The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court

  • Defendant locked up for lateness to court

    The defendant in a criminal trial at an Ikorodu magistrate’s court in Lagos, got a foretaste of prison when he was arrested and locked up for a few hours at the jail within the court’s premises for failing to arrive on time for his trial.

    Oladeji Adejare, a 35-year-old male residing in Ibadan, Oyo State, was absent when his case was announced by the court registrar on Friday morning, but his lawyer, Mrs. O. M. Folami informed the court that her client was on the way and had called to say he was almost at the court’s premises. She asked that the case be stepped down for a few minutes.

    The prosecution, Police Corporal Mary Ajiteru, however, disagreed and applied that a bench warrant be issued for the defendant.

    In her ruling, the magistrate, Hon. Mrs. A.B. Olagbegi-Adelabu, said her records showed that the accused had a habit of lateness to court and ordered that upon his arrival, he should be arrested and locked up for a few hours to teach him discipline. She declined the application for a bench warrant but admonished the defendant’s counsel on the need to advise her client to take legal proceedings seriously.

    On his arrival at a few minutes past noon, Adejare was promptly led to jail by bailiffs. He was not released until a few minutes before 4pm.

    Adejare was first arrested by the police last year for obtaining N1.65millon from one Kamoru Mustapha between April 22 and 24 2014, on the pretext that he would buy a Toyota Hiace bus for him but absconded with the money, an offence punishable under Section 312 of the Criminal Laws of Lagos State 2011. He was also charged with stealing in contravention of Section 285 of the same laws.

  • Their first day in court

    Their first day in court

    The court is open to all – judges, lawyers, litigants and spectators. While judges and lawyers know the rules of the game, the others are novices. ROBERT EGBE writes on some Nigerians’ experiences on their first day in a courtroom.

    I was afraid to cough – Samson Sadiq, Litigation Officer, Surulere, Lagos

    •Sadiq
    •Sadiq

    The first time Samson Sadiq set foot in a court of law, he knew he had to be very careful. He had convinced himself he could be made to pay a heavy price for any indiscretion before the judge. So cautious was he that he was even afraid to cough.

    He told The Nation: “I can’t remember the year I first entered a courtroom, but I remember it was at the Lagos High Court before the Hon Justice Muftau Olokoba. The judge handled the matter in a very nice and coded manner. He was very humble and had a transparent way of giving judgment. On this first day, I didn’t know the do’s and don’ts, so I had to conduct myself very well. I sat quietly in court, patiently watching. When I needed to cough, I had to go out because I was thinking if I coughed in court and the judge heard me, he would say something. I was terribly afraid, so I conducted myself in an orderly manner. That was my first experience in court.

    I heard that judges were very harsh – Ayobami Odole-Akinyemi, student at Bowen University

    Ayobami Odole-Akinyemi could not have imagined the events that played out during her first day at an Ikorodu, Lagos, magistrate’s court. She came prepared to find a stern-looking magistrate, but was pleasantly surprised by the jovial atmosphere.

    “The first time I entered a courtroom was on July 2, 2015. It was a magistrate’s court at Ikorodu (Lagos), and it was actually very interesting because I had always thought – according to what I had heard in school – that judges were very harsh, and (for) any little thing they could just throw you out of the courtroom. But for this one I found the magistrate to be very relaxed, because he was very funny; he was even cracking jokes. Everything was not too serious, and those who wanted to go out were allowed to, and stuffs like that. He wasn’t harsh at all, and the lawyers were okay too. “I didn’t fall victim of the magistrate’s anger,” she told The Nation, “but another day I was in court when someone’s phone rang and it was taken from him. By then I had already known that when you are in court, you have to put off your phone, so, I was prepared.”

  • Court to hear APC candidates’ appeal today

    Court to hear APC candidates’ appeal today

    THE Court of Appeal sitting in Akure, the Ondo State capital, will today hear an appeal brought by the All Progressives Congress (APC) and two of its candidate, Festus Aregbesola and Gbenga Edema, on the dismissal of their petitions by the state House of Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal.

    The two different appeals filed by APC’s counsel Charles Titiloye and its candidates challenged the dismissal of the two petitions for Akure South Constituency I and Ilaje Constituency II.

    The judges, led by Justice Anthony Ogar, on July 8, dismissed the petitions during the pre-hearing session.

