The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court

  • Evans asks court to order his release or arraigned

    Evans asks court to order his release or arraigned

    Suspected kidnapper Chukwudumeme Onwuamadike, a.k.a. Evans, has sued the Inspector-General of Police at the Federal High Court in Lagos for alleged violation of his fundamental rights.

    He is praying the court to compel the police to charge him to court rather than detain him indefinitely.

    In a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed on his behalf by a Lagos lawyer, Olukoya Ogungbeje,  the suspected kidnapper said his continued detention without trial was illegal.

    He is praying for an order directing the respondents to immediately charge him to court if, there is any case against him in accordance with Sections 35 (1) (c) (3) (4) (5) (a) (b) and 36 of the 1999 Constitution.

    The Police, Lagos Commissioner of Police, Special Anti-Robbery Squad and Lagos State Police Command are the other respondents.

    Alternatively, Evans is seeking an order compelling the respondents to immediately release him unconditionally.

    Evans is contending that his continued detention since June 10 without charge amounts to an infringement on his fundamental human rights.

    He argues that the respondents ought to have charged him to court in line with Sections 35 and 36 of the Constitution.

    A 27-paragraph affidavit in support of the motion deposed to by Evans’ father, Stephen Onwuamadike, averred that the applicant had been subjected to media trial.

    The father said the media trial and news orchestrated by the respondents continued to generate reactions in both print and electronic media without his son being afforded fair hearing and trial before a court of law.

    The deponent also averred that since his son’s arrest, all his family members have been denied access to him while media practitioners have been granted unfettered access to him.

    The matter has not been assigned to any judge and no date has been fixed for the hearing.

  • Court fixes July 6 for judgment over Peace Corps boss’ detention

    A Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday fixed July 6 for a judgment on the fundamental human rights enforcement suit brought by Peace Corps of Nigeria against the police and other security agencies over the arrest and detention of the group’s leaders on February 28, 2017.

    In the suit filed by Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), the Peace Corps boss, Mr. Dickson Akoh, is demanding N2 billion as compensation for the embarrassment caused the Corps by the arrest and detention.

    Other reliefs sought by the corps include that the court should declare that it is entitle to fundamental rights to acquire and own properties, organise lawful assembly and freedom of movement.

    The defendants in the suit are: the Police, Inspector -General of Police, National Security Adviser, the Directorate of State Services (DSS) and its director-general as well as the Attorney-General of the Federation.

    When the matter came up for hearing yesterday, Agabi raised some questions for determination

    He said: “The question for determination is whether the first applicant (Peace Corps) is a legitimate organisation

    “The respondents conceded that this is true, but only concerned that the organisation is engaged in paramilitary activities without substantiating them.

    “I submit that the respondents are unable to substantiate their allegations.I urge my lord to grant all the reliefs sought by the applicants.”

    Agabi said exhibit attached to the proof of evidence was a police report, which states that the activities of the organisation were legal.

    He added that no appeal was recorded against the judgments won by the applicants.

    Counsel to first and second respondents David Igbodo submitted that he had filed a counter-motion in opposition to the applicants’ claims.

    “We urge this honourable court to dismiss the application. The affidavit of 90-count charge bordering on money laundering, training of militia and engaging in illegal activities, are pending before a high court.

    “Their case is lacking in merit and of no consequential order,” he said.

    Oyinkole Oshd, counsel to third to sixth respondents, held that in view of Section 35 1c, the arrest and detention can’t be said to be unlawful having been made upon a reasonable suspicion of committing a crime.

    After listening to the submissions, Justice Gabriel Kolawole fixed July 6 for judgment.

  • Court acquits man, 52, of defrauding Ekiti govt of N72m

    A Federal High Court in Ado-Ekiti, the Ekiti State capital, yesterday discharged and acquitted a 52-year-old man, Tunde Adebayo, charged with defrauding the state government of N72 million.

    He was arraigned on a two-count charge of conspiracy and fraud.

