The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court

  • Court acquits Tejuosho market director of forgery

    A Lagos High Court has quashed the forgery charge brought against Mr Olaide Omotola, a director of Stormberg Engineering Company Limited, the developer of Tejuosho Ultramodern Market.

    Justice Oluwatoyin Taiwo held that the prosecution could not establish a prima facie case against the accused.

    According to the judge, Omotola was not served with the charge or notified of the trial.

    The judge said there were discrepancies in the legal advice as the petitioner’s statement was written on March 2, 2012; the petition was written on March 5 and approved on March 7, 2012.

    Justice Taiwo said the petitioner had finished writing his statement “before his petition was approved,” noting that it smacks of meditated prosecution.

    Omotola, a partner in the development of Tejuosho Ultramodern Market and leading equity contributor, was accused of forging the signature to become a director.

    He said he was accused of forgery after he discovered some discrepancies in the market’s redevelopment following which he petitioned the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    Omotola said while EFCC was investigating his allegation, a petition was sent to the police Special Fraud Unit (SFU), accusing him of forgery.

    On March 22, 2012, SFU operatives came to his house and took him to its office on the charge of forgery and stealing N20 million.

    “After they investigated, they could not establish any prima facie case against me in the matter. My passport was seized and later returned to me.

    “In the course, we petitioned the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) that SFU was taking a biased position and the matter was transferred from SFU.

    “But unknown to us, they had hurriedly gone to court on the matter. When Mr. Dolapo Atimo died, as it was obvious that I had the controlling share of the company, they also wrote another petition to the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).

    “The CAC called my attention to the request. I told them to write a letter so that we can see the petition and what the issues are. This was when we now knew that there was a secret trial going on at a Lagos High Court, Igbosere without our attention being called to it,” he said.

  • I have no relationship with Metuh – Justice Abang

    I have no relationship with Metuh – Justice Abang

    *Judge replies Metuh’s petition

    The judge handling the trial of the spokesman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh has said he had neither social nor work relationship with the politician.

    Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja said he did not know Metuh during his (the judge) practice as a lawyer and while in school.

    The judge’s position is contained in his response to a petition written against him by Metuh to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta.

    Justice Abang’s response is dated March 23.

    Metuh had, in the petition written against by one of lawyers, Emeka Etiaba (SAN), claimed among others, that the judge was his classmate at the Law School in 1988 and that he last met the judge late last year at the Meridien Hotel, Akwa Ibom.

    Metuh, who said he was worried he could not get justice before the judge, accused him (Justice Abang) of bias and of deliberately refusing to release records of proceedings to enable him appeal the judge’s earlier decisions.

    The PDP spokesman, whose move is seen as attempt to scuttle his trial, is praying Justice Auta to transfer the case to another judge to commence afresh.

    Metuh and his company, Destra Investment Limited were arraigned before Justice Abang in January on a seven-count charge, in which they were accused of retaining proceeds of unlawful act and engaging in money laundering.

    The prosecution closed in February after calling eight witness. But, rather than open their defence, Metuh and his firm made a no-case submission.

    In a ruling on March 9 Justice Abnag rejected the no-case submission, on the ground that the prosecution has established a case against Metuh and his company, requiring them being called upon to enter defence.

    Rather the open his defence,Metuh, on March 11 petitioned the court’s Chief Judge, raising sundry accusations against Justice Abang and requested the transfer of the case against him to another judge.

    Lead prosecution lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir said he was not served a copy of Metuh’s petition as required.

    Justice Abang, in his response to Metuh’s petition, a copy of which The Nation sighted in Abuja, although he neither knew nor had any relationship with Metuh, it was impossible for the relationship Metuh claimed existed between them to affect the facts and laws in relation to his (Metuh’s) trial.

    “With respect to the first issue that the petitioner Emeka Etiaba (SAN) stated that the 1st defendant in Charge FHC/ABJ/CR/05/2016 was my classmate in the Nigerian Law School, my Lord, for the records, I was at the Law School in 1987/88 Academic Session.

