The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court of Appeal

  • Ondo: Court grants Jegede, Makarfi, Obi leave to appeal judgment

    Ondo: Court grants Jegede, Makarfi, Obi leave to appeal judgment

    …Refuses Sheriff’s, Ibrahim’s request to disband fresh panel

     

    Factional leaders of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Ahmed Makarfi and Ben Obi and the substituted governorship candidate of party in Ondo State, Eyitayo Jegede recorded major victory before the Court of Appeal in Abuja Thursday.

    The court, in two unanimous rulings by a three-man panel, upheld the applications by Makarfi, Obi (Chairman and Secretary of the PDP Caretaker Committee) and Jegede for leave to appeal against the June 29, 2016 judgment and October 14, 2016 ruling of Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Justice Abang had, in the judgment of June 29, recognised the Ali Modu Sheriff leadership of the PDP as the authentic body to take decisions for the party.

    In the October 14 post-judgment ruling, Justice Abang ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to accept the name of Jimoh Ibrahim (produced by the leadership of the party in Ondo, supported by the Sheriff faction in place of Jegede produced by the Markefi backed faction of the party in Ondo.

    Justice Ibrahim Saulawa (who led the panel) said in the lead ruling in the application by Jegede that he has satisfied the court that he was a necessary party to the case even when he was not a party at the trial court.

    Justice Saulawa held that under Order 7 Rule 3 of the Court of Appeal Rule an interested party to a judgment, who was not a party at the trial court, is allowed to apply to the appellate court for leave to appeal if such an application had been rejected by the lower court.

    He noted that in this case, since the trial court had reject Jegede’s application for leave to appeal, he was right to have file similar application again before the Court of Appeal within the prescribed 15 days.

    As against the argument by lawyer to factional Chairman of PDP in Ondo State, Biyi Poroye and other members of his Executive, Beluolisa Nwofor (SAN) that the June 29 judgment was a consent one, the court held otherwise.

    The court held that since Jegede was not a party at the trial court, he could not have consented to the judgment. It noted that by the record of the court, INEC that was a party at the trial court, did not consent to the judgment.

    “I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds duly established by the applicant (Jegede) that he be given the opportunity to appeal the judgment.

    “The applicant has duly established that he is the person aggrieved by the decision of the court below, having won the primary of the party,” Justice Saulawa said.

    He granted that application, deemed the notice of appeal and record of proceedings already compiled by the Jegede as properly filed and compiled.

    The courts granted an order departing from its court’s rule and abridge the time within which parties could file their processes.

    It granted the appellant (Jegede) 24 hours within which to file his brief or argument and three days to the respondents to file respondent’s brief.

    The ruling delivered in the application by Jegede, was adopted in the similar applications by Makarfi and Obi.

    In an earlier ruling, the court refused an application by Poroye and others for the disbandment of the fresh panel set up to hear all the appeals on the dispute over the governorship candidate of PDP in Ondo.

    The court held that the decision to set up a special panel to promptly determine the appeals was within the administrative powers of the Court of Appeal President, which cannot be challenged by anyone in court.

    Other members of the panel: Justice Ignatius Igwe Agube and Ita Godwin Mbaba agreed with the lead decisions by Justice Saulawa.

     

  • Appeal Court hears Tarfa’s bribery charge appeal January 19 

    Appeal Court hears Tarfa’s bribery charge appeal January 19 

    The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, Tuesday fixed January 19, 2017 to hear an appeal filed by embattled Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Rickey Tarfar challenging a Lagos High Court’s refusal to quash the bribery charge filed against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    The EFCC arraigned Tarfa before Justice A. A. Akintoye on March 10, on the allegation, among others, that he offered N5.3million gratification to Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa of the Federal High Court, in order to compromise the judge.

    It claimed that Tarfa transferred the money in several tranches to Justice Nganjiwa between June 27, 2012 and December 23, 2014.

    But Tarfa, through his defence team comprising about 34 SANs, challenged the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the case.

