WHT regime came about in order to address the problem of tax evasion although, there is the overriding objective of full disclosure, transparency, predictability and fairness.

    Despite the huge Tax Revenue from award of contract and related source deductions, there is a growing interest in the usage of direct labour system in project procurement in Nigeria especially in the public sector. Direct Labour system is one of the several options of procurement used for project delivery process. This type of system is regarded as in-house because procuring entity, as different from contractor’s staff carry out the project delivery process and activities. One of the reasons for the preference for direct labour procurement is the Tax effect. Government Ministries, Department and Agency consume the services of contractors and hence are to be charged VAT by contractors who execute contract for them.

    This paper is intended to highlight how Government Expenditures are taxed in Nigeria and the extent to which direct labour procurement can be a Tax evasion scheme. This paper will not in any way address Tax issues relating to Corporate and Individual Expenditures.

     

    The Public Procurement Act 2007 And Award Of Contract

    By the provisions of the Public Procurement Act 2007, the following should be noted about award of contract and Public Procurement:-

    i. Procuring Entities should outsource those services that are either not part of their core business activity or for which there is a fluctuating requirement in terms of specialist skills or Equipment, or where the open market provides a more efficient and commercial alternative.

    ii. The approval and maintenance of monetary and prior review thresholds is important for the faithful implementation of the PPA. The thresholds establish relevant approving authorities and methodologies. “Monetary Thresholds” is defined in the interpretative section of the Act to mean the value limit in Naira set by the Bureau outside of which an approving authority may not award a procurement contract.

    iii. Procurement to be executed:-

    a. by open competitive bidding, except as otherwise exempted;

    b. In a manner which is transparent, timely, and equitable for ensuring accountability and conformity with the Public Procurement Act and regulations deriving therefrom;

    c. With the aim of achieving value for money and  fitness for purpose;

    d. In a manner which promotes competition, economy and efficiency; and

    e. In accordance with the laid down procedures and timelines.

    iv. Where the Bureau has set prior review thresholds, no funds shall be disbursed from the Treasury/federation Account/ or any bank account of any procuring entity for any procurement falling above the set thresholds unless the cheque, warrant or other form of request for payment is accompanied by a “Certificate of ‘No Objection’ to Award of Contract” duly issued by the Bureau.

    v. Subject to the monetary and prior review thresholds for procurements, the Parastatal Tenders’ Board of a government agency, Parastatal, or corporation or in the case of a ministry or extra-ministerial entity, the Ministerial Tenders’ Board shall be the Approving Authority for the conduct of public procurement.

    vi. The following procedure shall be observed by ministries, extra ministerial offices, and other arms of government in implementing their procurement plans, viz;

    a. Advertise and solicit for bids in accordance with guidelines prescribed by the Bureau from time to time;

    b. Invite two (2) credible persons as observers in every procurement process, one from a private sector professional organization relevant to the procurement and the other from non-government organization working in transparency, accountability and/or anti-corruption areas;

    c. Receive, evaluate and make a selection of the bids in accordance with prescribed guidelines;

    d. Obtain the approval of the tenders board for the award of contract to successful bidder.

    e. Obtain “certificate of ‘No objection’ to award contract” from the Bureau where contract is outside the threshold.

    vii. All bidders in addition to requirements contained in any solicitation documents shall:

    a. Possess the necessary:

    – Professional and technical qualifications to carry out particular procurement

    – Financial capability;

    – Equipment and other relevant infrastructure;

    – Shall have adequate personnel to perform the obligations of the procurement contracts.

    b. Possess the legal capacity to enter into the procurement contract

    c. Not be in receivership, the subject of any form of insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings or the subject of any form of winding up petition or proceedings

    d. Must have fulfilled all its obligations to pay taxes, pensions and social security contributions.

    viii.         Procurement Approval Threshold  (2012)

    ix. Reduction or Contract splitting is an offence in the Public Procurement Act.
    x. The Accounting Officer of every procuring entity shall be the person charged with the line supervision of the conduct of all procurement process; in the case of Ministries, the Permanent Secretary and in the case of Extra Ministerial Departments and Corporations, the Director General or Officer of Coordinate responsibility.
    xi. Procurement by Accounting Officers must be on the

    basis of approved quotation or Tender. Selection must be made from at least three quotations.

    xii. Section 19 of the Public Procurement Act 2007 specifies conditions for “Force Account” i.e Direct Labour, which should be executed within three months, to include

    – The procuring entity has ascertained that a schedule of rates, cost – plus or target contract would not be feasible, as quantities of work to be carried out cannot be defined in advance;

    – Works are small and scattered or in remote locations with no local contractors and demobilization costs for outside contractors would be too high;

    – Works must be carried out without disrupting existing operations;

    – The risk of unavailable work interruptions is better borne by procuring entity than by a contractor;

    – No contractor is interested in conducting the work at a reasonable price;

    – It has been demonstrated that Force Account (Direct Labour) is the only practical method for constructing and maintaining works under special circumstances; or

    – Where national security would be compromised if any other method was used.