    The prosecution said the accused obtained N72 million to supply laptops for 450 senior police officers serving in the state.

    Justice Donatus Okorowo held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.

    He said: “The prosecution counsel failed to produce any record to support the allegations of conspiracy and fraud against the defendant.

    “He is hereby discharged and acquitted.”

    The prosecution counsel, Mr Femi Falade, told the court that the defendant committed the offences on March 18, 2009.

    He said the defendant conspired with others on the run and defrauded the state government of N72 million from the State Multi-purpose Credit Agency Office in Ado-Ekiti for buying laptops for 450 senior police officers.

    Adebayo was said to have supplied only 270 laptops out of the approved 450 and failed to supply the rest.

  • Falana: Court didn’t empower lawmakers to hike budget

    Falana: Court didn’t empower lawmakers to hike budget

    Activist-lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) has faulted the National Assembly’s claim that the Federal High Court empowered it to increase budget estimates.

    The lawyer said he was the plaintiff in the suit, adding that although it was dismissed for lack of locus standi, the court never made such a pronouncement.

    Falana said in 2014, he challenged the extent of the National Assembly’s oversight powers to rewrite the Appropriation Bill or increase the budget estimates presented to it by the President.

    He said in dismissing the case, Justice Gabriel Kolawole questioned his legal right to institute the action and described him as a “meddlesome interloper” despite acknowledging him as “a renowned human rights crusader”.

    “No doubt, the learned trial judge said that the National Assembly is not a rubber stamp parliament. The incontestable statement has since been twisted to give the very erroneous impression that the power of the National Assembly to increase the budget has been judicially recognised.

    “In the entire 22-page judgment, the learned trial judge never said that the National Assembly has the power to increase any budget proposal submitted to it by the President. On the contrary, the Federal High Court made it categorically clear that the National Assembly lacks the legislative powers to prepare ‘budget estimates’ for the President or ‘disregard the budget proposals laid before it and substitute it with its own estimates’.

    “Even though I have taken the legal battle over the dismissal of the case to the Court of Appeal, I wish to state, without any fear of contradiction, that the learned trial judge concurred with my submission that the constitution has not vested the National Assembly with powers to increase the budget,” Falana said.

    Falana quoted Justice Kolawole as saying: “The whole essence of the ‘budget estimates’ being required to be laid before the third defendant (National Assembly), is to enable the third defendant as the assembly of the representatives of the people, to debate the said ‘budget proposals’ and to make its own well-informed legislative inputs into it.

    “What the third defendant cannot do is to prepare ‘budget estimates’ for the first defendant (President) or to disregard the proposals laid before it and substitute it with its own estimates. The rationale for this is simple: It is the Executive Arm under the leadership of the 1st defendant that controls and superintends all agencies, corporations and commissions that generate the revenue for the running of the government…”

    According to Falana, the judge rightly stated that the National Assembly was not a ‘rubber stamp parliament’ on the ground that it is empowered to debate and make its informed inputs into budget proposals.

    He said nowhere in the judgment did the Federal High Court say that the National Assembly has the power to increase or insert new items like constituency projects into the budget estimates contained in any Appropriation Bill or Supplementary Bill prepared and submitted to it by  the President.

    Falana said a seeming lacuna in Section 81 of the Constitution has been sufficiently addressed by the Fiscal Responsibility Act No 31 of 2007.

    “Section 13 thereof has imposed a mandatory duty on the Minister of Finance to seek inputs from the National Assembly and other relevant statutory bodies in the preparation of the Medium Term Expenditure Framework, which shall be approved by the Federal Executive Council.

    “Pursuant to Section 18 of the Act, the Medium Term Expenditure Framework shall be the basis ‘for the preparation of the estimates of revenue and expenditure to be prepared and laid before the National Assembly under section 81 of the Constitution’.

    “It is submitted that it is at the stage of preparing the Medium Term Expenditure Framework that National Assembly may influence the introduction of new items or inclusion of projects to be executed in their constituencies. Therefore, the National Assembly cannot prepare any aspect of the budget estimates, lay it before itself, pass same and then request the President to sign it into law.