    In her ruling, Justice Akintoye dismissed the application and held that the court had jurisdiction to hear the matter.

    Dissatisfied, Tarfa filed a Notice of Appeal and urged the appellate court to and set aside the judgment of the lower court.

    At the appellate court yesterday, appellant’s lawyer,  Biodun Owonikoko (SAN) informed the court that record of appeal had been compiled and transmitted adding that the appeal was ripe for hearing.

    Also, EFCC counsel Rotimi Oyedepo said the commission had filed its briefs and was ready to argued the appeal.

    Consequently, the presiding Justice, Justice Mohammed Lawal Garuba fixed January 19 for the hearing of the appeal.

     

  • Court of Appeal gets new panel on Ondo PDP crisis

    Court of Appeal gets new panel on Ondo PDP crisis

    Court of Appeal President Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa has constituted a fresh panel of three Justices to hear appeals relating to the dispute over the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Ondo State.

    The panel has Justice Ibrahim Saulawa (Acting Presiding Justice of the Calabar division of the court) as head.

    Other members are Justices Ignatius Igwe Agube and Ita Godwin Mbaba (both of the Owerri division).

    The Nation learnt yesterday that members of the new panel will meet today and agree on when to begin sitting and work out a schedule of sitting, following which hearing notices will be sent to parties.

    The panel is to act in place of the last one, headed Justice Jumai Sankey, that withdrew on Tuesday following a petition by factional chairman of the PDP in Ondo, Prince Biyi Poroye.

    Justice Bulkachuwa, in a letter dated November 1, 2016, a copy of which was served on the court’s Chief Registrar, informed members of the new panel of their appointment.

    By the letter, a copy of which The Nation sighted in Abuja yesterday, the new panel is to hear and determine four appeals.

    They include: CA/A/402//2016, filed by the Ahmed Makarfi faction of the PDP against Benson Akingboye and two others; CA/A/551/m/2016 filed by Ahmed Makarfi and Ben Obi against Biyi Poroye and 10 others and CA/A/551A/m/2016 filed by Clement Faboyede and another against 10 others.

    The panel is also to hear an appeal marked: CA/A/EPT/567/2015 filed by Diri Kelly Adonye and INEC and two others.

    Two pending appeals in relation to the Ondo PDP crisis are yet to be assigned to any panel.

    They are: CA/A/551C/2016 filed by Eyitayo Jegede against Prince Biyi Poroye and 10 others; and CA/A551B/2016 filed by the PDP against Biyi Poroye and nine others.

    In her letter to members of the new panel, Justice Bulkachuwa directed them to independently design their work schedule, including dates of hearing of the appeals.

    They are also to liaise with the Presiding Justice of the Abuja division of the court, Justice Abdu Aboki.

    Part of the letter reads: “You are hereby empannelled to sit and determine the above appeals in Abuja Division expeditiously.

    “Hon. Justice I. M. M Saulawa will be presiding in the panel.

    “Fixation of dates to be worked out with the Presiding Justice, Abuja division.”

    On Tuesday, Justice Sankey had, while speaking about petition by Poroye, said it contained many allegations, including a claim that members of her panel were induced to act in favour of the appellant.

    Other members of her panel were Justices Emmanuel Agim and Oluwayemisi Williams Dawudu.

    Justice Sankey said: “The petitioner is not only complaining about the speed with which the panel is going about the case, he also said that the setting up of the panel is unnecessary because the case did not require any urgency.

    “The petitioner accused me of being very poor. He said because I was ill some years ago, I have become so poor that I am open to corruption. He is using my illness of about five years ago to say I am so poor that I am now open to corruption.

    “I carry my poverty with pride. I will not steal anybody’s money,” Justice Sankey said.

    Justice Agim wondered why the petitioner failed to explore the legitimate process of asking a judge to withdraw from a case rather than resorting to casting aspersions at innocent judges via a petition, containing unsubstantiated allegations.

