The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court of Appeal

  • Breaking: Justice Oyewole not on Osun Appeal Panel – Appeal Court

    The Court of Appeal has put a lie to the claim by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) that Justice Joseph Oyewole was part of the three-man panel to hear the appeal on the judgment in the Osun State governorship election dispute.

    The court’s spokesperson, Mrs. Sa’adatu Musa Kachalla, said Justice Oyewole was never considered as a member of the panel.

    Mrs. Kachalla described as uncharitable and unwarranted the attack on Justice Oyewole by the PDP.

    Read Also: Appeal Court sacks Akpatason as APC candidate for Akoko-Edo

    She said: “Hon. Justice Joseph Oyewole, Justice of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, an industrious son of the Osun State, is not a member of the the Osun Governorship Election Appeal Tribunal set up by the President of the Court of Appeal, who had earlier said that the court must always put her integrity on the front burner .

    “The members of the public are therefore advised not to be misguided by desperate and jittery individuals whose action is to heat up the polity.

    “Time has changed, and it is better for us to change with time. The era of fake news is over.”

  • 77 tribunals to hear 766 petitions filed on polls

    A total of 766 petitions have so far been filed across the country by politicians aggrieved over the outcome of the last general election.

    The Nation learnt on Tuesday the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, in exercise of her constitutional authorities, has set up a total of 77 election tribunals to hear and determine the petitions.

    According to the Deputy Chief Registrar, Election Petition Tribunal, Court of Appeal, Mrs. Rabi Abdulazeez, a breakdown of the petitions revealed that four were filed by four political parties and their candidates in respect of the presidential election.

    They include the one marked: CA/PEPC/002/2019, filed on March 18 this year by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the election, Atiku Abubakar.

    There is the second filed by Hope Democratic Party (HDP) and Ambrose Owuru, who claimed to be the party’s presidential candidate.

    The petition, marked: CA/PEPC/001/2019 was filed on March 7.

    The third, marked: CA/PEPC/003/2019was filed by the Coalition for Change (C4C) and Geff Ojinika, who claimed to be the party’s presidential candidate.

    The fourth petition, marked: CA/PEPC/004/2019, was filed on March 19 this year by the People’s Democratic Movement (PDM) and Pastor Aminchi Habu, listed as the party’s presidential candidate.

    Figures made available by the Court of Appeal’s spokesperson, Mrs. Sa’adatu Musa Kachalla revelead that a total of 54 petitions have been filed for the governorship elections, while 205 Petitions have so far been filed in relation to the senatorial elections.

    For the House of Representatives, 101 petitions have been filed across the country.

    The Court of Appeal had, on April 4 put the total number of petitions filed at 736, implying additional 30 have been filed between then and now April 16, 2019, according to Mrs. Kachalla.

  • Appeal Court affirms conviction of Congolese for $551,225 money laundering

    The Court of Appeal in Lagos Tuesday affirmed the conviction of a Congolese, Kutumisana Blaise, and the forfeiture of $551,225 to the federal government.

    In a unanimous judgment, three justices of the appellate court l – Mohammed Garba, Tom Yakubu and Jamilu Tukur – upheld the July 7, 2015 verdict of Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Federal High Court, Lagos.

    The appellate court further concurred with the decision of the lower court over the forfeiture of the money, saying that the said amount was properly forfeited to the Federal Government.

    On why the judgment of the lower court was affirmed, Justice Yakubu, who read the lead judgment, said, “I have myself perused the pieces of evidence proffered by the witnesses at the court below vis-a-vis the findings made by the learned trial judge which ultimately culminated in the conviction of the appellant (Blaise).

    “I am satisfied that those findings are clearly borne out of the evidence placed before his lordship. The findings are, to my mind, unassailable. I have no reason whatsoever to tamper or interfere with them. I affirm them accordingly. In the end, I resolve the sole issue in this appeal against the appellant.”

    Read also: Court orders DSS to produce Dasuki

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, (EFCC) had arraigned the convict on April 21, 2015 before Justice Buba.

    EFCC counsel Abba Muhammed urged Justice Buba to convict Mr. Blaise, following his failure to declare the said $551,225 in his possession to the men of the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) at the point of entry into Nigeria.

    According to Mr. Abba, Blaise’s action is contrary to Section 2 (3) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended by Act No 1 of 2012.