    “Finally, to ensure that the preparation of the Appropriation Bill is based on the Medium Term Expenditure Framework passed by the National Assembly, signed into law by the President and implemented by the Executive arm of government, Section 51 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act has specifically clothed every citizen with the necessary locus standi or legal capacity to enforce the provisions of the law by obtaining prerogative orders or other remedies at the Federal High Court, without having to show any special particular interest,” Falana said.

  • Court sets aside $2.5b judgment awarded to Shell, Esso against NNPC

    Court sets aside $2.5b judgment awarded to Shell, Esso against NNPC

    •Judges say oil firms can’t determine what to pay as tax
    •FIRS’ sole right to assess petroleum profit tax upheld

    THE Court of Appeal in Abuja has set aside a portion of an arbitral award got by Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Limited (Shell) and Esso Exploration and Production Limited (Esso) against the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).

    By the portion of the award, made by an arbitration tribunal in Lagos on October 24, 2011, NNPC was ordered,  among others, to pay Shell and Esso over $2.5 billion for abusing a Production Sharing Contract (PSC) between them in relation to the operation of an oil field identified as Erha Deepwater Project.

    Shell and Esso particularly accused NNPC of assuming their responsibilities, under the PSC, including determining what should be paid to the Nigerian government as petroleum profit tax (PPT), and that in so doing, NNPC over-lifted petroleum products valued at $1,207,500,000 to pay its unilaterally assessed tax on their behalf (Shell and Esso).

    On learning about the Shell and Esso case against NNPC, which will require it to refund the tax paid to it by NNPC on behalf of Shell and Esso, the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) went before the Federal High Court in Abuja to challenge the aspect of the arbitral proceedings relating to tax issues.

    The arbitration tribunal, at the end of its proceedings on October 24, 2011, ordered NNPC to pay Esso and Shell $1,799,000,000, “with simple interest at the rate of 30-day LIBOR plus four per cent from December 17, 2007 (the date of breach) until April 30, 2011,” estimated at $243,000,000.

    It asked NNPC to pay another “simple interest at the rate of 30-day LIBOR plus four per cent on the $1,799,000,000 from April 30, 2011 up until the date of payment;” and a further “sum determined by the volume and value of over-lifting by the respondent that has taken place since April 30, 2011 and until the date of this final award, plus simple interest at the rate of 30-day LIBOR plus four per cent from April 30, 2011 up until the date of payment”.

    However, in his judgment on March 9, 2012 on the suit by FIRS, Justice Adamu Bello (now retired) of the Federal High Court, Abuja set aside the October 24, 2011 arbitral award/judgment on the ground that the arbitration tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to have entertained dispute relating to tax, a decision Shell and Esso appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja.

    The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous judgment of a three-man panel on March 10 this year, a copy of which The Nation accessed last Friday, set aside the monetary award against NNPC, held that oil companies lacked the power to determine what profit tax to pay and that such responsibilities reside solely with the FIRS under the country’s laws.

    Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, in the lead judgment, faulted the exercise of jurisdiction over a tax related dispute by an arbitration tribunal.

    He noted: “The payment of petroleum profit tax (PPT) by parties to a production sharing contract is not governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

    “The assessment and determination of the PPT payable and the collection of such tax are governed by the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) Act and Petroleum Profit Tax (PPT) Act.”

    Justice Agim said FIRS was right to have challenged the arbitral proceedings while it was still on, because it relation to tax dispute, which an arbitration tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain.

    He said the order by the arbitral tribunal that NNPC cease making tax payments inconsistent with PPT returns prepared by the appellants, one of the reliefs claimed for by the appellants in the tribunal, takes away the discretionary power given the FIRS by Section 35(2) & (3) of the PPT Act, to accept returns filed with it and assess a tax payer’s tax liability on the basis of them or refuse to accept the returns, assess the tax payable on its own best judgment.