    “One of the allegations in the petition is that the reason we are doing this case is that we have been paid money,” Justice Agim said.

    While announcing her panel’s witndrwawl from the appeals, Justice Sankey said: “Ordinarily, since no facts have been placed before this court formally, to show a likelihood of bias on the part of the panel, and since learned Senior Advocates for the petitioner and first respondent has disassociated himself from the petition, we would have been minded to continue with the hearing of these appeals.

    “This position will accord with settled law on bias against a judge on the basis of which his recusal is sought. It is that a judge, upon such a mere allegation, should not simply throw in the towel and abandon the case. “Such an attitude has been described as an abdication of judicial responsibility. It is the duty of the judge to consider the facts placed before him to find out if they are not just spurious and whimsical, but discloses a reasonable basis that there is a real likelihood of bias.

    “Even though this petition has fallen short of showing any likelihood of bias, nonetheless, we consider it more desirable to recuse ourselves at this stage in respect of all appeals and applications connected to the Ondo State governorship election.

    “All the files in this regard are now sent back to the Honourable President of the Court of Appeal for re-assignment.”

  • Ondo: Special Court of Appeal panel withdraws from PDP appeals

    Ondo: Special Court of Appeal panel withdraws from PDP appeals

    The Special Court of Appeal panel led by Justice Hannatu Sankey constituted to determine all appeals arising from the Ondo State PDP governorship primary on Tuesday in Abuja withdrew following accusation of fraud.

    The two other members were Justices E. Agim and O.E William-Dawudu.

    Sankey, in her ruling, ordered that the files of all the five pending appeals relating to the PDP governorship ticket in Ondo State be returned to the President of the Court of Appeal for re-assignment.

    Sankey said the development was necessitated by a petition written against the panel by the Ondo State Chairman of the PDP, Biyi Poroye.

    “The petitioner in the most unholy description of my personality being a Justice who has just recovered from a protracted illness was open to corruption.

    “He in similar vein alleged that the panel has been paid huge sums of money by interested party to be able to sit on the Special Panel.

    “Ordinarily, since no fact has been placed on the court showing bias we would not have minded but in the circumstance we are compelled to withdraw in the interest of our integrity and justice,” she said.

    Poroye had also alleged that the panel was constituted to urgently hear and determine the cases because the President of the Court of Appeal was compromised.

    According to him, the members of the panel are briefed to deliver judgment in favour one of the governorship contenders Eyitayo Jegede.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the petitioner had obtained the orders of the Federal High Court in Abuja recognising Jimoh Ibrahim as the governorship candidate of the party.

    Acting on the order made by Justice Okon Abang, INEC dropped Jegede, a product of the Ahmed Makarfi-faction of the PDP.

    NAN further reports that Jegede’s substitution had further confirmed Ali Modu Sheriff as the National Chairman of the party, a development, the Ahmed Makarfi faction had challenged.

    Earlier, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), a counsel to Jegede expressed displeasure on the development, adding that the petition was baseless.

    “My Lords, the petitioner should be used as an example to ward off this type of frivolous accusations of our Judges.

    “I am suggesting that the petition be forwarded to the police for thorough investigation and the petitioner be placed in custody,” he said.

    On his part, Chief Alex Izinyon (SAN), counsel to Poroye, denied knowledge of the petition as according to him, politicians are capable of over reaching themselves in political matters.

    “I am totally not aware of this petition, he did not tell me about it and I therefore stand to denounce it, but I shall be craving the indulgence of the court to allow me some allowances to interface with him.

    “My Lords, it is not a new thing, the Ahmed Makarfi camp had done this to us at the trial court where a petition was filed against Justice Okon Abang to withdraw from presiding,” he said.