     

    BLIBLIOGRAGHY

    1. Financial Regulations (Revised to January 2009); Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    2. Public Procurement Act 2007: Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    3. Companies Income Tax Act, Cap C. 21, LFN 2004

    4. Value Added Tax Act, Cap V.1 LFN 2004.

    5. Federal Inland Revenue Service Information circular No: 9801 (1998)

    6. Federal Inland Revenue Service Information circular No: 9502 (1995)

    7. Federal Inland Revenue Service Information circular No: 2006/02 (2006)

  • Contract extension: Onazi in talks with Lazio

    Contract extension: Onazi in talks with Lazio

    According to reports , the agent of  21-year-old midfielder Ogenyi Onazi will be in Rome to talk with Lazio about his new contract.

    Onazi suffered a fractured leg in Nigeria’s defeat to France at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.

    The 21-year-old was stretchered off after a tackle from France’s Blaise Matuidi during Nigeria’s 2-0 defeat to Les Bleus in the last-16 tie in Brasilia.

    However, he recently resumed full training and played some friendly matches for the capital side.

    Onazi had confirmed his wishes to stay at the club this season despite being linked with a move to England.

    He has established himself as a key member of the Aquile, and impressed at the World Cup with the Super Eagles.

    As a result he was linked with a move to the Premier League with Liverpool, Everton and Southampton all thought to be keen on the midfielder, however he has downplayed these links.

    Onazi, who is under contract with Lazio until June 2016 , made 29 Serie A appearances for the Biancoceleste in the 2013-2014 season.

  • Kompany hails City’s contract dealings

    Kompany hails City’s contract dealings

    Manchester City captain Vincent Kompany has hailed the club’s close-season contract dealings.

    Manuel Pellegrini has added to his ranks with the likes of Bacary Sagna, Fernando, Willy Caballero and Eliaquim Mangala since winning the Premier League crown in May.

    However, Kompany believes the new contracts handed to himself, Sergio Aguero, David Silva, Samir Nasri and Aleksandar Kolarov provide City’s squad with a stable and experienced spine.

    “It is one thing to make new signings but it is another to make sure we have a core of players who know the league and have enjoyed success in the league – then we can move forward with a certain style and philosophy that has been successful for us,” he is quoted as saying in the British press.

    “For me it is important to see quality, new players coming but it is as important to see players like David Silva and Kolarov and Nasri remaining at the club.”

    Striker Edin Dzeko is expected to sign a new deal imminently, with coach Pellegrini saying earlier this week: “I don’t think it’s 100 per cent finished – but yes, he will renew his contract.”

    City face Liverpool in the Premier League on Monday.

  • Breach of contract: Passenger sues Aero in the wrong court

    The Appellant as Plaintiff at the Edo State High Court, Benin Judicial Division filed an action, by way of a writ of summons, dated July 23, 2008. The Appellant, in her evidence before the trial Court, narrated that she procured a return ticket No.LB 041681E for Benin-Lagos-Benin flight, from the Defendants/Respondents on April 7, 2008.

    The following day, she was to travel from the Lagos airport to Benin airport, but instead, the Appellant was taken to Warri, contrary to the agreement contained in her ticket and boarding pass. Consequently, the Appellant incurred costs and suffered damages, having missed all her engagements and appointments in Benin City on that day. Wherefore she claimed against the Defendants/Respondents general damages for breach of contract by taking the plaintiff to Warri as against the contractual obligation to take her to Benin City and special damages for the shock, psychological trauma and hardship suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the delay and for not been able to meet up with her important appointments.

    The Defendants/Respondents at the trial Court filed a statement of defence dated May 5, 2009, and nine months later, filed a motion on notice asking the court to strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The Learned Judge after taking arguments from both parties, ruled in favour of the Respondents to the effect that the proper Court to hear the suit is the Federal High Court, and struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction.

    It is against this ruling of the Court, that the Appellant now appeals to the Court of Appeal by way of a notice of appeal dated  June 1, 2010, containing two grounds of appeal; seeking an order of the Court setting aside the ruling/decision of the trial Court delivered on the 19/5/2010, and remitting the suit to the Edo State High Court to be determined on its merits by a different judge. On the 11th of June, 2014, both parties adopted their written briefs. The Appellant by their brief of argument formulated two issues for the resolution of the appeal. They are as follows:

    “1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the appellant’s claim does not border on breach of contractual obligation but relates to matters arising from aviation and safety of aircraft, under S.251(1)(k) of the 1999 CFRN, or pertaining to carriage of passengers and Goods under S.2 of the Federal High Court (Amendment) Decree No.60 of 1991.

