The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court rules

  • Oil rig is a vessel under Cabotage Act, court rules

    The Federal High Court in Lagos has held that drilling operations fall within the definition of coastal trade under the Coastal and Inland Shipping (Cabotage) Act.

    In a judgment on a suit filed by Seadrill Mobile Units Nigeria Limited against the Minister for Transportation, Justice Babs Keuwumi also held that oil rigs fall within the definition of vessels under the Act.

    The plaintiff filed an originating summons in reaction to the detention of its oil rig, The West Capella, by the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA).

    The oil rig was detained due to the plaintiff’s failure to register it as a vessel for cabotage operations at the Ship Registry.

    The plaintiff prayed the court to order the vessel’s release from detention.

    The arguments

    Seadrill Mobile Units Nigeria raised two questions for determination.

    The first: whether drilling operations fall within the definition of “coastal trade” and “cabotage” under Section 2 of the Coastal and Inland Shipping (Cabotage) Act.

    Read Also: Court orders arrest of Innoson Motors chairman, others

    The second issue was whether on a proper interpretation of the Cabotage Act – particularly sections 2, 5 and 22(5) – drilling rigs fall within the definition of vessel under the Coastal and Inland Shipping (Cabotage) Act.

    It was the plaintiff’s argument that drilling operations were simply limited to oil production.

    He contended that they had no relation to the carriage of goods and passengers within Nigerian waters, which had been defined as coastal trade and cabotage under Section 2 of the Act.

    The Plaintiff further argued that Section 22 (5) of the Act expressly includes certain vessels that were eligible for cabotage registration under the Act.

    Seadrill Mobile Units Nigeria argued that it was immaterial that the word “include” was used in Section 22 (5) and that the express mention of the specific vessels in the section meant the exclusion of an oil rig, which was not mentioned.

    But, NIMASA’s counsel Dr. Oluwole Akinyeye of Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL), argued that the plaintiff’s drilling operations encompassed the exploration and exploitation of minerals or non-living natural resources in Nigeria.

    He added that the nature and functions of The West Capella compulsorily required it to carry persons and goods in relation to its oil drilling operations, which fell within the definition of coastal trade or cabotage under Section 2 of the Act.

    Dr. Akinyeye further argued that the nature and functions of The West Capella satisfied the three elements required to be fulfilled under Section 2 of the Act for the purpose of classifying an oil rig as a vessel.

    He submitted that The West Capella was a type of oil rig known as a drillship, a fact that ought to be taken into joint consideration with the provisions of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, NIMASA Act, and Merchant Shipping Act, which all contain provisions defining an oil rig as a ship.

    The verdict

    The court decided the first question for determination in the affirmative.

    Justice Kuewumi, in the June 14 judgment, held that the plaintiff’s drilling operations, which were conducted offshore, fall within the ambit of the definition of costal trade and cabotage in Section 2 of the Cabotage Act.

    He found that the pictorial evidence of The West Capella reflected that its drilling operations encompassed the carriage of goods and persons for the purpose of being classified as coastal trade or cabotage under Section 2 of the Act.

    The judge also decided the second question for determination in the affirmative.

    Justice Kuewumi considered the provisions of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act and Interpretation Act and found that an oil rig was defined as a ship.

    He was of the view that the word “include” as utilised in Section 22 (5) of the Cabotage Act was to broaden the scope of the Act’s application to encompass vessels not specifically mentioned in it.

    According to the court, a community reading of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, Interpretation Act and Cabotage Act shows that drilling rigs fall under the definition of vessel under the Act.

    The judgment settles the controversy regarding whether the oil rigs employed by oil and gas companies in the maritime industry can be regarded as vessels for the purpose of the Cabotage Act.

    In effect, NIMASA can boost government revenue by charging and demanding statutory levies on the oil rigs for cabotage, which had hitherto been contested by the oil and gas companies.

  • Royal tussle: Court rules tomorrow

    Royal tussle: Court rules tomorrow

    A State High Court sitting in Ijebu-Ode, Ogun State, will, tomorrow, deliver judgment in a suit on the headship of the Fusengbuwa Ruling House, one of those producing the Awujale, paramount ruler of the Ijebu.