    Justice Agim said: “This relief has the effect of taking away completely the 1st respondent’s statutory power to assess and determine the tax payable vested in it (FIRS) by Section 35, 36 and 37 of the PPT Act and Section 43(1) of the same Act, which makes the assessment by the 1st respondent final and conclusive.

    “The order defeats the operation of sections 52 and 53 of the PPT Act, which makes the filing of inaccurate PPT returns an offence.

    “Therefore, the duty of the parties to the PSC to pay the PPT for the contract area and the exercise of the statutory powers of the 1st respondent to assess, determine and collect petroleum profit tax from oil producing companies in Nigeria and the non-refundability of paid PPT, except the part considered as overpayment, not arbitrable,” Justice Agim said.

    He faulted the decision by Shell and Esso to refer to an arbitration tribunal, their grievance over the way NNPC handled the issues of tax assessment and payment.

    Justice Agim noted where oil companies have issues with tax assessment by FIRS, they can, by virtue of the provisions of sections 42 and 43 of the PPT Act, appeal to Tax Appeal Commissioners, and further to the Federal High Court for the finality and conclusiveness of the assessment.

    He said: “On the whole, this appeal succeeds in part and fails in part. The judgment of the Federal High Court at Abuja in suit No: FHC/AB/CS/764 delivered on March 9, 2012 by A. Bello J. (Justice A. Bello), nullifying the entire arbitration agreement between the appellants and 2nd respondent, the arbitration proceedings and the award is hereby set aside, except as it affects the request or claims for reliefs F, H and I in the arbitration proceedings and the award of the same reliefs by the arbitral tribunal.

    “For the avoidance of doubt, the judgement nullifying the request for reliefs F, H & I in the arbitration proceedings and the award of these reliefs by the arbitral tribunal is upheld and affirmed.

    “The part of the judgment dismissing the preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain and determine the suit is affirmed and upheld in respect of the request for reliefs F, H & I in the arbitration proceedings,” Justice Agim said.

    Justices Tinuade Akomolafe-Wilson and Tani Yusuf Hassan, who were on the panel, agreed with Justice Agim’s reasoning in the lead judgment.

  • Court to hear N350m suit Sept 18

    Justice Chuka Obiozor of a Lagos Federal High Court has fixed September 18 for hearing in a N350 million suit filed by Merchant Navy Maritime Academy Limited, Sagamu, Ogun State against the Navy and the Police for alleged infringement of it fundamental rights.

    The adjournment was at the instance of the applicants’ counsel, Chief Olusegun  Raji who requested for time to enable him study the counter claims of the Navy, which was represented by an officer from the Legal Services Department, Western Naval Command, Sub. Lt. Benjamin Achimgu.

    The Police were not represented.

    Justice  Obiozor frowned at the respondents’ delay to file their counter claims.

    The respondents are former Director of Intelligence, Western Naval Command NNS Beecroft, Captain Ajang Pitrus; Inspector-General of Police; Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone II, Onikan, Lagos;  Directorate of State Service(DSS); Attorney-General of the Federation  and Minister of Justice; Commissioner of Police, Lagos State Command; Commissioner of Police, Ogun State Command; the Area Command, Igbeba Area Command, Ijebu Ode; Investigating Police Officer (IPO), Igbeba Area Command, Ijebu Ode, Segeant Wasiu Tijani and IPO, Zone II Area Command, Onikan, Lagos, SUPOL Akinade Oginjo.

    The applicants,  Captain Bola Nuga, Commander Lateef Sanni Ajao,  Pa Olufemi Adesioye and Mr Akinyemi Odebiyi, on behalf of the Merchant Navy Maritime Academy averred that the defendants and their agents breached their rights by illegally arresting and detaining them at the Zone 2 Command headquarters in 2011.

    They deposed that the defendants illegally arrested them and some students at the premises of the Academy adding that even when a competent court in the land had ruled that they should be allowed bail, the defendants and their agents continued to harass and intimidate them.