    In his judgement on July 7, 2015, Justice Buba upheld the argument of the EFCC’s lawyer and sentenced Mr. Blaise accordingly

    The judge further directed that the said $551,225, which Mr. Blaise failed to declare, be forfeited to the federal government.

    Dissatisfied with the verdict of Justice Buba, the convict approached the Court of Appeal, Lagos, for intervention, asking the appellate court to set aside the judgment of the lower court.

  • Oyetola seeks establishment of Court of Appeal in Osun

    Osun State Governor, Mr. Adegboyega Oyetola, on Monday threw his weight behind the call for the establishment of a Court of Appeal Division in the state.

    He spoke in Osogbo during the commencement of the special sitting of the Court of Appeal, Akure Division, holden at the High Court of Justice in Osogbo.

    The two-week programme is meant to enable the appellate court to attend to the many pending cases before the Justices emanating from Osun State.

    The governor said: “I cannot end this address without lending my voice to the request of the stakeholders that you should graciously consider the possibility of having a Court of Appeal (division) sited in Osun state.

    “‎I want assure you my Lords that our government would do everything possible to support this move”

    Before the governor spoke, leaders of the Bench and Bar in the state in separate speeches urged the visiting Justices to assist in making a case for the establishment of a division of the court in Osun state.

    With not less than 250 cases, Osun Stin state has the higher number of cases on appeal before the Justices of the Court of Appeal Akure Division which has appellate jurisdiction over Osun and Ondo States.

    It was the first time the Court, established 10 years ago, will move its sitting to Osun state to take justice closer to the people.

    The Osun stakeholders, who called for the establishment of the Court of Appeal, include,

    Continue on page 2

  • Appeal Court nullifies Zamfara APC primary elections

    THE Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division yesterday set aside the judgment delivered by the Zamfara High Court allowing the All Progressives Congress (APC) to field candidates in the 2019 election.

    The appeal was filed by Chairman of the Senate Committee on Petroleum (Downstream) Senator Kabiru Marafa and 129 others through his counsel, Mr. Mike Ozheokome, SAN.

    Respondents are Kabiru Liman-Danalhaji and 139 others represented by Mr. Mahmud Magaji SAN as lead counsel.

    Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Tom Yakubu held that the lower court failed in its duty to properly evaluate the evidence before it.

    The judgment was adopted by two other Justices Tijjani Abubakar and Jamilu Tukur.

    Justice Yakubu said judges have the legal power to produce judgment and reach decisions with reason, noting that in the instance case, it was not done.

    “I am convinced that the lower court has failed to evaluate the evidence before reaching the decision. The Appeal Court has power in law to access pieces of evidence on appeal, which we have done.

    “Based on available facts, the respondents did not contradict the INEC evidence on conducting the said primary election,” Yakubu said.

    The presiding judge, said: “Documented evidence has upper consideration than oral ones.”

    Justice Yakubu held that the plaintiffs being card-carrying party members and aspirants in the said primary election have the legal capacity to institute the suit.

    He added that Federal, states and FCT High Courts have jurisdiction to entertain such matter.

    The judges agreed that the judgment should serve as “bitter lesson” for political parties as they ought to follow legitimate guidelines and rules.

    “Domestic affairs of political party activities must act within the confines of the law in dealing with party members and elections” the judges agreed.

    A Zamfara High Court recognised the primary election that produced governorship, state and National Assembly candidates held by APC in the state and declared that INEC accepts the party candidates for the elections.

    Unsatisfied with State High Court decision, the appellants approached the Appeal Cour, challenging the decision on the ground that the State High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit among others.

    But, Zamfara State Governor Abdul Aziz Yari yesterday appealed to APC members and residents to be calm, law-abiding and go about their normal businesses in a peaceful manner pending the release of the judgment.

    Read also: Rivers AAC governorship candidate alleges threat to life

    The governor stated this after the Appeal Court set aside ruling of Justice Bello Shinkafi of High Court on the governorship and state House of Assembly primary elections that was conducted on October 3 and 7, last year.

    The governor, who spoke through his media aide, Malam Ibrahim Dosara, stated however that “unlike the rumours now awash all social media platforms that the Court of Appeal Sokoto Division has nullified our elections, it is not true. The statement is incorrect. Those circulating the rumour are doing so to cause mayhem in our state to satisfy the ego of their masters”

  • Court affirms SEC’s regulatory oversight on public firms

    The Court of Appeal has reiterated the Securities and Exchange Commission’s powers to intervene in the management and control of any public company which is considered to have failed, failing or is in crises.