    The tribunal raised technical points of law of non-compliance with Electoral Act and ruled that the petitioners must file application for pre-hearing session for each and every respondent’s reply before the tribunal.

    It said failure to do so amount to the abandonment of the petition with consequence of dismissal.

    In the two appellants’ briefs, Titiloye argued that the tribunal erred in law to have refused to apply the doctrine of waiver contained in paragraph 53(2) of the first Schedule to Electoral Act 2010 as amended.

    He argued that a party, who has taken fresh step in the election petition after awareness of a non-compliance with the rules, is deemed to have waived the said non-compliance with the rules of the tribunal.

    Titiloye, on behalf of the appellants, prayed the appellate court to allow the appeal and revert the petition back to the tribunal for trial on its merit.

  • Court dismisses case against Ayade, as IPAC sues for peace

    Court dismisses case against Ayade, as IPAC sues for peace

    Following the dismissal of the case instituted against Cross River State Governor, Prof Ben Ayade, in the Abuja Federal High Court, the chairman of the Inter Party Advisory Council in the state, Mr Godwin Akpama, has called on all parties to work with the governor for development of the state.

    Mr Joe Agi (SAN), who contested the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) primaries against Ayade last year, had dragged the latter to court for perjury and non-payment of party dues.

    According to Agi, Ayade filled different dates of births in different forms submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which according to him, amounts to lying on oath.

    Akpama, who lauded the decision of the court, said “Ayade can now concentrate on the business of developing the state without distraction.

    “We believe in the capacity of the governor to deliver. Anyone with ideas should work with government for the benefit of Cross Riverians. I urged Agi to sheath his sword and bring his wealth of experience and ideas to work with the present administration to make it better.

    “The governor has started on the right and it needs to be sustained to bring the dividends of democracy to the people.”

  • Court refuses to stop constitution of Senate committees

    Court refuses to stop constitution of Senate committees

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja has declined a request by five senators to restrain the Senate from constituting its standing and adhoc committees.

    The judge, in a ruling yesterday, refused an ex-parte motion filed by the senators – Abu Ibrahim, Kabir Marafa, Ajayi Boroffice, Olugbenga Ashafa and Suleiman Hunkuni –  on the ground that it was without merit, because there was no urgency in the issue raised by the plaintiffs.

    The five senators, who had filed a substantive suit, brought the ex-parte motion, containing the prayer, and which their lawyer Mamman Osuman (SAN) argued yesterday.

    They said their prayer, which is to stop the constitution of the Senate committees pending the determination of their application for interlocutory injunction, was informed by the fact that the Senate was operating with an illegitimate and unconstitutional Senate Standing Orders 2015, including using it to conduct the election of June 9, which produced its leadership.

    The plaintiffs alleged that the Senate Standing Orders 2015 was “contrived” from the amendment of the 2011 version of the Orders without following its relevant provisions and those of the constitution.

    They argued that the said amendment was in breach of the “prescriptive procedures” stipulated by the extant provisions of Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution  (as amended) and Rule 110 (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Senate Standing Orders 2011 (as amended).

    The plaintiffs are of the view that the election of the leadership of the Senate and other proceedings based on the “unconstitutional Orders” were null and void.

    In his  ruling, Justice Kolawole held that there was no urgency in the case because the plaintiffs had known about the purported illegal Standing Orders since June  9, 2015, when it was allegedly used for the election, but  chose to file the ex parte motion barely 24 hours to resumption of the Senate from its about one month recess.

    He further held that the court would hardly intervene in a matter relating to the application or misapplication of the internal rules of the Senate or the legislature when such action did not amount to “substantial infraction” of the provisions of the Constitution.

    Justice Kolawole was of the view that, in matters relating to disputes over the “the decision reached by a majority of the members of the Senate”, aggrieved members of the arm of government could only seek a redress by mobilising their colleagues to reverse such decision.

    He held that in various appellate courts’ decisions, courts had been warned “to be wary” in intervening in such internal legislative activities, let alone granting an order to restrain the activities of that arm of government at the stage of an ex parte hearing.

