The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court

  • Court validates BGL’s ‘sack’ from capital market

    Court validates BGL’s ‘sack’ from capital market

    The Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday validated the suspension of BGL Group from the capital market by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

    Justice Mohammed Yunusa nullified an interim injunction barring SEC from expelling the group from all capital market activities for alleged malpractices.

    BGL was accused of owing investors about N5.7 billion, including the Rivers State government.

    SEC reportedly received about 40 petitions on BGL’s alleged failure to return investments at maturity.

    In its preliminary objection to BGL’s suit, the commission said the group was indebted to investors to the tune of N5,769,993, 553.67 as at June 2.

    It added that BGL was having liquidity problems and ran at a loss of over N48 billion as at last December.

    According to SEC, BGL Asset Management Limited, contrary to its mandate, wholly transferred funds received from the investing public to BGL Plc without engaging in any form of Fund/Portfolio Management.

    But BGL on May 27obtained to an order restraining SEC from “holding and or conducting any trial or hearing in respect of the alleged complaints against the plaintiffs…” and from giving effect to the ban pending the suit’s determination.

    The plaintiffs are BGL Plc, BGL Asset Management Limited, BGL Capital Limited, BGL Securities Limited, Mr Albert Okumagba, Chibundu Edozie, Teddy Okumakube, Loraine Awoonor-Renner, Ehime Alofoje, Joseph Ashley-Osuzoka, Andre Ewubare, Victor Obire and Nkechi Azubuike. They sued SEC, its Administrative Proceedings Committee (APC) and Mounir Gwarzo.

    But SEC applied to the court to discharge the order.  Justice Yunusa yesterday held that BGL concealed facts from Justice Saidu.

    Justice Yunusa agreed with SEC’s lawyer Kayinsola Ajayi (SAN), who argued that the order was granted in error.

    He adjourned to September 22 for ruling on pending applications.

  • N9m fraud: Court jails pastor, mallam

    N9m fraud: Court jails pastor, mallam

    A pastor in the Deeper Life Bible Church, Anjorin Adanikin and a Mallam, Maliu Aliyu, are to spend the next one year in prison for defrauding local farmers in the distribution of fertiliser.

    An Ado-Ekiti Magistrate’s Court yesterday found them guilty of diverting the fertiliser for their personal gain.

    Police prosecutor Sergeant Oriyomi Akinwale told the court that the accused committed the offence between May and June 2013 in Emure-Ekiti, Emure Local Government Area of Ekiti State.

    According to the prosecutor, the accused fraudulently converted 1,800 bags of fertiliser meant for distribution to farmers in the local government.

    The commodity was to be sold for N2,750 per bag but the accused connived to sell the fertiliser at N3,500 per bag.

    The prosecutor noted that the offence contravenes Section 1 (3) of the Advanced Free Fraud and other Related Offences Act LFN 2006.

    The defence counsel, Ademola Okeya, pleaded with the court for leniency.

    But the Magistrate, Bayode Owoeye, rejected the plea. He described the defendant’s action as “callous”.

    He said the court would not shy away from dispensing justice to deter others.

    Magistrate Owoeye sentenced the duo to one year imprisonment without fine option.

  • Residency card: Court fixes hearing for Tuesday

    Residency card: Court fixes hearing for Tuesday

    An Ondo State High Court has fixed Tuesday for the hearing of a suit by an Akure lawyer, Morakinyo Ogele, challenging the government on the compulsory collection of residency cards (Kaadi Igbe-Ayo).

    The state has mandated residents to have the residency card before accessing any government facilities.

    The government, Governor Olusegun Mimiko and the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice were joined as defendants.

    The lawyer is urging the court to declare as unconstitutional the demand for residency card by the government from residents before having access to government utilities, infrastructures and amenities.

    The suit reads: “A declaration that the demand for residency card (Kadi Igbeayo) by the respondents from all residents before having access to government utilities, infrastructures and amenities to Wit: Primary schools, secondary schools, secondary schools, state polythenic, state Universities, hospitals and maternities is unconstitutional, null and void, crude, unprogressive and retrogressive and contrary to Section 18 (1) 42 (1) of the 1999 Constitution.

    “A perpetual injunction restraining the first and second respondents from demanding residency cards Igbeayo from residents before having access to public utilities and amenities and all category of hospitals maternities and schools.