    The Merchant Navy Maritime Academy personnel claimed that since 2011 when they were granted bail, they had lived in constant fear and apprehension that the defendants would still re-arrest them for no just cause.

    They are asking for N250 million from the first and second respondents and N100 million from third to 11th respondents as general damages for the unlawful breach of their rights, losses and injuries suffered from alleged invasion, unlawful arrest, detention and arraignment of the first to fourth applicants.

    The applicants sought a declaration of the court that their detention by the third and fourth respondents from January 14 to January 24, 2011 at Zone II Police Command, Onikan, on the instruction of the first and second respondents were illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional as it violated their  rights under the 1999 Constitution and Article 6 and 7 of the African Charter on Human Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.

  • Court stops work on estate

    A Lagos High Court has ordered Property Mart Real Estate Investment Limited to stop work on its Grenadines Homes project at Sangotedo.

    Justice Taofikat Oyekan-Abdulalai isued the order following a motion filed by Complete Leisure Estate Nigeria Limited.The applicant accused Property Mart of trespass.

    According to the Judge, “an order of interim injunction be and same is hereby granted to the claimant/applicant restraining the defendant’s agents, privies, workmen and or servants from entering or further entering, occupying, developing and from further constructing any structure on any part or portion of the claimants’ 53.9 hectares of land covered by C of O dated May 6, 2015 and registered as no. 76/76/2015 lying and situated at Sangotedo, Eti Osa local government pending the final determination of this suit”.

    The judge made the order after hearing counsel for both parties, Mr Lawal Pedro (SAN) for claimant (Complete Leisure Estate) and Mr. Rahman Oshodi for the defendant (Property Mart) on the motion on notice filed before the court by the claimant.

    Meanwhile, Complete Leisure Estate has commenced contempt proceeding against the Managing  Director of Property Mart for allgedly continuing with construction work at the location.

    In the substantive suit, Complete Leisure Estate claimed that the ongoing construction at Grenadines Homes was a trespass on its property.

    The claimant said it had at no time sold or leased any of part of the land where the project is located to Property Mart.

    The firm claimed that in 2006, Lagos State Government took over its land located at Okota but later compensated it with a 103 hectares of land at Sangotedo.

    The firm, however, stated that it later dragged Lagos State Government to court when its C of O for the 103 hectares at Sangotedo was revoked on two occasions.

    According to the firm, Justice Habib Abiru (now of the Court of Appeal) and Justice Kazeem Alogba both of the Lagos High Court in two separate judgments against the state government handed back the land to it.

    It further stated that an appeal was however filed against both judgments by Ajah Community Developers Association whom the Lagos State Government had allocated part of the 103 hectares to during the pendency of the suit to reclaim its land.

    The firm also stated in the court papers, that during the pendency of the legal action against Lagos State Government, it entered agreement with some companies to sell unspecified portions of the 103 hectares if judgment is given in its favour.

    The firm, however, averred that as part of measures to resolve the protracted litigation, it eventually settled the case with Lagos State government and accepted a settlement offer of  53 hectares out of the 103 hectares of the disputed land and another 65 hectares at Ibeju Lekki.

    Based on this development, the firm said it subsequently invited all the companies it had earlier entered purchase and lease agreement for adjustment since its C of O for the 103 Hectares had been withdrawn by Lagos State Government in replacement of a new C of O for the 53 Hectares.

    According to the firm, Property Mart, was not one of the companies it previously entered purchase agreement with or renegotiated with.

    However, in its counter claim, Property Mart stated that it legally acquired the location for its ongoing construction of Grenadines Home from Saglons Beverages Ventures Limited who has a deed of assignment from Complete Leisure

    The firm claims that the suit filed against it is an attempt to frustrate its project since Saglons Beverages Ventures Limited has dragged Complete Leisure Estate before another court over the disputed property.