    “I am not aware that Olisa Metuh was my classmate in the Nigerian Law School. I cannot recall seeing him in the time session in my time. In the law school, we were over 1,000 students and we had then two sessions, morning that I attended.

    “He is not from my place, Oron, in Akwa Ibom State. I did not see him as a student in University of Calabar that I attended between September 1983 till June 1987.

    “I have never met him in practice anywhere in the country before I was elevated to the bench in June 2009. Again, he claimed he met me in Le’ Mariden Uyo late last year.

    “I was not in Le’ Meriden Uyo late last year . I had no function that I attended in Le’ Meriden Uyo late last year. I did not meet him in Le’ Meriden Uyo late last year.

    “If the records show that he is a lawyer and was called to Nigerian Bar on November 3, 1988, which record I am yet to see, that cannot affect the facts and the law.

    “I attended recently my class reunion meeting in Abuja, Lagos and Enugu, I did not see Olisa Metuh in the places I mentioned. I am not related to Olisa Metuh in any way, I do not know where he comes from,” Justice Abang said.

    On Metuh’s allegation that majority of the judge’s rulings was in favour of the prosecution, Justice Abang noted that as a lawyer, Etiaba knew what option exists for a party, who is not comfortable with a court’s decision.

    “As regard the issue that I made interlocutory decisions in favour of the prosecution in the matter, my response here is simple. And that is, that I am entitled to give decisions in matters placed before me for adjudication having heard parties.

    “That is why there are appellate courts. If he is dissatisfied with those decisions, I think Emeka Etiaba (SAN) ought to know what to do.

    “As regard the alleged non-release of the record of proceedings, I think Emeka Etiaba (SAN) is not fair to me at all. I will leave him to his conscience. He has an improper motive in this regard.

    “For the records, my lord, the defendant applied for the Certified True Copy of proceedings at the time proceedings were going on from day to day. I approved same and directed my secretary to type the proceedings.

    “The proceedings were bulky in nature because I heard the case from day to day. When the secretary concluded typing the proceedings, I abandoned all other matters before me and concentrated on checking the typed proceedings to be in line with what were in the court’s records.

    “When I proof-read the proceedings and was satisfied that it represents what transpired in the open court, I endorsed same for certification and released the proceedings to them on March 15, 2016,” Justice Abang said.

    When parties were last in court on March 24, Justice Abang noted that Metuh, in addition to his petition, has applied to the judge to disqualify himself from further trying the case, raining similar issues as contained in the petition.

    The PDP spokesman has also applied to the court for an indefinite stay of proceedings pending the determination of his appeal.

    On March 24, Justice Abang adjourned to April 8 for hearing of the both applications by Metuh.

    The judge said the outcome of his rulings on the applications would determine the future of the case.

    ‎” If the application for stay of proceedings fails, the defendant will be at liberty to open is defence for the last time,” the judge said.

  • ‎Court rules out trial within trial on Ejigbo three

    ‎Court rules out trial within trial on Ejigbo three

    The trial within trial in the matter involving the tortured Ejigbo women failed to hold Thursday at a Lagos High court sitting in Ikeja.

    This was because the court presided by Justice Oluwatoyin Ipaye reversed her ruling which earlier granted the request of the defence for a trial within trial to determine the admissibility of the statements of the sixth‎ and seventh defendants.

    ‎The decision of the court was sequel to the submission of the prosecution led by Akin George that it would amount to wasting the time of the court if a trial is conducted within the main trial on the statement of the 6th and 7th defendants.

    Justice Ipaye ruled that the trial within trial was no longer neccessary owing to the fact that the statement of the 6th defendant was not confessional as claimed earlier.

    At its last sitting of the court, Justice Ipaye had granted the prayer of the defence counsel, Mr J.H Basir to the 6, 7,8, 9 and 10 defendants to conduct a trial within trial in order to determine if truly the statement of the 6th and 7th defendants said to be confessional were given by his clients.

    But at the resume of the hearing Thursday, the prosecution led by Mr. Akin George informed the court that the prayer of the defense counsel earlier granted by the court will only amount to a wild goose chase.

