Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO) has called for the resignation of the President, Court of Appeal, Hon. Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa for alleged open display of personal interest in constituting a questionable three- man panel of the Appellate Court to hear an appeal by a former council chairman of Asari – Toru local government area of Rivers State, Ojukaye Flag – Amachree.
The said Ojukaye Flag – Amachree, who is currently remanded in prison custody and awaiting trial is facing a three count charge of conspiracy and murder having been accused of shooting to death one Smart Soberekon to death in Buguma, headquarters of the local government during April 11, 2015 general election.
At a briefing in Lagos yesterday, CLO, President, Comrade Igho Akeregha said, the call for the resignation of the President of the Court of Appeal, is predicated on alleged bias, an obvious act of potential abuse of judicial powers and perceived compromise as as clear demonstration of political partisanship in the trial of the said Amachree.
The CLO boss said the way and manner the three man panel was set up by the President of Court of Appeal, smacks of bias and attempt to derail the course of justice.
The CLO, he said became curious when the panel of appeal in the Port Harcourt Court of Appeal, which refused to grant bail on health grounds to Amachree is being substituted by another panel set up by the President of the Court of Appeal without any reason.
Akeregha said: ” The CLO has chosen the option to raise this alarm and urge the Chief Justice of Nigeria to curb the excesses of Hon. Justice Bulkachuwa and relieve her of the sensitive position of Court of Appeal President as it now appears obvious to any discerning mind that the singular reason for which she hurriedly constituted the said three man panel is to preferentially entertain an appeal which denied Amachree bail by the Rivers State High Court.
“We also observe that there is neither a petition nor an issue of bias against any of the Appeal Court Justices by any of the parties to warrant any form of reassignment or setting up of this supposedly respected President of Court of Appeal.
“The mission of the President of the Court of Appeal by constituting another panel where there is a substantive Panel of Appeal in Port Harcourt betrays the judicious and judicial exercise of powers and raises questions on both the impending/ potential abuse of judicial exercise of powers by judges as well as the issue of partiality and partisanship among judges with open cleavages and interest to ostensibly do the biding of certain politicians instead of bidding of conscience and law.”
The CLO, has called on the National; Judicial Council to dissolve the so – called appeal panel to hear the bail application of Amachree.
The CLO said: ” That Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa be immediately investigated, reprimanded and restrained for this show of naked partisanship in a murder trial and gross abuse of judicial powers and criminal breach of trust. If found culpable, she should be made to immediately stand down.
“That the Appeal Court judges that are originally assigned to preside over the Appeal Court in Port Harcourt Division should be allowed freely to sit and entertain this matter including several others before it.
“That the NJC and the Chief Justice of Nigeria should not allow the interest of the likes of Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa to rubbish the judiciary again m but should rise to the occasion now and do the needful which is the credibility and integrity of the judiciary.
“That the CLO believe that given the circumstances of this case, the organization and other right thinking members of the public totally reject this panel and will stop at nothing short to seeking to harvest filthy political gains and lucre and instigate another round of avoidable violent crisis in Rivers State where a rerun election is about to take place in a number of places.”
Tag: Court of Appeal
-
CLO calls for resignation of Appeal court’s President
-
Bayelsa election: Appeal Court tribunal to play key video evidence
Former Bayelsa State governor,Chief Timipre Sylva got a major boost Friday in his challenge of the re-election of the incumbent Seriake Dickson.
The Court of Appeal, Abuja, in a ruling Friday, ordered the State Governorship Election Tribunal to play, in the open court, a digital video disc (DVD) recording of the announcement of the cancellation of the election in Southern Ijaw Local Government by the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC).
Sylva, who is contesting the declaration of Dickson as winner of the last governorship election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), contends, in his petition, that INEC’s REC lacked the powers to cancel election.
The ex-governor, whose lawyer, Sebastine Hon (SAN) had pleaded was denied the opportunity to play DVD when he applied to do so through a witness.
However, the Court of Appeal Friday faulted the tribunal’s refusal to allow Sylva play the DVD. It directed the tribunal to play the DVD in the open court.