    “That the introduction of this card met with sundry of criticism from all residents of the state as they viewed this oppressive retrogressive and crude.”

  • High Court grants policeman, three fishermen N4 million bail

    The Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday granted three fishermen and a police constable standing trial for the alleged kidnapping of nine police officers N1 million bail each.

    Justice Mohammed Yunusa ordered the accused to produce two sureties each in the like sum.

    One of the sureties must be a blood relation of the accused; the other must own property within the court’s jurisdiction.

    He adjourned the case till October 5.

    The accused – Godwin German, 36, Tamarami Tunwa, 23, Akowe Jacob, 41, and Mayibi Hazeez, 29 – are facing a 10-count charge bordering on conspiracy and kidnapping.

    The accused, who were first arraigned on September 8, pleaded not guilty.

    The Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Raymond Odion, told the court that the accused committed the offence on May 24, 2014, at Arepo, Ikorodu area of Lagos.

    Odion alleged that the accused kidnapped nine policemen and officers who were on duty.

    The kidnapped policemen, he said, were ASP Abdullahi Bature, Inspector Raymond Oriere, Inspector Usman Mohammed, Inspector Oguntimehin Kolawale and Inspector Tijani Jimoh, Corporal Elogbamen, Corporal Yakubu Alitu, Corporal Usman Abdulkareem and Corporal Dauda Mohammed.

    He said the offence contravened Section 2 (c) (ii) of the Terrorism prevention Act, 2011.

    Defence counsel, Mr. S. W. Baide urged the court to grant the accused bail on liberal terms.

    “The accused persons are responsible citizens that will not jump bail,’’ he said.

  • Court dissolves marriage over ‘sex starvation’

    Court dissolves marriage over ‘sex starvation’

    A Mapo Customary Court in Ibadan yesterday dissolved a four-year-old marriage between Tajudeen Olalekan and his wife, Modinat, over “sexual starvation”.

    The court’s President, Ademola Odunade, held that the bond of love between the couple was no longer traceable.

    “In the interest of peaceful coexistence, the husband and wife relationship between Olalekan and Modinat has ceased to be henceforth.

    “If any claim or complaint is to be made, there is ground for appeal,” he said.

    Olalekan, in his petition, told the court that his wife had over a period of time subjected him to sexual starvation.

    “Anytime I propose lovemaking to Modinat she shunned me as if I am not entitled to it.

    “All my effort at making her reason with me failed because her parents and relatives that I reported the incident to could not pacify her to change her attitude.

    “Despite my love for her, I am now heartbroken, frustrated and completely disillusioned.

    “Since I married her four years ago, she hasn’t conceived. Since we got married, I have always afforded her royal treatment by providing for all her needs.

    [ad id=”403656″]“In fact, I set up a business of N1.6 million for her,” Olalekan said.

    However, Modinat opposed Olalekan’s divorce petition, saying she was still in love with him.

    “I did all I could to conceive to the extent that I even underwent a surgery to correct the abnormality, but it was to no avail.

    “I was staying in Abidjan, where I was prosperous before I travelled down to Nigeria to marry him.

    “Before coming here, I had sent Olalekan several huge sums of money to build a house for me, but he somehow mismanaged the fund and did not build it to my taste.

    “That was the reason why I started starving him sexually ,” she said.

  • Court awards N5m damages against EFCC for abuse of power

    Court awards N5m damages against EFCC for abuse of power

    The Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday awarded N5million damages against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for sealing up two companies and freezing their bank accounts without a court order.

    The firms, Hair Prestige Manufacturing Nigeria Limited and Prestige Hair Fashion Nigeria Limited (trading under Rana Seasoning Ventures) as well as their director, Gnanhoue Nazaire and  Senou Modeste, a company worker, sought N180 million as damages for the violation of their rights.

    The applicants said EFCC sealed up the companies and froze their four bank accounts last December 23 after it received a petition that Nazaire was involved in an alleged fraud.

    Justice Mohammed Yunusa said EFCC acted without first obtaining a court order.

    According to him, there must be a valid warrant by a court before the commission could arrest anyone accused of an offence.

    [ad id=”403656″]“The first respondent (EFCC) acted rashly and without following due process,” the judge said.