    George argued that it is only if the statement of the defendants are confessional that the the court could approve trial within trial.

    Citing section 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act, George said the‎ defence is seeking to approbate and reprobate by asking for a trial within trial as that would further drag the matter

    “The statement of the defendants before the court is not confessional. Therefore, the court has the power to over- rule the previous ruling on trial within trial.”

    “I thereby urged the court to overrule the previous pronouncement on the matter”, he said.

    In his response, counsel to the defendants, Mr Bashir told the court that the prosecution had failed to file an appeal against the previous ruling of the court.
    ‎
    Said he: “It is the duty of the court to determine whether a statement is confessional or not”.

    Bashir urged the court to discountenance the objection raised by the prosecution.

    After listening to the submission of the parties, the judge in her fresh ruling withdrew the trial within trial that was earlier granted the defence.

    Thereafter, the defence moved a motion of notice before the court seeking an extension of the time given him for cross-examination in view of the fact that he is representing five defendants.

    Bashir argued that the time given to him was the same allotted to other counsels who are representing one or two defendants.

    He urged the court to allow him re-examine the third prosecution witness (PW3).

    However, the prosecution objected to the request of the defence saying that it was an attempt to draw the court back on matters that are already gone.

    Justice Ipaye in her ruling declined the prayer of the defence and said that the defence counsel had enough time to do his job.

    “I have scrutinised the applications by counsels and in the view of the facts before the court, I rule that the application is without evidence and is hereby dismissed.”

    Justice Ipaye subsequently adjourned the matter till April 20 and 21, 2016 for continuation of trial.

     

  • Court restrains Senate from issuing arrest warrant on Lamorde

    Court restrains Senate from issuing arrest warrant on Lamorde

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the Senate and its Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions from issuing any warrant of arrest against the former Chairman of EFCC, Ibrahim Lamorde.

    The order granted in a March 7, 2016 ruling by Justice Gabriel Kolawole, is to subsist until determination of Lamorde’s motion on notice for interlocutory Injunction.

    The judge, in a copy of the order, made available to The Nation Thursday by plaintiff’s lawyer, Festus Keyamo, directed that the order be served on the Inspector General of Police (IGP).

    “A limited order of injunction is hereby granted to restrain the defendants pending when they are heard on their reply to plaintiff’s motion on notice which I have fixed for March 15, 2016 for the defendants, though served, who are yet to appear in the plaintiff’s suit or file any process,” the judge said.

    He ordered the plaintiff’s lawyer to obtain a certified true copy of the orders in this ruling and shall cause same to be served on the Inspector General of Police, who shall, on the authority of this court’s order, refrain to give any effect to any such warrant which the defendants may have issued against the plaintiff on the simple judicial principle of lis pendens.”

    None of the defendants was represented on March 15 when the case came up, following which the court adjourned to April 25 for the defendants to show cause why the plaintiff’s prayers, as contained in his motion for Interlocutory injunctions, should not be granted.

    Lamorde had, in his motion, argued that despite the pendency of his suit in court, the Senate still went ahead to pass a resolution to issue a warrant of arrest against him.

    The EFCC former Chairman is, by the suit, challenging the powers of the Senate to issue a warrant of arrest when a proper summons to appear had not been issued against him.

     

  • Alleged N34b fraud: EFCC arraigns Tompolo in absentia

    Alleged N34b fraud: EFCC arraigns Tompolo in absentia

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Tuesday arraigned a former Niger Delta militant leader, Government Ekpemupolo (aka Tompolo) at the Federal High Court in Lagos in Lagos in absentia over N34billion fraud.

    He was charged along with a former Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) Director-General Patrick Akpobolokemi; Global West Vessel Specialist Limited, Odimiri Electricals Limited and Kemi Engozu.

    Others are Boloboere Property and Estate Limited, Rex Elem, Destre Consult Limited, Gregory Mbonu and Captain Warredi Enisuoh.