     

     

     

  • Court rules today on suit against Dogara

    A Federal High Court in Abuja will, today, rule on whether or not to restrain the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara, and three others from appointing members as principal officers other than those suggested by the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    Yesterday, Justice Gabriel Kolawole,  after listening to applicants’ lawyer Seni Adio moved his client’s motion ex-parte for interim injunctions, fixed ruling for today.

    The applicants, who are members of the House – Abubakar Lado Abdullahi and Olajide Abdul Jimoh – are plaintiffs in a substantive suit  marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/625/2015.

    Listed as defendants are the Speaker, his deputy, the Clerk of the National Assembly and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

    The applicants, by their motion ex-parte, sought an order of interim injunction restraining the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and Clerk of the National Assembly (listed as 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents) and their agents “from presenting and or announcing” other members of the House for the positions of Majority Leader, Deputy Majority Leader, Majority Chief Whip and Majority Deputy Chief Whip except those nominated by the APC in its chairman’s letter of June 23, 2015.

    The applicants also sought a similar order restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd respondents and their agents from preventing the announcement of the members of the House named in the letter by the party’s Chairman, John Odigie-Oyegun, for the five listed principal offices.

    The party, in the June 23 letter, entitled: “Party position on principal officers,” sent to Dogara, listed Femi Gbajabiamila for the Office of Majority Leader, Alhassan Ado Doguwa (Deputy Majority Leader); M.T. Monguno (Chief Whip) and Pally Iriase (Deputy Chief Whip).

    Adio told the court that the essence of the reliefs in the ex-parte motion, which he prayed the court to grant, was to preserve the res (subject of dispute) and prevent the respondents from foisting a fait accompli on the court.

    He added that it was equally important that the court grants the applicants’ prayers to prevent the defendants from foisting a state of helplessness on the plaintiffs and others interested in the suit.

    The applicants, in a supporting affidavit deposed to by Sope Omisore, stated that the Speaker openly declared his refusal to implement the APC’s directive on the appointment of principal officers as contained in the June 23 letter.

    They added that, as against the Speaker’s claim, the names sent to him by the party showed that the federal character principle was considered, with Gbajabiamila (from Southwest), Doguwa (Northwest), Monfuno (Northeast) and Iriase (Southsouth).

    The applicants stated that their resort to court was informed by the disagreement between them and the Speaker and his deputy on “whether federal character is required by law to be considered with respect to the appointment of principal officers of the APC, who are to occupy the position of principal officers in the House of Representatives’’.

    Abdullahi and Jimoh are, in the substantive suit, contesting, among others, the legitimacy of the defendants to ignore the party in the appointment of the principal officers.

  • Forgery: Court refuses to stop probe of Ekweremadu, others

    Forgery: Court refuses to stop probe of Ekweremadu, others

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has declined to stop the police from its investigation of the Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu, and others for the alleged forgery of the 2015 Senate Standing Rules.

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole, in a ruling yesterday, refused an ex-parte application filed by Senator Gilbert Emeka Nnaji, with which he sought to, among others, restrain the police from proceeding with the investigation and making public the report of the inquiry.

    Nnaji had sought interim orders to restrain the defendants in the case – the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) – pending the determination of his substantive suit.

    The plaintiff is challenging the constitutionality of the investigation within the context of the doctrine of separation of power.

    Justice Kolawole said he could not grant the prayer sought by the plaintiff at ex-parte stage when his court possesses the power to conduct a judicial review of the action complained about in the substantive suit.

    He also refused the plaintiff’s request to abridge the time within which the defendants could respond.

    The judge held that while the court’s rules allow defendants 30 days within which to respond, a reduction in the period must be with the consent of parties in the suit.

    He ordered the defendants to appear on the next day and show cause why he should not grant the prayers sought by the plaintiff in his ex-parte application.

    Justice Kolawole adjourned to August 4 for the defendants to show cause.

  • Court refuses church’s bid to nullify order

    An Ogun State High Court sitting in Sagamu has dismissed an application by  the Registered Trustees of the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) seeking to set aside an order restraining it from building on a piece of land in Odofin Village,  Shimawa Road, Sagamu Local Government Area.

    The trustees sought an order setting aside an interlocutory injunction made against it in April. They also asked for an order setting aside the service effected on it for not  complying with Section 97, 98 and 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act, LFN, 2004.

    UBA Co-Operative  and Multipurpose Society had approached the court seeking for declarative reliefs and possession of the land in dispute against the defendant in the suit  N0. HCS / 01 / 2015.