    The SEC is statutorily mandated as the apex regulator of the Capital Market to ensure the protection of investors and maintain a fair, efficient and transparent market.

    Recall that in 2008, the SEC conducted an investigation on Big Treat Plc, a public listed company (1st Respondent) and its directors which revealed several infractions of the Investments and Securities Act, 2007 such as inadequate internal control systems and a breakdown of corporate governance in the company.

    Based on the foregoing, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 13 (v) of the ISA 2007, the Commission in 2010 approached the Federal High Court seeking a number of reliefs against Big Treat Plc (1st Respondent), three of its directors – Pamela Wu, Harries Wu, Steve Wu – and two entities owned by them – New Frontier Engineering and Construction Company Ltd and Skyone Group of Companies Ltd, with a view to preserving the assets of the 1st Respondent.

    In the course of the proceedings, the Commission applied for and was granted an ex-parte order of interim injunction restraining the 2nd– 6th Respondents, their agents, servants or privies from obstructing the Commission in the exercise of its statutory oversight responsibilities to the 1st Respondent, including the appointment of an interim management to take charge of the day-to-day administration of the 1st Respondent with a view to preserving its assets in the interest of its stakeholders pending the determination of the Motion on Notice already filed in this suit.

    However, the ex-parte order was subsequently vacated on the grounds that the 1st Respondent (Big Treat Plc) “was not a capital market operator amenable to the control and management of the appellant in term of financial distress”.

    The Commission appealed against the decision of the Federal High Court and the sole issue for determination, as raised by the Commission before the Court of Appeal was “whether the lower court was right when it held that the 1st Respondent (Big Treat Plc) is not a capital market operator because it does not play any specific role in the capital market and as such, not registerable or subject to the control of the Appellant (the Commission)”.

    The Court of Appeal in a judgment delivered on 31st January 2019, held thus;

    “That the 1st Respondent, an issuer of securities, having been duly registered with the Appellants and was at all material times performing the specific function of issuing securities in the capital market, was subject to the intervention of the statutory powers of the Appellant as the pinnacle regulatory authority for the Nigerian capital market whose sole purpose is to ensure the protection of investors and to maintain fair, efficient and transparent capital market, as well as reduction of systemic risk as stated in the preamble of the ISA- the beacon light to the powers of the Appellant under the ISA.”

    The Court of Appeal further held that;

    “In conclusion, I most respectfully hold that the court below should not have vacated the interim preservative order made by it to protect the imminent collapse of the 1st Respondent but the Appellant who at all material times was exercising statutory powers under the ISA to stem the tide of decay in the internal management of the 1st Respondent…”

  • PDP hails court judgment on its Kano governorship candidate

    The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has hailed the order of the Court of Appeal on Thursday restraining INEC from de-listing its governorship candidate in Kano State.

    The Court restrained INEC from removing the name of Mr Abba Yusuf, the party’s governorship candidate, from the list of the state governorship candidates.

    The PDP National Publicity Secretary, Kola Ologbondiyan, in a statement on Friday in Abuja, said that the judgment had completely put to rest all controversies regarding the PDP candidate for the election.

    He said that Yusuf remained the bona-fide candidate of the PDP for the Saturday’s election.

    Read also: 32 political parties set for polls in Benue, says REC

    “The Court of Appeal is commended for delivering justice by upholding the lawful nomination of Yusuf as the PDP candidate for the Kano state governorship election.

    “All stakeholders are advised to note the order of the Court of Appeal and be guided accordingly.”(NAN)

  • Court of Appeal fails to hear Onnoghen’s suits

    THE Court of Appeal in Abuja has postponed its planned hearing of the three appeals filed by the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, to February 27.

    It was the third time, in one month, that the court will postpone hearing in the appeals filed against the decisions of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), before which the suspended CJN is standing trial for alleged breach of code of conduct for public officers.

    Justice Onnoghen is, by his first appeal, challenging the jurisdiction of the CCT to hear the charge against him, being a serving judicial officer.

    He is, in the second appeal, querying the propriety of the CCT’s ruling of January 14, this year, in which it elected to hear all pending application.

    The third appeal is against the CCT ex-parte order directing Onnoghen to vacate office as CJN and for President Muhammadu Buhari to appoint an acting CJN.