    Besides, the judge added, there was no evidence that the commission obtained a warrant or conducted a preliminary investigation into the allegations before sealing up the companies and freezing their accounts.

    Justice Yunusa said the fact that the commission admitted that Nazaire and Modeste were “interrogated and released” from its custody implied that they were arrested.

    “The exercise of the powers of arrest must be done with restraint, which is the essence of a court order. The need to exercise restraint arises so as not to violate anyone’s rights,” the judge said.

    The judge, therefore, directed EFCC to unseal the companies and unfreeze the accounts, and release hard discs seized from the company, as well as Nazaire’s Prazo Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) and Toyota Matrix cars and phones taken away by the operatives.

     

     

     

     

     

  • Court dissolves marriage over ‘sex starvation’

    A Mapo Customary Court in Ibadan yesterday dissolved a four-year-old marriage between Tajudeen Olalekan and his wife, Modinat, over “sexual starvation”.

    The court’s President, Ademola Odunade, held that the bond of love between the couple was no longer traceable.

    “In the interest of peaceful coexistence, the husband and wife relationship between Olalekan and Modinat has ceased to be henceforth.

    “If any claim or complaint is to be made, there is ground for appeal,” he said.

    Olalekan, in his petition, told the court that his wife had over a period of time subjected him to sexual starvation.

    “Anytime I propose lovemaking to Modinat she shunned me as if I am not entitled to it.

    “All my effort at making her reason with me failed because her parents and relatives that I reported the incident to could not pacify her to change her attitude.

    “Despite my love for her, I am now heartbroken, frustrated and completely disillusioned.

    “Since I married her four years ago, she hasn’t conceived. Since we got married, I have always afforded her royal treatment by providing for all her needs.

    “In fact, I set up a business of N1.6 million for her,” Olalekan said.

    However, Modinat opposed Olalekan’s divorce petition, saying she was still in love with him.

    “I did all I could to conceive to the extent that I even underwent a surgery to correct the abnormality, but it was to no avail.

    “I was staying in Abidjan, where I was prosperous before I travelled down to Nigeria to marry him.

    “Before coming here, I had sent Olalekan several huge sums of money to build a house for me, but he somehow mismanaged the fund and did not build it to my taste.

    “That was the reason why I started starving him sexually ,” she said.

  • Lawyer backs special court for corruption

    Lawyer backs special court for corruption

    Lagos lawyer, Babatunde Fashanu (SAN),  has thrown his weight behind the move by the Federal Government to establish special courts in the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to try corruption cases.

    Reacting to the development, Fashanu told journalists last week in Lagos that the move was welcome, addingthat it would help President Muhammadu Buhari in his anti-corruption fight.

    He, however, advised that the government should select  judges who are fearless and well associated with the judicial system by virtue of long law practice, noting that the following criteria be added to the screening process if not already.

    He said: “It is heart-warming to learn that the anti corruption panel is planning with President Muhammadu Buhari  to set up special anti corruption courts throughout the Federation and are screening judges for the courts.

    “It is not surprising, however, to learn that many judges are failing the test. I humbly suggest as someone well associated with the judicial system by virtue of my long law practice that the following criteria be added to the screening process if not already:

    “Judge must not be living beyond his means which can easily be checked against his salaries and entitlements and lifelong earnings, legacies benefits and investments along with that of his immediate family; avoid lazy Judges who find it difficult to sit in court promptly and are late in delivering judgments and rulings; Judge must be bold and fearless in his conduct of cases and delivery of judgments no matter whose ox is gored, however, not one sided and overbearing having regard to protective provisions as to fair hearing for the accused in the Nigerian Constitution and that a Judge should have some experience of handling criminal cases either on the bench or as counsel (for prosecution or defence) to ensure that he doesn’t have to start learning the practical aspects of criminal law and procedures in the special court which will open him to bamboozling by well oiled SANs or smart defence counsel”, he stated.

    Fashanu also canvassed  extra security arrangements for judges who will sit over such corruption cases.

    “Having said that, extra arrangements should be made for the security of the judges and their families in terms of their safety and monetary convenience having regard to the potential danger and temptation they face trying very rich and powerful people.