Justice Onyeakachi Ottis, who read the court’s unanimous judgment on the interlocutory appeal by Sylva, set aside the tribunal’s ruling of May 10, 2016 rejecting the request by Sylva lawyer to have the DVD played.
The court said that contrary to the decision of the Tribunal the appellant complied with the conditions precedence stipulated in Section 84 of the Evidence Act on the admissibility of electronically generated evidence.
The appellate court held that it was wrong of the tribunal to have misapplied Section 84 to deny the appellant the right to play the DVD in the open court to justify his petition against the election of Governor Seriake Dickson.
It said once the evidence had been admitted, having met all the conditions under Section 84 of the Evidence Act, there was no need for any certificate before any computer could be deployed to play the DVD in evidence.
The court ordered the tribunal to recall the petitioner’s witness, through which he had sought to play it, to play the said DVD in the open court.
It noted that the DVD was pleaded by the petitioner; it is relevant to the petition, and that it also the tendering also conforms to the law on electronically generated document.
The court further noted that since it was admitted in evidence in line with Section 84 of Evidence Act; the foundation for its admission well laid, and the DVD well pleaded in the petition, “it is not the decision of the judiciary to supply any authority other than to follow the law in the circumstances.”
The court said there ought not to be any inhibition to the playing of the DVD in the open court by the tribunal because all conditions prescribed by law have been fulfilled by the appellant.
It held that the DVD ought to be played by the tribunal in the open court to demonstrate that it intended not to make it a sleeping exhibit.
Reacting to the judgement, Hon described it as a milestone in the development of our laws and will go a long way in strengthening the laws.
He said justice has been done to in his client’s case.
Lawyer to Dickson, Emeka Etiaba (SAN) said his client would first study the judgment and then, decide on what next step to take.
-
Appeal court affirms Lagos traffic law on Okada restriction
The Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos on Thursday affirmed the judgment of a Lagos High Court upholding the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Lagos State Road Traffic Law 2012 which restricts commercial motorcycles popularly known as Okada from plying some routes in the State.
The Appellants (The Incorporated Trustees of All Nigerians Autobike Commercial Owners and Workers Association (ANACOWA) and other persons via an Originating Summons, had approached the High Court of Lagos State contesting that Section 3 of the Lagos State Road Traffic Law 2012 violated their right to freedom of movement and sought an order of the Court to declare the said Section as unconstitutional.
However the Court of Appeal held that Section 3 of the Law was not ultra vires the powers of the Lagos State House of Assembly to enact laws for the State.
The Court further ruled that the Law was enacted with the overriding intention to protect the interest of the public, provide environmental sanity and reasonably justifiable for a society like Lagos State.
In a related development, the Appeal Court in Lagos has upturned the judgment of a Federal High Court in Lagos awarding $5,707, 297.90 (about N2bn) against the Lagos State Government over a disputed property in Victoria Island area of the State.
Former Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Dan Abutu, had in a judgment delivered on November 2, 2007 awarded the sum as special damages and N10, 000,000 as exemplary damages against the Lagos State Government over alleged illegal entry into the said property located at No.1A Ozumba Mbadiwe, Victoria Island, Lagos by men of the State’s Special Task Force on Environment.
The plaintiff in the suit, Zanen Verstoep had in 2006 dragged the State Government to Federal High Court claiming the sum of $5,707, 297.90 (US Dollars) as general damages and N200,000,000 as well as N300,000,000 as exemplary damages for the said alleged illegal entry.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court, the State Government filed a notice of appeal, and asked that the judgment be reversed for lacking in merit.
The Appeal Court, in its judgment delivered on June 23, 2016 by Justice S.C Oseji upheld the arguments of the Honourable Attorney General of Lagos State, Mr Adeniju Kazeem, saying that there was merit in the appeal.
In arriving at the decision reversing the judgment of the Federal High Court, the Appeal Court held that the contention of the Lagos State Government that the respondent failed to strictly prove the special damages it claimed was justified, adding that this was fatal to the first Respondent’s ( Zanen Verstoep) case.