    At the last hearing, the court adopted oral and written addresses by claimants’ lawyer, Chief Adebayo Adesegun, and respondents’ lawyer Tunji Ayanlaja (SAN).

    It reserved March 8 for judgment.

    The Awujale of Ijebu-Ode, Oba Sikiru Adetona (Ogbagba II), was among witnesses who gave oral evidence.

    The suit was instituted by a former National President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria (ICAN), Otunba Abdul-Lateef Owoyemi, as well as Prince Rasaq Akeju, Prince Yisau Ajidagba, Prince Adeleke Adeyemi and another, on behalf of Fusengbuwa Ruling House.

    They sued the founder of First City Monument Bank (FCMB), Otunba Subomi Balogun, and others.

    Owoyemi and others claim that he should be made the legitimate Olori-Ebi of Fusengbuwa Ruling House.

    They prayed the court to declare him as such.

    The claimants challenge Balogun, also a member of Fusengbuwa House, who allegedly became Olori-Ebi, after the late Olori-Ebi, Prince Adebisi Adeyemi.

    During hearing before Justice Aderonke Asenuga, the claimants gave oral evidence why Owoyemi should be declared to succeed Adeyemi as Olori-Ebi.

    They tendered documents through Adebayo to buttress their claims.

     

    But the respondents gave reasons why the court should dismiss the claimants’ suit and rule that Balogun is the Olori-Ebi of the Fusengbuwa Ruling House.

    In his oral evidence, Balogun told the court that he accepted the call to become the Olori-Ebi of the royal house to “serve and bring unity” to it.

    He also told the court that the otunbas, obas, Chief Olu Adebanjo (now late), among others from the ruling house, presented him to Oba Adetona at the monarch’s palace in Ijebu-Ode for his blessings and approval.

    Balogun also claimed that the paramount ruler conferred on him the Olori-Ebi title at the palace.

    The frontline banker, who hails from Oba Tunwase’s lineage of the Fusengbuwa Ruling House, also said he yielded to the persuasions to lead, being the oldest among them.

    According to him, his acceptance to be the head is to “purify” the House and ensure that the royal family is not adulterated or tainted by a number of people claiming to be its members.

    But during cross-examination, Balogun, who doubles as the Olori-Omooba of (head of princes) in Ijebu-Ode, admitted that he knew most members of Fusengbuwa Ruling House from the Tunwase arm but did not know much about members from other lineages.

    He also admitted that prior to his presentation to the Awujale, those who attended the meeting where he was appointed the Olori-Ebi were not sole members of Fusengbuwa Ruling House.

     

     

  • Lagos CJ inaugurates committee to review court rules

    Lagos CJ inaugurates committee to review court rules

    Lagos Chief Judge, Justice Opeyemo Oke, has set up a 15-man committee to review the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012 in order to eradicate delay in justice administration, ensure efficient justice delivery and enforcement of judgement.

    Inaugurating the committee at the conference room of Ikeja high court yesterday, Justice Oke said this has become necessary to restore public confidence in the judiciary.

    Justice Oke said: “There is a need for complimentary provisions on the enforcement of judgement for the purpose of giving effect to the Sheriff and Civil Process Act”, emphasizing that the committee should ensure “that any such reforms made do not conflict with the provisions of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act”.

    The chief judge charged the committee to, for instance, “look into stipulation of timeline for handling of specific matters”.

    Noting that the fast track division has a nine-month timeline within which to dispense any matter before it, the chief judge charged the committee “to consider the viability of extending timeliness to probate, sexual offences and land related matters” to facilitate speedy dispensation of justice in these areas.

    “It is also desirable to have a further simplification of the process for obtaining letters of administration and make same more attractive to users of the court. I therefore encouraged the review committee to consider a reform in this regard”, she said.

    Justice Oke lamented that over the years, excessive delay in justice administration has become an embarrassing feature of the administration of justice, pointing out that “the inadequacies of civil procedure rules and abuse of those rules have been identified as a contributory factor to the delay.

    Responding on behalf of the committee members, the chairman, Justice Kazeem Alogba promised that they would disappoint the users of the court.

    “I want to assure the Chief Judge that we would do our best to achieve better than expected of us”, he said.