    The court had, in late January, scheduled hearing in the appeals for February 12.

    When parties got to court, the court could not form a quorum for the purpose of hearing the appeals. Two of the three justices required to form a quorum were said to be attending a seminar.

    The court subsequently adjourned to the next day. It could also not hear the appeals on February 13, owing to a request by the Federal Government to be allowed to engage a new lawyer.

    Oyin Koleoso, who represented the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), told the court that the AGF has instructed that Aliyu Umar, SAN, (who is prosecuting the charge at the CCT) to take over the case of the respondent.

    Koleoso noted that Umar was, at the moment the Court of Appeal proceedings were on, at the CCT.

    Koleoso sought an adjournment to enable Umar take over the case of the respondent.

    Lawyers to the appellant, Chris Uche (SAN), objected to an adjournment, but he was overruled by a three-man panel of the court presided over by Justice Abdul Aboki.

    The court further adjourned hearing in the appeals till February 20.

    When parties got to court on Tuesday, Umar, who appeased the respondents, said he has filed an application, in which he, among others, sought to be afforded time to familiarise himself with what had been filed in the appeals so far.

    Appellant’s lawyer, Uche, did not object to a request for a brief adjournment, following which the court adjourned till February 27.

  • Supreme Court rules on 44-year -old Anambra land dispute

    The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal against the June 27, 2016 decision of the Court of Appeal, Enugu granting the people of Umuagama village (Ukwulu) and Oranto/Akpu village (Ukpo) in Anambra State the right of ownership over a disputed parcel of land that had pitched them against their neighbours in  Okpuloji Abba Town.

    A five-man panel of the court, headed by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, resolved all the four issues, identified for determination, in favour of the two sets of respondents – listed as representatives of Umuagama village (Ukwulu) and Oranto/Akpu village (Ukpo).

    Court documents revealed that the people of Okpuloji Abba town, Umugama Village Ukwulu and Oranto/Akpu Village (Ukpo) have been locked in dispute over the parcel of land in the area since early 1970. They went before the High Court of Anambra in 1975. In a judgment by then Chief Judge of the court, Justice Obiora Nwazota, delivered on November 12, 1999, the court declared the title of the disputed land in favour of the people of Umuagama Village (Ukwulu) and Oranto/Akpu Village (Ukpo).

    Okpuloji Abba town appealed the decision at the Court of Appeal, Enugu. The Court, in its final decision on June 27, 2016 dismissed the substantive appeal on the grounds that the appellants failed to compile and transmit record of appeal within the stipulated period, as provided in Order 8 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011. Also dismissed was the appellants’ motion seeking to direct the Chief Judge of the High Court of Anambra State to re-assign the consolidated suit for hearing afresh.

    Okpuloji Abba town, subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, in SC: 589/2016. Justice Paul Adamu Galumje, who read the lead judgment of the Supreme Court’s decision, held that the appellants failed to sustain their allegation of denial of fair hearing and  miscarriage of justice. Galumje said it was the fault of the appellants that they failed to ensure the compilation and transmission of record of appeal within time, as required under Order 8 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011.

    In upholding the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the appellants’ motion, Justice Galumje held that the appellants were wrong to have filed their motion, for retrial, at the Court of Appeal. He said the motion ought to be filed at the trial court, since the appellants’ appeal was not yet properly before the Court of Appeal, and because they were yet to compile and transmit the record of appeal then. He however advised parties to the dispute to return to the trial court to have the case re-heard because it may be difficult to enforce  a judgment, which record is said to be missing from the trial court.

    “In the instant case there is in place what I may call “force major,” an unexpected occurrence, which has the capacity to defeat even the enforcement of the judgment obtained at the trial court in the two consolidated suits. It follows therefore that,  if nothing is done, there will be a total failure of justice. The loss of the record of the appeal is a factor that has in my view vitiated and rendered the judgment invalid. Is there a way of enforcing the judgment in the absence of the record of the case? This is what may unfold later. I think it is in the best interest of the parties to go back to the trial court and sort out this mess,” the judge said.

    The judge noted that the appellants were not diligent in their handling of the appeal at the Court of Appeal, Enugu On the argument whether the motion for retrial was properly filed, Justice Galumje said: “An appellate court can order as a last resort, for a retrial of a case if part or portion of the record transmitted to it is lost and all effort to trace it failed. Where the parties agree that the portion of the record that is missing is inconsequential, and that the hearing of the appeal cannot result in miscarriage of justice, the court can hear the appeal on incomplete record.