-
Court of Appeal sacks Thisday Dome
•Orders its immediate vacation
The Court of Appeal in Abuja has ordered Leaders and Company Limited operators of the popular events center – Thisday Dome – in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to vacate the land on which the centre is erected.
A three-man panel of the court, in a judgement on June 15, ordered Leaders and company to yield possession of the land measuring measuring 1.73 hectares and situated at and known as Plot 702 Cadasral Zone A00, on which Thisday Dome is erected, to Abuja Investments Limitedý (AIL) with immediate effect.
The judgment was on the appeal filed by Leaders and Company challenging the decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory delivered on May 26, 2014 which directed the AIL to take possession of the said events center.
The Court of Appeal, in a unaninous decision read by Justice Abubakar Datti Yahaya, held that the appeal lacks merit and accordingly dismissed it.
Justice Yahaya said: ”There is no doubt that the appellant (Leaders and Company Limited) has gone to the length it had, only to continue to keep using and occupying the premises of the respondent, fully knowing that it is not so entitled. The sooner we realise in this country, that business should be done substantially in good faith, the better for us.
“This entails honouring agreements entered between parties so that peace and development would be the end result. This is one case that should not have gone to court at all. This appeal lacks merit in toto and I dismiss it, with N100,000 costs to the respondent against the appellant” he declared” he stated.
Justice Yahaya noted that”it is clear from the record that ýthe respondent had led documentary and oral evidence in support of its case.
“The tenancy agreement was clearly for a fixed period and definite period of two years and it had expired without proof by any party, that it had been renewed, when, by who and on what terms.
“There was no evidence led by the appellant, satisfactorily establishing that it had paid all the rents due and had vacated and delivered up the ýpossession of the premises to the respondent.
“It has been shown that the statutory notice of owner’s intention to recover the premises had been duly served on the appellant which had not filed any application to challenge it.
“In the circumstance, the trial court had properly evaluated the evidence led before it, had applied the law correctly, and had arrived at the correct conclusion.
“There is no feature in it that would warrant interfering with the judgment since it is the duty of the trial court to evaluate the evidence and make primary findings of facts. When correctly done, an appellate court cannot interfere,” Justice Yahaya said.
Other members of the three-man panel that heard the appeal – Justices Tani Yusuf Hassan and Joseph E. Ekanem – agreed with the lead judgment.
AIL, through its lawyer, Chief Chris Uche (SAN), urged the Court of Appeal to grant it immediate possession of the property and compel the appellant to pay it N39,495,429.30 being arrears of rent for half of the two-year term, still unpaid to it by the Leader and Company and the N3,291,285,77 per month as mesue profits from May 1, 2007 until possession is given up.
AIL contended that the lease agreement entered into by the two parties for a fixed period of two years expired on August 31,2009 to May 1,2011 for N78,990,858,50, which the appellant failed to pay at the expiratýion of the tenancy agreement.
-
My Pikin: Appeal Court affirms convicts’ seven years sentence
The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division Tuesday upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court, Lagos which sentenced two employees of Barewa Pharmaceutical Company Limited to seven years’ imprisonment each for selling killer teething syrup, ‘My Pikin.’
In a unanimous decision delivered Tuesday by Justice C. E. Iyozoba (Mrs.) the appellate court held that the complaint of the appellants, Adeyemo Abiodun and Ebele Eromosele, was without merit and fined them N1 million.
It added that “throughout the gamut of the trial, the appellants never denied that they were the manufacturers of the contaminated drug ‘My Pikin’ teething syrup.”
The appellate court had in 2013 delivered a similar judgment on the appeal but the Supreme Court, faulted the judgment on the ground that it was determined on an abandoned notice and grounds of appeal.
In a verdict delivered by Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour, the apex court ordered the Court of Appeal to rehear the appeals on the “valid notice/grounds of appeal” filed on July 3, 2013.
So, delivering judgement yesterday, Justice Iyozoba affirmed the convictions and held that samples of the contaminated drug were tested in a laboratory and that the process of testing was “clear and smooth.”The court added that there was no need for additional scientific evidence being requested by the appellants.