    “Arrangements must also be made to ensure that they are thoroughly independent of the executive arm of government by including provisions as to their safety, emoluments and security of tenure in the law setting up the courts, to draw their funds directly from a consolidated source”, Fashanu said.

    He urged the anti-corruption committee to work on how to keep the judges in check without stepping on their space of independence adding: “it might be a tough one but I’m sure the committee is equal to the task having regard to its composition.”

     

  • Court orders varsity to stop work on N2.1b hostel

    Court orders varsity to stop work on N2.1b hostel

    A Delta State High Court, sitting in Otor-Udu, Udu Local Government Area, has ordered the Federal University of Petroleum Resources, Effurun (FUPRE), to refrain from stopping a construction firm, Shoreline Development International Limited, from proceeding with the construction of one of its hostels until the determination of a suit on the matter.

    Shoreline had sued FUPRE, asking the court to order the institution to stay away and allow it to fulfil a contractual agreement with it to build, operate and later transfer a 250-room hotel for the institution.

    Justice F. N. Azinge also ordered the company to serve the notice of the court order on FUPRE.

    Justice Azinge said: “Consequently, the orders I make are as follows: the parties are ordered to maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice. The claimant/applicant is ordered to put the defendants on notice by the service of the motion on notice on them before the return date.”

    Laywer to the applicant, Oghenejabor Ikimi, among other pleas, prayed the court to order FUPRE to refrain from stopping Shoreline from executing the contract and from withdrawing the 20 per cent counterpart funding it had paid, worth N416,234, 803.87, from the bank.

    Narrating details of the contract to our reporter, Acting Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Shoreline Development International Limited, Chief Kenneth Chukwuma, averred that the project got to the current state because of a N139,000,000 consultancy fee demand by the management of the institution.

    An affidavit sworn to by Chukwuma said: “The Claimant/applicant came under intense pressure from the management of the first defendant/respondent and its appointed consultant, Mr. Tonye Ojoko, to pay N139,675,308.75 upfront to the first defendant/respondent’s manager and administrator/consultant.”

    PUFRE’s spokesman Boniface Onyedi said the institution suspected “fraud” in the attitude of the contractors, adding that it lacked the capacity to deliver the job.

    He said the university’s management had sufficient documents to show that Shoreline had not been truthful about its claims.

    Our reporter was unable to get the university’s documents yesterday because of the absence of the senior officials keeping them.

     

  • Court to hear suit on Ikoyi properties Oct 6

    Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Lagos will on October 6, 2015 hear a preliminary objection filed by Onikoyi of Ikoyi/Moba land, Oba Patrick Ibikunle Fafunwa challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear a suit filed against him by members of the Onikoyi Descendants’Family.

    The Onikoyi Descendants’Family had in the suit No: FHC/L/CS/451/15 filed against the Federal Government and the monarch, asked the court for an order directing the government to include them in future transfer of land and meeting pertaining to the return of properties to the Onikoyi Royal Family.

    Joined as defendants alongside Oba Fafunwa are the Attorney-General of the Federation (second defendant), the Minister of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (third defendant), the Implementation Committee of the White Paper on the Commission of Enquiry into the Alienation of Federal Government Property (fourth defendant) and Unknown Persons (fifth defendant).

    The plaintiffs include Fatai Ogunlana Onikoyi Chief Muritala Adedoyin Elegushi, Alhaji Waliu Dimeji Sulaiman, Onikoyi Animashaun Abdulfatai Kolawole, Mufutau Adeshegun Onikoyi, Oyebode Shadeko, Halim Akinyemi Eshinlokun, Adja Ganiat Onikoyi Carew, Alhaja Taibat Jenmi-Owo and Idris Owoyele.

    Others are Alhaji Bilikis Bombata, Lookman Adeshina, Alhaji Tinko Aderemi, Ganiyu Onikoyi, Bolanle Doherty, Alhaja Suliat Shodiya and Fatai Onikoyi Shina for themselves and on behalf of Fafunwa, Ojubiari, Kunayije, Ilumo, Idewu, Kugbamola, Aluko Ajose, Dosumu, Ajiwe and Adelo branches of Onikoyi Royal Family.

    Specifically, the plaintiffs asked the court for an order of injunction restraining Oba Fafunwa from usurping the rights of the ten branches of the Onikoyi Family, including sale of land and usage as his personal property.