  • Otodo Gbame: Court rules on jurisdiction May 25

    Otodo Gbame: Court rules on jurisdiction May 25

    A Lagos High Court will on May 25 rule on whether it can hear a suit brought by displaced Otodo Gbame residents against the state government.

    Justice Surajudeen Onigbanjo gave the parties 14 days to file and respond to written addresses on the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the case.

    The suit was brought by 33 applicants suing on behalf of themselves and other residents of settlements including Otodo Gbame, Tomaro, Otumara, Orisunmibare, Oko Agbon, Itun Atan, Sogunro, the Ikorodu communities of Ofin, Bayeku, Olufunke Majidun and the Bariga communities of Ago Egun and Ebute-Ilaje.

    Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Commissioner for Physical Planning and Urban Development, the governor and the Commissioner of Police are the first, second third and fourth respondents.

    The judge said:  “While I was going through the court processes, I discovered that issues of jurisdiction were raised. These issues ought to be addressed.

    “The applicants will have seven days to file their relevant court processes while the respondents also have seven days to file their court processes in response to the applicants.”

    The judge frowned at a letter sent to him by Megan Chapman, an Otodo Gbame community advocate, but he did not make the content public.

    The applicants, through their counsel, Friday Oteiku, are seeking, among others, a declaration that they are the first settlers on the land and are lawful residents of the communities.

    But Director of Civil Litigation in the Ministry of Justice S. A. Quadri said the claimants “have no title to the land whatsoever.”

    On April 12, Justice Onigbanjo dismissed the plaintiff’s application seeking to jail the respondents for alleged contempt.

    He held that according to Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the governor has immunity from prosecution and imprisonment. The court, he declared, lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the application.

  • Court rules Feb 21 on EFCC’s case against ex-gov Shema

    Court rules Feb 21 on EFCC’s case against ex-gov Shema

    Justice Ibrahim Bako of the Katsina High Court has fixed February 21, for ruling on whether the court has jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the EFCC against former Katsina State governor, Ibrahim Shema.
    Shema was arraigned by the EFCC before the court for alleged financial misappropriation during his tenure.
    He was arraigned together with a former commissioner for local government and chieftaincy affairs, Sani Makana, a former chairman, Association of Local Governments of Nigeria (ALGON) , Lawal Dankaba and former permanent secretary, Lawal Safana.
    The defence counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, has earlier filed a motion in the last sitting challenging the jurisdiction of the court to try his client.
    During yesterday’s proceedings, he raised same issues, saying that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case because the charge was filed by a Federal Government agency.
    “It is a serious constitutional problem for a Federal Government agency to take over the state in prosecution of criminal cases,’’ he contended, and prayed the court to strike out the case for want of competence.
    Daudu also filed another application seeking the court to restrain the EFCC from further arresting of his client.
    However, the prosecution counsel, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi, argued that the EFCC has right to try the case before the court.
    He said EFCC was a coordinating agency saddled with responsibility of investigation, enforcement and prosecution of matters relating to alleged financial crimes.
    The judge adjourned the case to Feb. 21, for ruling on the issue of jurisdiction raised by the defence.
    A mild drama took place at the court premises when EFCC operatives attempted to re-arrest Shema, claiming that his administrative bail had lapsed, but his lawyers come to his defence.

  • Dasuki: Court rules on witnesses’ protection in March

    Dasuki: Court rules on witnesses’ protection in March

    THE Federal High Court, Abuja, has fixed March 1 to rule on a fresh application by the Federal Government, seeking to protect witnesses in the trial of former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd).
    The application, dated January 23 and filed on January 24, was argued by counsel to the Federal Government, Mr. Dipo Okpeseyi, who prayed the court to allow witnesses use acronyms instead of their real names.
    He said the prosecution wanted the witnesses to be known to the public by acronym such as “xyz” and that only the court would know the true identity and name of each witness.
    Okpeseyi told the court it was the understanding of the prosecution that the defence would not object to the application.
    He said the prosecution was, however, surprised in court on Tuesday when the defence, led by Mr. Ahmed Raji (SAN), served him with a counter-motion objecting to the application for protection of witnesses.
    Okpeseyi prayed the court for a short adjournment to study the counter-motion, saying it was voluminous and had to be studied carefully before replying.
    Raji said he was not opposing the application for an adjournment.
    “The motion was brought to us late on Thursday and we prepared our counter-affidavit and served on them only this morning. So, we will not object to the adjournment sought by Okpeseyi to enable him respond.”
    Justice Ahmed Mohammed adjourned the matter till March 1 for hearing.
    Dasuki, in this case, is facing charges of unlawful possession of fire arms preferred against him by the Department of State Security (DSS).
    The case was previously before Justice Adeniyi Ademola, but following his arrest by the DSS, he said he would no longer handle any matter involving the service, hence its transfer to Justice Mohammed.
    The application for witness protection was brought before Ademola, but he refused the application, saying there was nothing to hide since the names of the witnesses were already on the internet.