“The drug in question is manufactured by only the appellants. No other pharmaceutical company produces the drug. So, any of the product in Nigeria is manufactured by the appellants.
“There was no contradictory evidence as both the appellants and respondent confirmed that the contaminated drug was manufactured by the appellants”, the court held.
Other Justices on the panel are Justice Y. Nimpar and Justice J. Y. Tukur.
However, the court also held that the lower court was wrong when it convicted the appellants of the offence of conspiracy.
It added that the prosecution did not establish any evidence showing that the appellants conspired to manufacture and distribute contaminated drugs.
Consequently, it set aside their conviction on conspiracy but added that this would have no effect on the seven-year sentence since the jail term will run concurrently.
The court also set aside the order of the High Court winding up the company and the order of forfeiture of assets to the Federal Government.
The court held that Section 118(b) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act did not empower the trial judge to wind-up the company and order forfeiture of its assets.
It added that what the trial judge ought to have done was to order forfeiture of the contaminated drugs and not the company’s assets.
Nevertheless, the court imposed a N1 million fine on the appellants.
Justice Okechukwu Okeke of the Federal High Court, Lagos sentenced Abiodun and Eromosele on May 17, 2013 for selling the syrup known as “My Pikin’’.
The convicts were employees of the Barewa Pharmaceutical Company Ltd and were prosecuted by the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control, NAFDAC.
Justice Okeke found the duo guilty of conspiracy and sale of adulterated teething mixture which caused the death of more than 80 children in Nigeria.
The court ordered that the company should be wound up and its asset forfeited to the Federal Government.
At the appellate court, the seven-year sentence was affirmed, but the order for winding up and forfeiture was reversed.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Sidi Bage, the court held that the prosecution sufficiently proved that the men committed the offences.
But, in a unanimous judgment the Supreme Court faulted the decision of the Appeal Court on the ground that it determined the convicts’ appeals on an abandoned notice and grounds of appeal.
-
Appeal court revokes Alamieyeseigha’s claim to landed property
The name of late former Governor of Bayelsa State, Chief Diepreye Alamieseigha has resurfaced again for the wrong reason in a judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
The court in a judgment delivered by Justice Theresa Ngolika Orji-Abadua in an appeal instituted by Stodie Ventures Limited against Alamieyeseigha and his wife, Margaret, ordered the respondents to vacate a piece of land measuring 5336.919 square meters situated at Ovom, Onopa, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State.
The late former governor and his wife are enmeshed in several cases of alleged land grabbing including a dispute involving a choice parcel of land situated at the Government Reserved Area (GRA) layout along Otiotio Road, Yenagoa.
Stodie is a company owned by Dr. Bolere Ketebu, former President of the National Council of Women Society (NCWS), immediate past Ambassador of Nigeria to Ireland and erstwhile member of the Federal House of Representatives.
The case was filed for the firm by Mr. Doueyi Fiderikumo, the Managing Solicitor, D.D. Fiderikumo & Co.
The company had dragged the late former governor and his wife to court in a 2011 suit filed in the state High Court challenging their occupation of the said land and praying the court to declare it (company) the rightful owner of the land.
The company also asked the court to restrain the late former governor and his wife, their servants and agents from committing further act of trespass on the parcel of land and demanded N100million damages for trespass.
But in 2012, the High Court dismissed the suit on grounds that the company failed to establish its case by credible evidence as required of it by law.
Dissatisfied with the lower court’s judgment, the company filed a notice of appeal on March 29, 2012 asking the court to set aside the judgment of the lower court and to uphold its prayers.
The appeal court panel comprising Justice Theresa Ngolika Orji-Abadua, Justice Stephen Jonah Adah and Justice Bitrus Gyarazama Sanga, declared that the trial court erred in its judgement.
A copy of the judgment dated September 30, 2015 which was read by Orji-Abadua said: “It is thoroughly reprehensible that the first defendant who was the governor of Bayelsa State as at the time the said compulsory acquisition was made seemingly for an overriding public interest, later allocated the said land to himself and his wife, who was then First Lady of Bayelsa State.
“No government or individual has any right to acquire land compulsorily and alienate or transfer it to another private individual or body for his or its private use.