    The Cooperative society had alleged that the defendant illegally invaded and demolished its property acquired from Olowoto-olisa Chieftaincy Family years ago.

    It claimed that the demolition was done on the  November 28, 2014 with the assistance of one Alhaji Taoreed Farounbi (aka Alado) and  some hoodlums who invaded the land and carried out the act.

    The claimant also stated that Baale of Mowe and Baale of Imedu nla were also among those who invaded its property.

    On April 1, 2015, Justice Oshinuga had granted order of interlocutory injunction against the defendants in the suit.

    However, on April 7, 2015 the defendants had approached the court vide a motion on notice seeking to set aside the orders and to also set aside the service effected on the defendant.

    Counsel to the  claimants,  Omodele also filed its counter affidavit with a written address opposing the defendant’s motion on notice.

    The defendant did not file a reply affidavit or reply on point of law to the claimants opposition.

    The trial judge heard the defendant’s application and after taking  arguments from both parties and adjourned for ruling. Delivering  his  ruling at the resumed hearing of the matter last week, the trial judge, Justice Oshinuga,  dismissed the application for lack of  merit. The court  awarded N10,000.00 cost against RCCG for wasting the time of the court and ordered it to file memorandum of appearance and its statement of defence in the suit brought against it by the UBA Co-Operative  and Multipurpose Society.

    The court held that substantial justice would not be done on the matter if it relied only technicalities. The court stated that the purpose of service is to get the defendant informed of the case in court. Justice Oshinuga therefore held that  the service of the originating court process on the General Overseer of RCCG, who is a principal officer of the church, was proper and that  it substantially complied  with Order 9 Rule 3 of the Rules of the court and that the fact that the claimant failed to obtain  the leave of the court to serve outside the jurisdiction does not vitiate the suit.                                                             The court noted that the defendants had up to seven days under the rules of the court to react to  motion for interlocutory injunction after service but chose not to come before the court until the order was made.

    The trial judge noted that  RCCG hid under the 30 days rules but only filed a motion on notice to set aside the orders of the court and the service of the originating processes.

    The court held that the service made by the claimants is a proper service and that  under Section 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act, it is the duty of the court registry to endorse writ of summons and not that of the litigants or their counsel and not doing so cannot be visited on the litigants.

    “The defendant cannot enjoy the favour of this court”,  the court held adding, “It is not the law that the defendant should not enter appearance either conditionally or unconditional which it failed to do. The defendant did not come properly before the court and the motion on notice dated April 7, 2015 is not proper. The application is accordingly dismissed”.

    Justice Oshinuga also adjourned till September 10, 2015 for hearing of the contempt proceedings filed by the claimants through their counsel, Yemi Omodele against the church.

    Omodele had prayed the court for the  contempt proceedings to be heard during long vacation of high court judges.

    However counsel to the defendants, Olumuyiwa Obanewa, opposed the request  and urged the court for an adjournment to enable them file necessary papers for the contempt proceedings against their clients. The court granted his prayer and adjourned the matter accordingly.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Court jails fake lab scientist six months

    AN Agbor magistrate court in Delta State has sentenced Peter Chukwuemeka Okafor to six months imprisonment for impersonating a medical laboratory scientist, Koru Kere Cletus.

    Registrar Prof Anthony Emeribe, described the verdict as a victory for Nigerians who had been clamouring for sanity in the medical laboratory services sector.

    “Regrettably, these mindless quacks have been using unsuspecting patients as guinea pigs,” he said, adding that: “it is another milestone in the council’s quest to eradicate quackery in the profession.”

    Emeribe noted that with the victory, nefarious elements in the sector must be aware that it is no longer business as usual, and that they’ve no hiding place. He reassured that the council would not relent in its efforts to ensure that patients received only accurate and reliable test results when they submit themselves to laboratory investigations.

    “Only well-trained personnel, recognised by the council, are authorised to practise as medical lab scientists in the country. Those who attempt to do so without council’s approval are making a mockery of the law and endangering the lives of the citizens; and we won’t tolerate that,” he said, promising that the council would continue to work towards the actualisation of its mandate as enunciated in Act 11, 2003.