    NAN reports that with the seeming delay caused by this development, the Ondo people may have to wait a bit longer to be offered the authentic governorship candidate of the PDP for the Nov. 26 election. (NAN)

  • CCT: Court of Appeal reserves judgment on Saraki’s appeal

    CCT: Court of Appeal reserves judgment on Saraki’s appeal

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Thursday reserved judgment in an appeal filed by the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, challenging the jurisdiction of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) to trial him.

    Justice Abdu Aboki-led other four justices of the appellate court reserve the date after parties had adopted their written addresses.

    Aboki said that the date of the judgment would be communicated to the parties.

    The notice of appeal was filed on March 24 after Saraki’s motion challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal was dismissed.

    Adopting his address, Mr Kanu Agabi (SAN), Counsel to Saraki, urged the appellate court to upturn the decision of the tribunal which had arrogated to itself jurisdiction to try the applicant.

    “That is to say that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the charge brought against my client,’’ he said.

    Agabi argued that under Section 3(d) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, anyone alleged to have breached the provision must be given an opportunity for a written admission.

    He submitted that the non-compliance of the provision presupposed that the tribunal declared that legislation unconstitutional.

    “That is why we are here. Leaving an inferior court like the CCT to declare an important legislation unconstitutional will be fatal,’’ he said.

    Agabi further said that the applicant should not have been taken to the tribunal, adding that Saraki was not given his full right of admittance to the error spotted in his assert declaration forms.

    “If the Code of Conduct Bureau had followed the provision of the law we would not have been here. Saraki was not given the right of fair hearing and we are surprised why this happened.

    “In the light of this, there is no statement from the applicant which should have been accompanied with the prosecution’s proof of evidence as stipulated in the Administration of Justice Act.

    “The other aspect is for the appellate court to decide whether it is right not to treat all identical cases equally,’’ Agabi said.

    He also said: “we are saying this because the tribunal had some time ago ruled itself out of a similar case filed against Sen. Bola Tinubu.’’

    Agabi submitted that it was clear that the action against the applicant was not in the interest of justice.

    According to him, it amounts to judicial absurdity to bring the applicant to court on alleged offence committed 13 years ago.

    “The Code of Conduct Bureau exists as a reconciliatory unit meant to correct errors spotted in asserts declaration forms and not created to send people to prison.

    “I urge the court to impress it on the two institutions to do the needful by availing the applicant the opportunity for a written admission.

    “I also pray the court to hold that the tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to try the applicant in the circumstance,’’ Agabi said.

    Agabi further averred that it was a breach of statutory provision that established the Code Conduct Bureau for either the EFCC or ICPC to assist it prosecuted alleged offences bordering around assets declaration.

    “In this case, the EFCC was brought in to investigate and prosecute the applicant,’’ he said.

    On his part, Chief Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), the Prosecuting Counsel, prayed the court to dismiss the appeal, adding that it lacked merit.

    On Agabi’s submission that the applicant was not given the right of written admission, Jacob said that provision was an old law.

    Jacob said Section 3(d) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act was contained in the 1979 Constitution but expunged from the amended 1999 Constitution.

    “I want to also make it clear before My Lords that the written statement of admission is different from the statement of defence that must accompany the proof of evidence.

    “The applicant was given sufficient right to file objections to all the allegations brought against him, therefore, it will be unfair for his counsel to claim that he was not given fair hearing,’’ Jacob said.

    Jacob also said the immunity status accorded the applicant by the constitution while being governor of Kwara for eight years delayed his prosecution, adding that it was not a case of selective justice.

    In a cross appeal filed by the prosecution team, the applicant was accused of abusing court process, as according to Jacob, most of the reliefs sought has been heard and decided by the Supreme Court.

  • Appeal Court reverses Ikpeazu’s sack

    Appeal Court reverses Ikpeazu’s sack

    ……Voids Certificate of Return issued Ogah

     

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reversed the sack of Abia State Governor, Victor Okezie Ikpeazu by a Federal High Court in Abuja.

    Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja had in two judgments on June 27 this year, on suits by Sampson Ogah and Obasi Ekeagbala, voided Ikpeazu’s election on the ground that he made false claims in his tax documents submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    In six separate judgments Thursday, a five-man bench of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju set aside the two judgments by Justice Abang on the grounds that his findings and conclusions were wrong.

    The appellate court reversed all the orders he made, including Ikpeazu’s sack and the issuance of Certificate of Return to Ogah by INEC.

  • Appeal Court annuls Hijab ban in Lagos State schools

    A special five-man panel of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, Thursday set aside the judgment of a Lagos High Court that banned students in Lagos State-owned primary and secondary schools from wearing the hijab (Islamic headscarf) on their school uniforms.

    In a unanimous decision, the court presided over by Justice A. B. Gumel held that the appeal is meritorious and same should be allowed.

    It held further that the refusal to allow female Muslim students wear the hijab “will amount to discrimination on the ground of their religion.”

    Other Justices in the panel are Justice M. Fasanmi, Justice A. Jauro, Justice J. S. Ikyegh and Justice I. Jombo Ofor.

    The appeal was filed by two female students of Atunrase Junior High School, Surulere, Asiyat Kareem and Mariam Oyeniyi, under the aegis of the Muslim Students Society of Nigeria (MSSN), Lagos State Area Unit. MSSN, Lagos State Area Unit.

    It followed the dismissal of their suit challenging the ban by Justice Modupe Onyeabor of an Ikeja High Court on October 17, 2014.

    In his lead judgement Thursday, Justice Gumel held that “the wearing of hijab is an Islamic injunction and also an act of worship,” hence it will constitute “a clear violation of the appellants’ constitutionally guaranteed rights to stop them from wearing the hijab in public schools.”

    Resolving all the five issues raised in favour of the appellants, the appellate court held that the lower court erred in law when it held that ban of hijab is a policy of the Lagos State Government (respondent).

    The court noted that no circular was presented before the lower court to show that it was a policy of Lagos State, adding that “he who asserts must prove.”

    There court observed further that if there was such a policy, it ought to have emanated from the State House of Assembly and not the Executive Arm of government.

    Consequently, it held that the fundamental human rights of female Muslim students as enshrined in Section 38 (1) of the 1999 Constitution was violated by the Respondent.

    The appellate court dismissed the argument of Lagos State that it made an exception by allowing female Muslim students to wear the hijab during prayers.

    The government had banned the use of hijab on the argument that it was not part of the approved school uniform for pupils.

    Following this, 12-year-old Kareem and Oyeniyi suing through their parents, Abdulkareem Raji and Sulaimon Oyeniyi, filed the suit on May 27, 2015, seeking redress and asked the court to declare the ban as a violation of their rights to freedom of thought, religion and education.

    In her judgment, Justice Onyeabor held that the prohibition of the wearing of hijab over school uniforms within and outside the premises of public schools was not discriminatory.

    According to her, the ban did not violate Sections 38 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution as claimed by the plaintiffs. The judge said Section 10 of the Constitution made Nigeria a secular state and that government must maintain neutrality at all times. Onyeabor said the government therefore had a duty to preserve the secular nature of the institutions concerned as argued by the then Lagos State Solicitor-General, Mr Lawal Pedro (SAN).

    She noted that since the public schools were being funded by the government, it was therefore competent to issue dress codes and other guidelines to the students.

    According to her, the use of uniforms engenders uniformity and encourages students to pursue their mutual academic aspirations without recourse to religious or any other affiliations.

    The judge observed that the uniformity sought by the government in the issuance of the dress code would be destroyed, should the prayers of the plaintiffs be granted.

  • Hijab: Appeal Court delivers judgment Thursday 

    The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, will Thursday deliver judgment on whether or not students in Lagos public primary and secondary schools can wear the Hijab (Muslim headscarf) on their uniforms.

    President of the Lagos State Area Unit of the Muslim Students’ Society of Nigeria (MSSN), Saheed Ashafa, said Thursday that according to a hearing notice made available by the court, the judgment will be delivered in Court Two by 9am.