    “However where no record is transmitted at all, as in this case, all applications including application for the case to be heard de novo must be made to the trial court where the appeal is domiciled. An appellate court will have no materials upon which it will assume jurisdiction in the appeal. I therefore find nothing wrong with the decision of the lower court in refusing the application for an order of trial de novo and for dismissing the pending appeal before it for failure to compile and transmit the records of appeal after fourteen years of filing the appeal,” he aded.

     

  • N17b judgment debt: Appeal Court sets aside convictions of First Bank chiefs

    The Court of Appeal, Lagos, has set aside the decision of a federal high court, Lagos, which convicted the Chairman of First Bank Nigeria Plc, Pastor Ibukun Awosika and the bank’s Managing Director, Dr. Adesola Adeduntan for contempt over a judgment debt of N17 billion.

    The appellate court voided the decision of the lower court on the ground that the judge erred in law when it convicted the bank chiefs for contempt on the allegation of breach of an undertaking.

    Justice Ibrahim Buba of the federal high court in Lagos had found Awosika and Adeduntan guilty of refusal of the bank to release N17 billion plus interests that First Bank allegedly guaranteed to pay the Ejama-Ebubu community on behalf of Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) of Nigeria Limited in respect of the judgment debt against SPDC in an oil spill suit filed by the community.

    The judge in his judgment of June 6, 2018 sentenced them to three months imprisonment but suspended the sentencing till September 6, 2018 to enable the bank and its officials to purge themselves of the contempt

    The court had in its judgment ordered First Bank Plc to pay Ejama-Ebubu community of Ogoni in Rivers State the sum of N17 billion bond guaranteed by the bank on behalf of Shell Petroleum Development Company Limited (SPDC). But First Bank Plc refused to obey the order of the court forcing Justice Ibrahim Buba to commit the 1st to 3 defendants to jail for contempt.

    In the substantive suit, ten indigenes of Ejama community in Ogoniland, had through their counsel, Lucius Nwosu (SAN) sued Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Netherlands; Royal Dutch Shell Plc, United Kingdom; and SPDC over alleged oil spills that occurred when Shell operated in the community at the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt.

    Dissatisfied with the decision of Justice Buba on their conviction for contempt, the bank chiefs through their lawyers led by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) filed an appeal.

    In the appeal, the bank chiefs had asked the appellate court to set aside the decision of the federal high court on diverse grounds, which include that the lower court erred in law, acted without jurisdiction and reached a perverse decision when it granted the respondents’ motion on notice for committal of the appellants for contempt in respect of the Order of Court dated August 5, 2010 in suit No: FHC/PH/CS231/2001.

    According to the Notice of Appeal, the said Order of August 5, 2010 was not made against the appellants (Awosika and Adeduntan), adding that the appellants were never parties to the suit in which the order was made neither did order mandated the appellants to perform any act.

    The appellants submitted that the learned trial judge erred in law and acted without jurisdiction when he heard and determined the contempt application dated March 19, 2018, adding that the judge lacked the jurisdiction to commit the appellants for alleged ex-facie contempt of the order he had made.

    The appellants also contended that the lower court erred in law and reached a perverse decision when it convicted the appellants for contempt of court and imposed a prison sentence without taking oral evidence of witnesses.

    The appellants submitted that the respondents as complainants before the lower court did not call oral evidence; the lower court did not hear any oral evidence and the criminal allegation of contempt of court was not proved beyond reasonable doubt before proceeding to commit the appellants for contempt and imposing a sentence.

    They also contended that the lower court erred in law and breached appellants’ right to fair hearing when it convicted and sentenced them to term of imprisonment in their absence, adding that the presence of the appellants is mandatory for conviction.

    The appellants therefore asked the court to dismiss, strike out the respondents’ motion dated March 19, 2018, strike out the Suit No: FHC/L/NRJ/1/2018 and make an order discharging and acquitting the appellants from the committal and sentence imposed by the lower court in its decision of June 6, 2018.

    The court of appeal in its lead judgment by  Justice J.Y. Tukur on Friday, granted the prayers of the appellants and therefore set aside Justice Buba’s decision, which earlier convicted the bank chiefs.