  • Court rules Oregun land dispute tomorrow

    Court rules Oregun land dispute tomorrow

    The Ajose Family of Oregun Town, Lagos, has urged an Ikeja High Court to declare it the owner of a land off Morson Street.
    It claimed it is entitled to the statutory right of occupancy of the land at Ogboninu Ajose Land, off Morson Street, Oregun, Ikeja, with Survey Plan No. OOA/1912/173/2011/LA, dated June 12, 2011.
    The family said it did not sell the land to Mr Adebayo Ade-Adedeji, who claimed to have bought it from the Lagos State Government.
    The family, represented by Chief Aderemi Fagbemi Ajose, Chief Monsuru Anifowose and Mr Nurudeen Alawa Ajose, is praying the court to set aside a Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) which the government issued to Ade-Adedeji (fifth defendant).
    It said the C of O should be nullified because the land was not bought from the family, nor was the title derived from it.
    The family said the Ade-Adedeji came with some “unknown persons” (sixth defendant) and others to destroy its property on the land.
    Ade-Adedeji claimed that he bought the land from the government, but the family said its search at the office of the Surveyor-General showed that the land was free from acquisition or revocation.
    The claimant is praying the court to declare that the fifth and sixth defendants’ entry into the land is unlawful and amounted to trespass. It is seeking a perpetual injunction restraining them from further trespass on the land.
    The family is praying for an order granting them physical possession of the land, N1.2million as special damages for building materials allegedly destroyed and N500,000 damages.
    During hearing before Justice Olajumoke Emeya, the family’s lawyer Mr G. C. Nwosu moved the claimant’s application for interlocutory injunction, seeking to restrain the defendants from further contruction on the land pending the suit’s determination.
    But Ade-Adedeji’s lawyer, Mr C.O.I. Joseph (SAN), urged the court to refuse the application. He said the land belongs to his client.
    Joseph said the plaintiff’s application was in bad faith.
    He said the family had “ceased to have any right or title over the land”, and could not seek an injunction.
    According to him, the claimant did not make any undertaking as to damages with regards to its application for injunction. The family, he said, has a similar application pending.
    “This application is an abuse of court process because an applicant cannot bring another motion when the first one has not been moved,” he added.
    Justice will rule on the motion tomorrow.

  • Court rules today in Saraki’s case

    Court rules today in Saraki’s case

    •CCT: Orubebe’s
    case with us

    Justice Abdul Kafarati of the Federal High Court, Abuja, will today rule in a fundamental rights’ enforcement suit by Saraki, through one of his lawyers, Ajibola Oluyede.

    Saraki’s contend that his right to fair hearing was breached by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) by not first, inviting him to either deny or admit the alleged irregularities in his asset declaration forms, before a charge was filed against him at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    He asked the court to, among others, quash the charges before the CCT and restrain the tribunal, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and other respondents from further arresting or prosecuting him on the issue.

    While adopting his client’s final written address this month, Oluyede urged the court to grant the reliefs sought by the Senate president, arguing that his client’s trial was instigated outside the CCB.

    Respondents’ lawyer Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) objected, urging the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that it was an abuse of court process.

    He noted that similar issues were determined by the Supreme Court, which ordered Saraki to submit himself for trial before the CCT.

    Jacobs argued that Saraki was inviting the Federal High Court to review an issue determined by the Supreme Court, the court should not allow itself be led into sitting on appeal over a decision of the nation’s apex court.

    The CCT said yesterday that the false assets declaration case involving ex-Minister of Niger Delta Affairs Godsday Orubebe had not been withdrawn by the CCB.