“I would rather say in passing that the public purpose for which the government can compulsorily acquire lands are clearly defined in the Act and do not include acquisition for the purpose of making a grant to a third party”.
The Justice further observed that the respondents (late Alamieyeseigha and his wife) made no efforts to join the state government as a party and were unable to prove that the compulsory acquisition complied with all the relevant laws.
She said: “The identity of the land was an issue nor was the traditional history of the appellant’s vendor. The respondents did not contest the appellant’s root of title, rather they claimed that the said land was compulsorily acquired without proving the acquisition and the state government’s compliance with all the laid down principles on compulsory acquisition.
“The respondents admitted that the land in dispute was part of the land compulsorily acquired by the Bayelsa State Government. By their pleadings, it is clear that the parties knew the identity and location of the said land.
“The trial court was, therefore, wrong when it held that the claimant had failed to establish its case by credible evidence as required of it by be law and its case”.
The Justice further averred that the evidence by one Chief Stephen Abaribote, the Head of Gbeseleseimo Family in Fambue Ovom, confirmed that the family of Fambue compound Ovom had since time immemorial been the owner of the property which they sold to the appellant.
She said the piece of evidence was not dislodged during cross-examination adding that the respondents did not challenge the title of the original owners.
She said: “The respondents failed to discharge the onus that shifted from the plaintiff to them. Accordingly by virtue of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004, reliefs 1 and 2 sought by the appellants are hereby granted.
“Since there is evidence of encroachment on the land by the admission on the part of the respondents, the respondents shall pay sum of N500, 000 to the appellant as damages for trespass”.
But Fiderukumo said the family of the deceased former governor was yet to comply with the judgment adding that there were no records to show that Mrs. Alamieyeseigha took the matter to the Supreme Court.
He said his law firm had written to the police asking for their assistance in the execution of the judgment.
-
Alleged money laundry: A/Court says Metuh has case to answer
The Court of Appeal, Abuja has held that Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) spokesman, Olisa Metuh and his company, Destra Investment Limited must answer to charges of money laundering brought against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The appellate court, in a judgment Wednesday, upheld the March 9 ruling by Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja, to the effect that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against Metuh and his company, requiring them to enter defence.
A three-man bench of the Court of Appeal, which upheld the objections raised to the two appeals by Metuh and his company, dismissed the appeals having also considered them on merit.
Justice Abdul Aboki, who led the three-man panel, read the lead judgments in both appeals, which Justices T. Y. Hassan and M. Mustapher (other members of the panel) agreed with.
Metuh and his company are being tried on a seven-count charge before the Federal High Court, Abuja on charges of money laundering.
At the completion of the prosecution’s case earlier this year, having called eight witnesses, the court called on the defence to open its case.
Rather than conducting their defence, Metuh and Destra elected to make a no-case submission, which Justice Abang rejected in the March 9 ruling.
Justice Abang was of the view that the prosecution has provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the defendants to warrant the court to call on them to enter defence.
Metuh’s lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) and lawyer to his company, Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN), in both their appeals, faulted Justice Abang’s reasons for rejecting their clients’ no-case submissions.
They urged the appellate court to set aside Justice Abang’s decision, uphold their clients’ no-case submissions and quash the charges against them.
In both judgments Wednesday, the Court of Appeal upheld the preliminary objection raised by the prosecution (listed as the 1st respondent) to the effect that the appeals by Metuh and Destra were incompetent.
The court held that failed to comply with the requirement in Section 242(1) that an appellant, who is appealing interlocutory decision, on either grounds of facts or mixed law and facts, must first obtain the leave of either the trial or appellate court before filing a notice of appeal.
After declaring the upholding the preliminary objection, the court still proceeding to decide the appeals on merits. It held, after examining the submissions of parties, that the appeals were without merit and dismissed them.
In the first judgment, on the appeal by Metuh, Justice Aboki identified one issue for determination, which was whether or not the prosecution has establish a prima facie case against Metuh to require him to defend himself.
Justice Aboki, after analysing the argument of parties, resolved the sole issue against Metuh.