    EFCC, in the 40-count charge before Justice Ibrahim Buba, said the suspects allegedly diverted N34 billion for personal use.

    It alleged the money accrued from the public private partnership agreement between NIMASA and Global West Vessel Specialist, said to be owned by Tompolo.

    The alleged offence contravenes Section 15 (1) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act 2012 and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.

    Count one reads: “That you, Government Ekpemupolo (alias Tompolo) now at large, Patrick Akpobolokemi, Global West Vessel Specialist Ltd, in 2012 in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did conspire amongst yourselves to commit an offence to wit: Conversion of the sums of N601,516.13 and $1,766,428.62, property of NIMASA, knowing that the said sums were proceeds of stealing, and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 18(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 2012 and punishable  under Section 15(3) of the same Act.”

    The defendants, who were all present except Tompolo, pleaded not guilty to all the counts.

    Tompolo will be arraigned on another 22-count charge also pending before Justice Buba, who adjourned it until April 18. It borders on stealing, advanced fee fraud and money laundering involving about N22.7billion.

    In the pending charge, Tompolo will face trial along with Akpobolokemi, whose four brothers – Victor, Nobert, Emmanuel and Clement – said to be at large, were said to have aided the suspects to commit the fraud.

    They were accused of converting various sums running into over N22.7billion stolen from NIMASA to their personal use between December 12, 2014 and April 10, 2015.

    Justice Ibrahim Buba had, on February 8, directed security agencies to arrest Tompolo and held that the warrant of arrest issued for his arrest still subsists.

    Tompolo’s lead counsel, Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), had sought to set aside the warrant of arrest, but the judge dismissed the application and re-issued a fresh warrant for Tompolo’s arrest.

    The judge subsequently granted EFCC’s application empowering it to seize all Tompolo’s traceable assets pending his arrest or appearance in court for arraignment. The properties will be auctioned after three months beginning from February 19 when the order was made should Tompolo refuse to turn up, the judge ordered.

    Tompolo appealed the order for his arrest and prayed the appellate court to order the transfer of his case from Justice Buba to another judge.

    His lawyers are urging the Court of Appeal to set aside the warrant of arrest on the basis that Justice Buba erred in law in refusing to nullify it.

    EFCC lawyer Festus Keyamo told reporters yesterday that Tompolo would stand trial whenever he is arrested. He said security agencies are on his trail.

    “It is the duty of the security forces and‎ they are still making efforts to get him. He’s on the run and he cannot continue to be on the run for ever. We will get him,” Keyamo said.

    The other defendants’ lawyers urged Justice Buba to grant them bail in the most liberal terms. Keyamo said since some of the accused persons were already on bail in another charge before the court, they should be granted bail on conditions that would ensure their attendance in court.

    Justice Buba, therefore, granted the defendants N50 million bail with one reliable surety in like sum. Enisuoh‎ was granted bail for N10million with one surety.

    “The defendants who are already on bail are to perfect their bail conditions within 24 hours or be remanded in prison. Those appearing before me for the first time should perfect their bail conditions today or be remanded in prison,” Justice Buba ruled.

    He adjourned until May 23, 24, 25, and 26 for trial.

     

  • Court refuses to stop Eko Atlantic dredging

    Court refuses to stop Eko Atlantic dredging

    The Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday refused to grant an interlocutory injunction against Eko Atlantic project dredger.

    Justice Jude Dagat held that the N3.7billion guarantee posted by the dredger’s owners represented good security for the claim.

    The judge also refused an application for the suit’s dismissal filed by the dredger’s owners.

    He held that the plaintiff, Mondinvest Limited, can maintain the action for N3.7billion damages.

    Three contractors handling the project urged the court to dismiss a suit seeking to stop it.

    The plaintiff is demanding the money in general damages for the alleged damage of its property due to the defendants’ activities.

    But the defendants, M.V. Breughel (sister vessel to M.V. Congo River), the Master of the M.V. Breughel and Dredging Environmental and Marine Engineering NV, contended that the plaintiff lacked jurisdiction to file the action.