    In addition, the plaintiffs asked the court for an order partitioning the 4.324 hectares of land, the subject matter of suit No: LD/769/12 into ten portions for the ten branches that make up the Onikoyi Royal Family.

    The  plaintiffs, in their statement of claim averred that the Onikoyi Royal Family  in 1977 had an executive committee comprising of  the late Professor A. B. Fafunwa, Chief C. B. Onikoyi, Alhaji A.G Onikoyi, Alhaji A.F. Onikoyi, Alhaji L. Kehinde Onikoyi and Prince R. Olatunji Onikoyi who were to handle the income of the family but due to their failure, a suit was instituted against them in suit No: LD/697/97 on sharing formulae and judgment on the matter was delivered by Justice A. Adeniyi on September 25, 2001.

    The plaintiffs also averred that the family instituted another suit No: LD/1172/93 against the Attorney-General of the Federation, NITEL, NIJA ROSE Properties Development Company Limited, Executive Government of Lagos State and Attorney General of Lagos State over a 43.143 hectares of land, the judgment of which was delivered by Justice Adetula Alabi in 2003 in favour of the family.

    They alleged that despite that the judgement was in favour of the family, the land was sold by the executive committee in connivance with the Oba who was crowned in 2007.

    Furthermore, the plaintiffs claimed that in 2007, a 4.342 hectares of land covered by water was allocated to the family by the Lagos State Government but that it was seized by the Federal Government and later settled out of court in suit No: LD/769/12 between the Federal Government and the Oba alone.

    However, because the family representatives were not involved in the out-of-court settlement, the Federal Government refused to release the land to any single individual adding that this made the Oba to file a suit, No: LD/8690/14, against the Federal Government and which is pending at the Lagos High Court.

    They further averred that two high chiefs, on behalf of Onikoyi Chieftaincy Family, Chief Adedotun Adeseye and Chief Abayomi Fafunwa, equally dragged Oba Onikoyi before a Lagos High Court in suit No:LD/7438/14, asking the court to declare that with the death of Prof Babatunde Fafunwa and the removal of Otunba A.G. Onikoyi, as signatories and accredited representatives of the Onikoyi Chieftaincy Family, Oba Onikoyi cannot validly and competently act as a sole signatory to the account and other land transfer documentations of the Onikoyi Royal Family without the reconstitution of the executive committee of the family.

    However, Oba Onikoyi in his statement of defence denied the Plaintiffs statement of claim, emphasising that the present action as constituted is incompetent, vexatious, scandalous and totally bereft of any jurisdictional power and authority.

    The monarch contended that the plaintiffs in this action (FHC/L/CS/451/15) who are not parties to the case in suit No: LD/769/12 and who are not also parties to the terms of settlement entered in the said suit, cannot competently seek a declarative relief of the court to enforce the terms of the consent judgment entered into between known and identifiable parties.

    In their statement of defence,  both the Minister of Lands Housing and Urban Development and the Implementation Committee of the White Paper on the Commission of Enquiry into the Alienation of Federal Government Property in their statement of defense stated that the terms of settlement was filed and adopted by parties in the court in suit No: LD/769/12 on February 18, 2014 in which the court presided over by Justice Kazeem Alogba entered as the consent judgment because the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants did not accept the validity of the certificate of occupancy dated January 31, 2007 and registered as No 20 at page 20 in volume 2007B of the Register of Deeds, Lands Registry, Lagos issued by the Lagos State Government over Federal Government Land at Ikoyi.

    Both defendants alleged the Oba has deliberately refused to demarcate the 4.342 hectares which was the subject matter of the term of settlement in suit No: LD/769/12 as the Oba has trespassed on far more hectares than was covered by the term of settlement in suit No: LD/769/12.

    Furthermore, the duo stated that while Onikoyi Chieftaincy Family was represented by the Oba, the terms of settlement signed singly by him did not reflect the interest of the Onikoyi Chieftaincy Family as he has refused any other signatories on behalf of Onikoyi Chieftaincy Family, the term of settlement, neither has the Oba presented a juristic entity to whom title can be given.

    The third and fourth defendants said the Federal Government is willing and prepared to issue title and give possession to the Onikoyi Chieftaincy Family provided the Oba brings a legal entity or juristic person on which title will be vested.