    CCT’s reaction followed media reports yesterday that the case was withdrawn for being fundamentally defective.

    The reports insinuated that a similar scenario would likely play out in the false assets declaration suit against Saraki.

    Tribunal’s spokesman Ibraheem Al-hassan said, in a statement yesterday, that the prosecution amended the charge against Orubebe and re-arraigned him on March 8.

    “The case of Godsday Peter Orubebe before CCT in Charge NO: CCT/ABJ/02/15 is still on. What transpired in the last session on March 8, 2016, was a substitution of the initial charge with a new charge by the prosecution, for which leave was sought from, and granted by the tribunal. Thus, there is no withdrawal of the case by the prosecution,”  Al-hassan said.

  • Court rules today on Akingbola’s request for treatment abroad

    A Lagos High, Ikeja, will today rule on an application filed by the former Managing Director of Intercontinental Bank Plc (now Access Bank), Dr. Erastus Akingbola, seeking the court’s leave to travel abroad for medical treatment.

    Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo will also rule on two applications filed separately by Akingbola and his co-defendant, Bayo Dada, seeking the variation of their bail terms.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) charged Akingbola and Dada, the General Manager of Tropics Finance Limited, with stealing N47.1 billion belonging to the defunct Intercontinental Bank.

    The former bank chief stated in his application of March 19, which was filed by his counsel, Mr. Mike Igbokwe (SAN), that he needed to keep a medical appointment at Harley Street Hospital, London, United Kingdom, on April 15.

    “Medical appointments are fixed by doctors and this application is not meant to induce the court to exercise its discretion in the first defendant’s favour.

    “The application is to enable the first defendant (Akingbola) quickly go for the treatment and come back for his trial,” Igbokwe said.

    At the resumed hearing of the matter yesterday, the lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), moved Akingbola’s application to travel abroad for medical treatment.

    He told the court that the argument by the prosecution, which asked the court to dismiss the application, was a distraction.

    The senior lawyer referred the judge to some of his recent rulings, including that of Abdulahi Alao, Mahmud Tukur and Olawale Babalakin (SAN), whose similar applications were granted.

    Olanipekun queried why a similar application by Akingbola would be refused. He urged the judge to follow his ruling on previous cases and grant his client’s application.

    The senior advocate opposed the EFCC’s submission that the overseas treatment Akingbola wanted to undertake could be provided in Nigeria.

    According to him, it is the right of every human being to choose whoever should treat him because the matter is not whether or not the treatment is available in Nigeria.

    Olanipekun stressed that Akingbola has the right to choose who should treat him.

    The EFCC counsel, Edward Okpe, opposed the application. He said the cases Olanipekun cited were irrelevant to Akingbola’s case.

    He said the case was not relevant to the matter before the court because the prosecution did not oppose the applications in the cited cases.

  • Edo Judiciary gets new court rules

    Edo Judiciary gets new court rules

    Edo State Judiciary yesterday replaced its 24-year old civil procedure rules with a new one which the State Chief Judge, Justice Cromwell Idahosa said was designed to strengthen and aid access to justice.

    Justice Idahosa, who spoke in Benin City at the unveiling of the new court rules, said it was the hallmark of the rule of law and represented the tool with which courts work including how proceedings are to be conducted.

    He said the new rules would endear in the hearts of the people a renewed faith in the administration and a rekindled hope for the speedy dispensation of justice.

    Justice Idahosa noted that the extant rules in use since 1988 has become obsolete and was being adroitly employed to waste valuable time.

    “The result was or rather is that cases can and even last up to seven years and in some inexplicable instances up to 10-15years in the High Court.

    “This is not a desirable state of affairs as it shows that the Judiciary is not playing its role which generally is to settle disputes between all persons, states and governments whereas the idea is to have a system that resolves these disputes without disputants resorting to self-help/violence which could lead to a breakdown of law and order.

    “A good system for resolving disputes is one that is independent, transparent, accountable, efficient, cost-effective and timely, “ the chief judge said on Tuesday.

    Speaking at the occasion, Governor Adams Oshiomhole cautioned the Judiciary against unethical professional practices and unhealthy collaboration with the police.

    He urged the Judiciary not treat anybody as sacred cow.