“I have carefully examined the 7-count charge against the appellant in the instant case. It was evident from the case made out against the appellant, that the witness led by the 1st respondent testified to facts in respect of the charge on which the appellant was arraigned.
“The evidence led by the 1st respondent’s witness was not discredited in cross-examination. The trial remains on-going. It is my view that there is the need for the appellant to either deny or offer explanation.
“The trial court was therefore right to hold that evidence on record as it relates to the circumstances of this case has raised a numbering of issues which the appellants is required to address,” he said.
On the questions raised by Justice Abang regarding the issues he (the judge) felt the appellant (Metuh) must address, the appellate court said the questions were in order and did not amount to the judge descending into the arena of conflict, as argued by the appellant.
“It is my view that the questions posed by the trial court were not meant to shift the burden of proof to the appellant and not a breach of the appellant’s right to fair hearing as contended by the appellant.
“They are rhetoric questions as rightly observed by counsel to the 1st respondent.
“The justice of the case demands that where a prima facie case is established against the appellant in a no-case submission, as in the instant case, the appellant is entitled to give its explanation as to what transpired. That is what the trial judge is saying.
“Also, on the appellant’s contention that the trial court descended into the arena of conflict to pre-determine matters before him, is misconceived.
“This lone issue is resolved in favour of the 1std respondent. There is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed,” Justice Aboki said.
The court entered similar decision in the appeal filed by Onwugbufor for Destra.
Earlier before the Metuh judgment, the court decided the appeal by the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafria (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu and two of his associates – David Nwawusi and Benjamin Madubugwu,
A three-man panel, also led by Justice Aboki, upheld, in a judgment on Wednesday, the January 29, 2016 ruling of Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, refusing the appellants bail.
Justice Aboki, who read the lead judgment, held that the trial court was in order in refusing the appellants’ bail application filed on January 14, 2016.
Justice Tsoho had, in rejecting Kanu and others’ bail application, held among others, that they were charged with serious offences, including treasonable felony that they failed to disprove the prosecution’s claim that they would jump bail.
In his judgment yesterday, Justice Aboki said, “Contrary to the appellants’ contention, it is my view that there was proper consideration of the proof of evidence by the trial court before the consideration of the appellants’ applications for bail.
“The trial court’s observation that the 1st applicant’s dual citizenship supports the suspicion of his escaping if granted bail, cannot be faulted.
“The exercise of its discretion was both judicially and judiciously. More so, there are other reasons, as shown from the record, why the appellants were not granted bail.”
Justice Aboki faulted the appellants’ argument that the court, in denying bail to the 2nd and 3rd appellants, failed to state any reason.
“The charges against the appellants are for serious offences and the complainant has satisfied the court why bail should not be granted to them.
“Therefore, the trial court is not in violation of the rights of the appellants herein to personal liberty or fair hearing as contended by the appellants,” the judge said
He said, although the court has the power to interfere with the finding of a lower court, where such finding is perverse, such case did no arise in this instance.
Justice Aboki declared: “On the whole, there is no merit in this appeal. And it is hereby dismissed. The ruling of the trial court, rejecting the appellants bail applications, is hereby upheld,” Justice Aboki said.
Justices Hassan and Mustapher, who were on the panel, also agreed with the lead judgment.
-
Appeal Court delivers judgment in Metuh’s case Wednesday
The Court of Appeal in Abuja will Wednesday deliver judgments in the appeal by spokesman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh.
The Nation learnt Tuesday that parties in the case have been issued hearing notices to that effect.
A three-man panel, head by Justice Abdul Aboki had on May 5 told parties that they would be informed of the date for judgment.
Metuh and his company, Destra Investment Limited are appealing the ruling by Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
Justice Abang had, in the ruling, refused their no-case submission and ordered them to enter defence in their trial for money laundering and unlawful receipt of funds from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA).
Metuh and his company are being tried on a seven-count charge. At the completion of the prosecution’s case earlier this year, having called eight witnesses, the court called on the defence to open its case.
Rather than conducting their defence, Metuh and Destra elected to make a no-case submission, which Justice Abang rejects in a ruling.