    A special five-man panel of the court led by Justice A. B. Gumel had on May 27, reserved its judgement on the matter after asking parties involved in the case to update their defence documents.

    Other Justices in the panel set up by the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa are Justice M. Fasanmi, Justice A. Jauro, Justice J.S. Ikejegh and Justice I. Jombo Ofor.

    Justice Amina Augie had on May 3, ruled among others that the matters raised in the suit required Constitutional interpretation and directed the appellants to write Justice Bulkachuwa to set up a full court (of five justices) to hear the case.

    Justice Modupe Onyeabor of an Ikeja High Court had on October 17, 2014, dismissed the suit instituted against the Lagos State Government by two 12-year-old girls, Asiyat Kareem and Mariam Oyeniyi, under the aegis of the MSSN, Lagos State Area Unit.

    Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the appellate court seeking to set aside the judgment and protect their Constitutional rights.

    They argued that the ban was a violation of their rights to freedom of thought, religion and education.

    The government had banned the use of Hijab on the argument that it was not part of the approved school uniform for pupils.

  • Court of Appeal puts Dasuki’s appeal on hold

    Court of Appeal puts Dasuki’s appeal on hold

    The Court of Appeal on Monday put on hold hearing on an appeal filed by Sambo Dasuki, seeking discharge of all the criminal charges against him by the Federal Government.

    The presiding Judge, Justice Abdul Aboki, held that the appeal was not ripe for hearing since parties had failed to file all relevant process before the court.

    “As you have all seen, the respondent’s brief is not before us which means the process that should give room for the hearing of the appeal is not concluded yet.

    “We shall not be giving parties any date again until the proper thing is done,’’ Aboki held.

    The applicant (former National Security Adviser) headed to the appellate court over his prolonged detention by the Department of State Services (DSS).

    Dasuki had prayed the appellate court to set aside a judgment by an Abuja High Court that refused to stay proceedings of his trial following his prolonged detention.

    It would be recalled that Dasuki had been detained by the DSS since December 2015.

    He further urged the court to absolve him of the pending charges on account of the federal government disobedience to a court order which granted him bail.

    His re-arrest by the security agency came after Justice Ademola Adeniyi of the Federal High Court, Abuja, granted him bail from the custody of the EFCC.

    In his appeal, he also sought the stay of proceedings on his trial pending the obedience of three court orders granting him bail by the government.

    Dasuki said the Abuja High court which refused his earlier application for stay of proceedings of his trial erred in its ruling.

    The applicant is standing trial for alleged misappropriation of more than two billion dollars meant for arms purchases for the country’s military to fight the Boko Haram insurgents.

  • Court dismisses NSCDC’s appeal on judgment voiding sack of staff

    The Court of Appeal, Abuja division has dismissed an appeal filed by the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) against the judgment by the National Industrial Court (NIC) reinstating 181 of its (NSCDC’s) personnel wrongly dismissed.

    The National Industrial Court (NIC) had, in a judgment on March 19, 2015 ordered the NSCDC to reinstate the sacked staff led by Oboni Musa, with their full emoluments from the time they were illegally dismissed.

    Justice Oluseun Adefolake of the NIC in the judgment directed the NSCDC to return the employment letters to the affected 180 personnel and ordered it to pay all arrears of their salaries amounting to about N1.2 billion.

    Justice Adefolake also restrained the NSCDC from further tampering with the employment of the affected personnel.

    “Having reviewed the evidence before the court and the submissions of counsel, it is obvious that the Commandant General of the NSCDC was not diligent enough in the recruitment.

    Dissatisfied, NSCDC, the Director, Civil Defence, Immigration and Prisons Service Board (who were respondents at the NIC) appealed the judgment, but failed to diligently prosecute it.

    A three-man panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Moore Adumein, in a ruling, upheld the respondents’ request and dismissed the appeal “for lack of diligent prosecution.”