    Narrating the journey to Okafor’s conviction, Emeribe said it was during one of  the periodic inspection and monitoring by the council’s Southsouth Zonal Office Benin, in conjunction with Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria (AMLSN) Delta State Branch, that it’s team approached one Mrs Patience Uti for verification of her documents only to discover that the 2012 practising licence presented by the addressee bearing the name Koru Kere Cletus was not the same as Peter Okafor that owns the laboratory under inspection.

    Besides the difference of names on the licence, it was also discovered that it was signed by Mrs E. U Okonkwo who retired in 2010 making the authenticity questionable.

    According to Emeribe, the culprit was apprehended following a written complaint forwarded by the council to the Commissioner of Police, Delta State, on the matter. Okafor was subsequently charged to court for forgery and impersonation.

    While the accused was discharged and acquitted for lack of evidence on the first count charge, he was found culpable on the secund count charge of impersonating a Medical Laboratory Scientist, Mr Koru Kere Cletus.

    One of the Prosecution witnesses, Mrs Patience Uti, had earlier told the court that she had known the accused as Mr Koru Kere Cletus for the past three years, not knowing that his name is Mr Peter Okafor.

    The accused has a Higher National Diploma (HND) qualification in Business Administration, a course that has no relationship with Medical Laboratory Science. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment without an option of fine, to serve as a deterrent to others who think they can just wake up one day and start collecting specimen from innocent citizens while pretending to be Medical Lab Scientists.

    It will be recalled that the council set up a national taskforce on inspection in 2014 which closed 15 laboratories on its first assignment in FCT.

  • Minority Leader: Court refuses to restrain Saraki, others

    Minority Leader: Court refuses to restrain Saraki, others

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja, yesterday refused to restrain the Senate President Bukola Saraki and 17 others from bypassing the Senate’s standing rules in the appointment of the Minority Leader for the Eighth National Assembly.

    Two members of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) – Alaye Don Pedro (Ward 8 Akuku-Toru Local Government Area, Rivers State) and Okechukwu Ibeh of Umukegwu/Umuopia in Ide Ato Local Government Area, Imo State – had, in an ex-parte motion sought to restrain Saraki and 17 members of the PDP Southsouth Senate Caucus from choosing the Minority Leader outside the provision of Order 3(2) of the Senate Standing Order 2015 (as amended).

    The plaintiffs contended that the alleged plot by some individuals to make former Akwa Ibom State Governor Godwill Akpabio (a first term Senator) the Senate’s Minority Leader, was in violation of Order 3(2) of the Senate Standing Order 2015 (as amended).

    Named with Saraki as respondents are Akpabio, Nelson Effiong, Bassey Albert, Emmanuel Paulker, Ogola Foster, Ben Murray Bruce, John Owan Enoh, Gershom Bassey, Rose Oko, James Manager, Peter Nwaoboshi, Ighoyota Amori, Clifford Ordia, Matthew Urhoghide, George Thomson Sekibo, Olaka Nwogu and Osinachukwu Ideozu.

    Ruling yesterday, Justice Kolawole refused the plaintiffs’ prayer for “an order restraining the second to 18 respondents from selecting or appointing the Minority Leader by a procedure in breach of Order 3(2) of the Senate Standing Order 2015 (as amended) pending the determination of the substantive suit.”

    The judge also refused their request for an “order prohibiting the first respondent from accepting, recognising, announcing or giving effect to the appointment of a Minority Leader of the Senate, whose appointment is in breach of Order 3(2) of the Senate Standing Orders 2015 (as amended) pending the determination of the substantive suit.”

    Justice Kolawole, who noted that the plaintiffs were neither members of the Senate nor contestants for the position of Minority Leader, said he could not grant their prayers because they failed to establish the interest they sought to protect.

    He said being members of the PDP from Imo and Rivers states was not sufficient to warrant granting their prayers.

    The judge declined the plaintiffs’ request for the abridgement of time within which the respondents could file their responses to the substantive suit. He also declined to grant accelerated hearing of the main suit.

    Justice Kolawole, however, granted the plaintiffs’ prayer for substituted service of court documents (processes) in relation to the suit through substituted means by media publication. He directed that the processes be published with an enrolled copy of his orders.

    He adjourned to October 5 for mention, but said the case file would be returned to the court’s Chief Judge for reassignment when the court resumes from vacation.