Justice Abang was of the view that the prosecution has provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the defendants to warrant the court to call on them to enter defence.
Metuh’s lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) and lawyer to his company, Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN), had while adopting their briefs on May 5, faulted Justice Abang’s reasoning in rejecting their clients’ no-case submissions.
They urged the court to set aside Justice Abang’s decision, uphold their clients’ no-case submission and quash the charges against them.
Responding, prosecution lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir urged the court to dismiss the Appeal for lacking in merit and for being defective.
Tahir noted that the appeal being an interlocutory one, the appellants were required under the law, to first obtain the leave of the trial court.
He argued that, having not fulfilled the condition precedent, the appellants could not claim to have a valid appeal before the court.
-
Demolition of school buildings, Lagos state heads for Supreme Court
The Lagos state government on Thursday said that it would contest the decision of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division which reversed the judgment of a Lagos High Court upholding the demolition of the Sceptre Comprehensive school buildings.
This was made known in a statement issued in Lagos and signed by the Director Public Relations, Ministry of Justice, Bola Akingbade.
The state government had alleged that the school’s buildings, located on Supo Adigun Street, Ogudu and demolished in 2007 were built in contravention of the physical planning law, 2005.
The Lagos State Government had contended that the issue of title is different from the issue of physical planning, in line with the Supreme Court decision in AG LAGOS STATE VS. AG OF THE FEDERATION that conferred the power to regulate planning on the State Government.
Consequent upon the submission of the government, a Lagos high court had upheld the demolition of the school buildings.
But the Court of Appeal in its ruling on Thursday held that the appellant having started the process of regularization of title with the Lagos State Government should be informed of the reason for refusal of the appellants building plan approval.
-
Imo election rerun: Court urged to restrain INEC
Can the Independent National Eelectoral Commission (INEC) conduct a re-run election after the 90 days ordered by a court? Did the Electoral Act 2010 make provision for INEC to seek extension of time to conduct re-run election having failed to conduct the election within the time ordered?
These, among others, formed issues to be determined by the Federal High Court, Abuja in a suit seeking to restrain INEC from further conducting the re-run election ordered in Imo North Senatorial District by the Court of Appeal, Owerri division.
Defendants in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/23/2016, filed by Igwe Maduakolam, are INEC and Senator Athan Achonu Nneji, candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the last National Assembly Election for Imo North Senatorial District.
Nneji was declared winner of the election for the Imo North Senatorial District held on April 28, 2015. The election was set aside by the Court of Appeal, Owerri in its judgment of December 11 last year on the ground that INEC failed to include the logo of Accord Party on the ballot papers.
The appellate court ordered INEC to conduct a fresh election for the Senatorial District within 90 days from the date of the judgment.
Maduakolam stated in a supporting affidavit, that the 90-day timeline handed INEC by the court to conduct fresh elections elapsed on March11 this year and that no election was conducted by INEC.
“I have read sections 1 to 158 of the Electoral Act 2010 and cannot find any provision fro extension of time to comply with court ordered elections,” he said. Maduakolam noted that for the past five month the Imo North Senatorial District, from where he hailed, has been denied representation at the Senate as a result of INEC’s failure to conduct the re-run election as ordered by INEC.
The plaintiff wants the court to declare that the INEC has no powers to conduct the said Imo North Senatorila District, Okigwe outside the 90 days as ordered by the Court of Appeal, Owerri pursuant to Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act.
He seeks an order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from conducting or attempting to conduct any further re-run/fresh election into the Imo north Senatorial District till 2019, having failed to conduct the re-run election within the 90 days orcered by the court of Appeal in suit: CA/OW/EPT/SN/52/2015.
Maduakolam equally wants an order directing the 2nd defendant to continue in office as the Senator representing Imo North Senatorial District since INEC has failed to conduct the fresh election within the timeline as ordered by the Court of Appeal, Owerri delivered on December 11, 2015 in suit No: CA/OW/EPT/SN/52/2015.
Although none of the defendants has responded, the suit has been assigned to Justice John Tsoho, who has fixed May 4 for preliminary hearing.