    The plaintiff filed the admiralty case, known as in rem proceedings, for alleged coastline and property damage caused by M.V. Congo River and MV. Breughel currently engaged in dredging operations in the Kuramo Waters in furtherance of the Eko Atlantic project.

    Arguing their notice of preliminary objection, the defendants’ lawyer, Ken Okwujiako, urged the court to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.

    “Our position is that the plaintiff, not being owners of the Kuramo Waters coastline, has no basis for demanding damages. The Kuramo Waters belong to the Federal Government. It is our view that the plaintiff has not stated any right it has over Kuramo Waters whatsoever,” he said.

    Besides, the lawyer said the defendants are agents of a disclosed party, which had already provided a guarantee in case of any damages.

    “We urge your lordship to strike out this suit. At the appropriate time we shall bring an application for cost,” Okwujiako said.

    But, the plaintiff’s lawyer, Adedolapo Akinrele (SAN), said his client’s property on the Kuramo Waters was damaged through the dredging.

    “It’s clear that the plaintiff has suffered damages and is still suffering damages as a result of the dredging,” he said.

    Akinrele, in a motion for injunction, prayed for an interlocutory order restraining the defendants from continuing with the dredging, sand-filling or reclaiming the Kuramo waters pending hearing and determination of the suit.

    A company, South Energy X, Eko Atlantic Project sponsors, has applied to join as a party to the suit.

    Justice Dagat adjourned till April 15 for hearing.

  • Rickey Tarfa knows fate on bid to quash charges April 20

    A Lagos State High Court sitting in Igbosere Monday adjourned till April 20, for ruling on an application to quash the charges filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr. Rickey Tarfa.

    Tarfa is standing trial before Justice Aishat Opesanwo on a two-count charge of obstructing officers of law from carrying out their official duties and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

    Justice Opesanwo fixed the date after listening to arguments from counsel to the defendant, Mr. A. J. Owonikoko and that of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. G. K. Latona.

    At the resumed hearing yesterday, Owonikoko, urged the court to quash the charges, adding that the EFCC had no right to prosecute any general criminal offences outside economic and financial crimes.

    He said that the charges constituted an abuse of court processes and should be quashed.

    He argued that by virtue of Section 286 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2004, the EFCC could not be a complainant, an investigator and at the same time a prosecutor.

    “The filing of this charge is a clear case of abuse of court process, therefore the proper order is to dismiss the charge,” Owonikoko said.

    However, EFCC counsel, Latona, urged the court to disregard the defendant’s submissions.
    The defendant was arraigned by the EFCC on February 16, for allegedly obstructing their officers from carrying out their lawful duties.

    The SAN denied the charges and was granted bail on self recognizance.

    EFCC had told the court that the defendant committed the alleged offences between May 11 and June 25, 2015, also on February 5, 2016, in Lagos.

    It alleged that on February 5, the Tarfa willfully obstructed one Moses Awolusi and one Sanusi Mohammed, who were EFCC officers, from arresting one Gnanhoue Sourou and one Nazaire Odeste.

    EFCC said that the defendant did this “by keeping the said suspects in his car between 11:00 a.m to 4:30 p.m.”

    The prosecutor also alleged that between May 11 and June 25, 2015, the defendant attempted to pervert the course of justice.

    Justice Opesanwo adjourned till April 20 for ruling on the application and for a possible trial.

  • Court refuses to stop Eko Atlantic dredging

    The Federal High Court in Lagos Monday refused to grant an interlocutory injunction against Eko Atlantic project dredger.

    Justice Jude Dagat held that the N3.7billion guarantee posted by the dredger’s owners represented good security for the claim.

    The judge also refused an application for the suit’s dismissal filed by the dredger’s owners.

    He held that the plaintiff, Mondinvest Limited, can maintain the action for N3.7billion damages.

    Three contractors handling the project urged the court to dismiss a suit seeking to stop it.

    The plaintiff is demanding the money in general damages for the alleged damage of its property due to the defendants’ activities.