    2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the claim of the Plaintiff is not the major determinant factor for the jurisdiction of the Court.”

    The Court adopted the issues formulated by the Appellant in the determination of the appeal.

    On the first issue, Counsel to the Appellant submitted that the trial court was in error, when he held that the Appellant’s claim was principally in relation to matters arising from aviation and safety of aircraft under Section 251(1) (k) of the 1999 Constitution and pertains to carriage of passengers and goods under Section 2 of the Federal High Court (Amendment) Decree No. 60 of 1991. He went on to submit that the Appellant’s claim is based on breach of contract by the Respondent, for being unable to airlift the Appellant from Lagos to Benin as expressly shown on the flight ticket and boarding pass issued to the Appellant. He argued that the ticket confirms that the nature of the transaction between the parties was one of contract as indicated on the top left hand corner of the ticket. Counsel argued that Decree No. 60 of 1991 is not applicable to the Appellant’s case.

    On his second issue, Appellant’s Counsel posited that the jurisdiction of a Court is determined mainly by the nature of the claim as settled by numerous cases. Referring to the case of Oloruntoba-Oju vs. Abdul Raheem (2009) 26 WRN 1 at 15; (2009) LPELR-2596(SC), Counsel submitted that jurisdiction of a Court is determined by the nature of the claim as against the event that gave rise to the claim. Finally, Counsel submitted that the jurisdiction of a Court is determined by the pleadings and not the statement of defence.

    The Learned Counsel for the Respondent arguing the appeal submitted that it is the Plaintiff’s claim that determines whether the Court has jurisdiction or not. Counsel referred to Section 48(2) of the Civil Aviation Act, 2006, which implements the conventions for the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air signed at Montreal on 28/5/1999 as modified, and submitted that the Appellant’s claim is governed by the convention. Referring to the case of Patkun Industries Ltd. vs. Niger Shoe Manufacturing Company Ltd. (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt. 93) 138 at 152; (1988) LPELR-2906(SC), Counsel submitted that the trial Court was right to hold that Appellant’s claim was that of carriage of passengers by air.  On whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim, Counsel argued that Section 272(1) of the Constitution confers jurisdiction on State High Courts; subject to the provision of Section 251(1), and other provisions in the Constitution. He submitted also that Section 251(1) allows for additional jurisdiction by an act of the National Assembly, and the Federal High Court Act as amended by Decree No. 60 of 1991, conferred additional jurisdiction on the Federal High Court, to include the carriage of goods and passengers by air. Counsel cited Sections 2(7)(1), to 2(7)(5) and submitted that by the combined provisions of Section 251(1) of the Constitution and S.7(1) of the Federal High Court Act, as amended by Decree 60 of 1991, the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction pertaining to carriage of passengers and goods by air and meteorology. He argued that by the limitation in Section 272(1) the State High Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the Appellant’s claim.

    In determining the appeal, the Court stated the trite position of the law that determination of a matter, by a Court is null and void if done without jurisdiction, and it does not matter whether the proceedings were well conducted or the resolution well decided. And consequently it is usually considered expedient to resolve same first before proceeding further to decide the matter on the merit. The Court stated that the fact as narrated is not what is in dispute and the vexed question is whether the State High Court (to which the Appellant approached for relief) had the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the case before it. The Court further stated that in the cases of KLM Airline vs. Kumzhi (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt.875) 231; Kabo Air Ltd vs. Oladipo (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt.624) 517, it was held that the combined understanding of the provisions of the Federal High Court Act 1973, as amended by Decree No. 60 of 1991, is to oust the jurisdiction of the State High Court, in matters relating to matters covered under Section 251 (1) (k) as amended by the Federal High Court Act, 1973 as supplemented by Decree No.60 of 1991; and aimed at increasing the scope of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in respect of the subject matter specified therein. On the other hand it removed from the State High Court, the hitherto concurrent jurisdiction in respect of the affected subject matters or actions: Egypt Air vs. Alh. Abdullahi (1997) 11 NWLR (pt.528) 179 at 187 – 188; (1997) LPELR-6287(CA).

    The Court resolved the issues in favour of the Respondent, and held that the trial judge was right when he agreed with the Respondent, that the Appellant’s claim was not anchored on simple contractual relationship, but that founded on a contract for the carrying of passengers by air, and for which the State High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain. Consequently, the Court held that the appeal lacks merit and it was thereby dismissed.

    Edited by LawPavilion

    LawPavilion Citation: (2014) LPELR-23319(CA)