    Complete Leisure however alleged in its statement of claim that the deed of assignment referred to was forged and that in the earlier case referred to by Property Mart another judge of the Lagos High Court, Justice Iyabo Kasali, had in a bench ruling restrained Saglons Beverages Ventures Limited from further doing any work on the same site.

    Justice Oyekan-Abdulalai has adjourned the substantive suit between the parties till October 31, 2017 for hearing.

  • Updated: $115m ‘Diezani bribe’: Court frees lawmaker as ex-minister wife surrenders to EFCC

    Updated: $115m ‘Diezani bribe’: Court frees lawmaker as ex-minister wife surrenders to EFCC

    An Igbosere Chief Magistrates’ Court in Lagos Tuesday freed a federal lawmaker, Aliyu Ahman Pategi, who was remanded last Friday for failing to produce his ex-minister wife, Oloye Jumoke Akinjide, who he stood surety for.

    Chief Magistrate Afolashade Botoku struck out the charge against Pategi following Akinjide’s surrender Tuesday afternoon to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) at its Lagos office in Ikoyi.

    Pategi is the House of Representatives member representing Edu/Moro/Patigi Federal Constitutency of Kwara State.

    Akinjide, a former Federal Capital Territory and Minister of State for Defence, was declared wanted by the EFCC for alleged conspiracy and laundering of N650 million.

    The agency said she collected the sum from former Minister of Petroleum Resources Diezani Alison-Madueke in March 2015, as part of the $115million allegedly illegally disbursed by the former President Goodluck Jonathan administration to prosecute the 2015 general elections.

    According to a 16-paragraph affidavit filed by the commission, Diezani received the money as gratification from some oil marketers.

    EFCC counsel Rotimi Oyedepo told the court that Akinjide was granted bail by the agency last August 10, after Pategi stood as her surety on a N650 million bail bond.

    Pategi, Oyedepo said, promised to produce Akinjide whenever she was needed.

    He said a 24-count charge of money laundering and conspiracy was brought against her before Justice Ayo Emmanuel of the Federal High Court, Ibadan, in Suit No. FHC/IB/26C/2017.

    Akinjide, Oyedepo added, failed to turn up in court after more than three proceedings, despite the service of the charge on her prompting the Federal High Court to threaten to dismiss the charge.

    He said Akinjide was not seen since then and Pategi, despite repeated demands, failed to produce her

    He brought an application that Pategi should show cause why the N650m should not be forfeited to the Federal Government.

    Pategi was then remanded in EFCC custody.

    When the case came up yesterday, Oyedepo said Akinjide had reported herself to the EFCC’s office.

    “I just confirmed from the EFCC zonal office that Akinjide has turned herself in to EFCC custody.

    “Since it was the inability of Pategi to produce Akinjide that triggered our application, we apply that this suit be struck out in view of the success of producing Akinjide.

    “In the interest of justice I seek to withdraw this suit,” Oyedepo said.

    Earlier, defence counsel Olusegun Williams told the court that although the business of the day was for the defendant’s bail and preliminary objection to be heard, an arrangement out of court settlement talks were on going.

    He, thereafter, withdrew his applications and urged the court to suspend the suit until a settlement was reached.

    In a bench ruling, Magistrate Botoku struck out the suit.

    She said: “Based on the application of the prosecutor, the suit is hereby struck out and the defendant released.”

  • Court to rule on OSOPADEC case August 1

    Court to rule on OSOPADEC case August 1

    An Akure High Court is to determine on August 1 if it has jurisdiction to hear a suit filed by some indigenes of Ugbo community in Ilaje Local Government Area on the appointment of Gbenga Edema as Chairman of Ondo State Oil Producing Development Commission (OSOPADEC).

    Governor Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN) appointed Edema, a lawyer as the intervention agency’s chief.

    The court adjourned ruling at the weekend after hearing a notice of preliminary objection filed by Edema’s lawyer, Charles Titiloye.

    The claimants’ lawyer, N. O. Oke (SAN), had filed an application to restrain Edema from parading himself as OSOPADEC’s chairman due to the way he was appointed.