    But the defendants, M.V. Breughel (sister vessel to M.V. Congo River), the Master of the M.V. Breughel and Dredging Environmental and Marine Engineering NV, contended that the plaintiff lacked jurisdiction to file the action.

    The plaintiff filed the admiralty case, known as in rem proceedings, for alleged coastline and property damage caused by M.V. Congo River and MV. Breughel currently engaged in dredging operations in the Kuramo Waters in furtherance of the Eko Atlantic project.

    Arguing their notice of preliminary objection, the defendants’ lawyer, Ken Okwujiako, urged the court to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.

    “Our position is that the plaintiff, not being owners of the Kuramo Waters coastline, has no basis for demanding damages. The Kuramo Waters belong to the Federal Government. It is our view that the plaintiff has not stated any right it has over Kuramo Waters whatsoever,” he said.

    Besides, the lawyer said the defendants are agents of a disclosed party, which had already provided a guarantee in case of any damages.

    “We urge your lordship to strike out this suit. At the appropriate time we shall bring an application for cost,” Okwujiako said.

    But, the plaintiff’s lawyer, Adedolapo Akinrele (SAN), said his client’s property on the Kuramo Waters was damaged through the dredging.

    “It’s clear that the plaintiff has suffered damages and is still suffering damages as a result of the dredging,” he said.

    Akinrele, in a motion for injunction, prayed for an interlocutory order restraining the defendants from continuing with the dredging, sand-filling or reclaiming the Kuramo waters pending hearing and determination of the suit.

    A company, South Energy X, Eko Atlantic Project sponsors, has applied to join as a party to the suit.

    Justice Dagat adjourned until April 15 for hearing.

     

  • Teenager in court over alleged theft of baby

    A teenager, Balogun Segun, was on Monday charged before an Ota Magistrates’ Court in Ogun, for allegedly stealing a baby, Aluko Faith.

    Segun, 18, who lives at No.7, Owolabi Street, Iyana-Ilogbo, Ota, is facing a one-count charge of stealing a baby.

    The Prosecutor, Itaita Ebibomino, told the court that the accused committed the offences on Feb. 25 at about 5:00 p.m. at Oko-Agi Area, Ota.

    He said that the accused stole A BABY, Aluko Faith, belonging to Aluko Kehinde.

    Ebibomino said that the offence contravened Section 371 of the Criminal Code, Laws of Ogun, 2006.

    The defendant, however, pleaded not guilty to the one-count charge preferred against him.

    The Chief Magistrate, Mrs. Funke Odubanjo, granted bail to the accused in the sum of N200,000 with responsible sureties in like sum.

    She said that the sureties should be resident within the court’s jurisdiction and should be gainfully employed.
    Odubanjo also directed that one of the sureties should be a guardian or parent of the accused, while others should produce one year tax clearance from the Ogun State Government.

    In addition, the sureties should submit four recent passport photographs to the court and the addresses of the sureties should be verified.

    The case was adjourned till April 29, for hearing.

     

  • Court nullifies Alaba trader’s election

    Justice Yetunde Adesanya of the Lagos High Court has voided the election of Mr. Felix Nwagu as chairman of the General Electrical Dealers Association (GEDA) in Alaba International market in Ojo.

    In her ruling, Justice Adesanya said: “On the totality of the foregoing, meaning the claimant’s claim, statement of defence, cross- examinations, the filed defence reply and witnesses, judgment is entered for the claimant, Mr Joseph Emeziem, against GDEA, Nwagu, Mr. Chinedu Arinze and Mr. Obiora Olikagu. A declaration that the selection of Mr Nwangu as the chairman, elect is irregular, contrary to GEDA’s constitution and is null and void.

    “That the subsequent swearing in of the second defendant (Nwagu) as the General Chairman of GEDA by its electoral committee of 2013 and issuance of certificate of office to him is accordingly set aside.”

    Reacting to the ruling, the claimants counsel Henry Onyeaghana Abohor said it was binding on the parties, adding that the high court has a unit to enforce the judgment, which he noted, will continue to subsist until set aside by the appeal court.