The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court

  • Court remands man for ‘murder’

    An Ebute Meta Chief Magistrate’s Court in Lagos yesterday ordered Rotimi Abolarin to be remanded in Ikoyi Prisons for alleged murder. He was accused of killing an unidentified person.

    Chief Magistrate Olatunbosun Abolarinwa ordered that Abolarin be kept in Ikoyi Prisons for 30 days, pending the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

    The court declined to take the plea of the accused because it lacks jurisdiction to try the case.

    Abolarinwa adjourned the case to June 18.

    Earlier, prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Etim Nkankuk told the court that Abolarin committed the offence with others at large.

    He said the accused committed the offence on January 23 at the Nigeria Railway Corporation Line, opposite Mainland Hotel, Oyingbo in Ebute Meta, Lagos.

    The prosecutor said the death of the yet-to-be-identified person was caused by blows to a delicate part of his body by the accused and his fellow conspirators.

    He said as at the time of the arraignment of the accused, the deceased’s identity was yet to be ascertained.

    “The murder suspect had allegedly killed another person by beating him to death,’’ he said.

     

  • Firm asks court to set aside judgment on property

    Firm asks court to set aside judgment on property

    A Lagos based company, Johnson Products Nigeria Limited, has filed an application before a  Lagos High Court, sitting in Ikeja, to set aside the execution of a judgmnent which granted possession of a property located at Plot B, Ikosi Road, Oregun Industrial Estate, Ikeja to Jagal Nigeria Limited.

    In a Motion on Notice supported with an affidavit of urgency before Justice Olabisi Ogungbesan, the firm is praying the court to restore the status quo ante pending the hearing and determination of a pending application before the Court of  Appeal.

    Joined as second defendant in the suit was, Chief Samuel Agboola Akintan, who was said to have earlier leased the property to Wire Manufacturing (Nigeria) Limited for 20 years, having had a Deed of Conveyance dated 1971.

    Justice Ayotunde Phillips, (now a retired Chief Judge of Lagos State), had on July 11, 2008 delivered a judgment in suit no. ID/1466/98 in which judgment was given in favour of  Jagal Nigeria Limited concerning the Oregun Industrial Estate property.

    Jagal Nigeria Limited and Johnson Products claimed to have executed a Memorandum of Agreement on April 17, 1980, under which Jagal was said to have assigned its ‘unexpired interest in the said property to Johnson Products for a consideration of N1, 340, 000: 00 (One Million, Three Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira).

    However, Jagal claimed at the lower court that the Memorandum of Agreement entered into with Johnson Products in 1980 was ‘inchoate and transferred no interest in the property’ to Johnson Products; that the N1, 340, 000:00 paid by the Johnson Products to Jagal was in consideration of the sublease of 1982; and that Johnson Products holds the property only as tenant/sub-leasee and not as an assignee.

    It was this premise that Jagal claimed at the lower court.

    However, while Jagal claimed that its relationship with Johnson Products was that of a landlord and tenant, Johnson Products claimed that the relationship was that of an assignee and assignor.

    But Johnson Products averred at the lower court that the Memorandum of Agreement executed by the two parties on  April 17, 1980 “effectively transferred Jagal’s interest in the property” to it upon the payment of N1, 340, 000: 00; that Jagal issued a receipt No. 1351 dated 2 June 1982, which ‘clearly stated that the payment is for the assignment of the property in question.

    Johnson Products further averred that Jagal acknowledged its ownership of the property in a letter addressed to Ault and Wilborg (Nig) Limited.

    Delivering judgment on the matter at the lower court, Justice Ayotunde  Philips (as then was) of the Lagos High Court, held the claims of Jagal as the court affirmed that the Memorandum of Agreement ‘transferred no interest in the property to Johnson Products.’

    Not satisfied with the decision of the court, Johnson Products Limited, appealed against the judgment on  July 16, 2008 and claimed to have filed its Brief of Argument as at  December 8, 2010.

    The matter assumed a new dimension on December 8, 2010 when the matter slated for hearing  by the appellate court, was struck out for lack of legal  representation for the appellant, Johnson Products.

    Consequent upon the new development,  and alleged ‘misrepresentation’ of its position to the Court of Appeal, Johnson Products Limited  applied for a relisting of the suit at the Court of Appeal.

    However, while waiting for the relisting to be done,  Jagal Nigeria Limited,  obtained a Writ of Possession of the Lagos High Court, Ikeja to effect the 2008 judgment of Justice Philips against the first defendant (Johnson Products).

    In a letter to the Administrative Judge of Lagos State, dated May 4, 2015, counsel to Johnson Products, Dr. Wale Olawoyin (SAN)  claimed that Jagal’s action was “contrary to trite principle of law’, urging the court to set aside the claimant’s (Jagal Nigeria Limited)  execution order and further execution of the judgment.

    ”The staff of the first defendant (Johnson Products) no longer have any office space to work from and are now constrained to operate from the personal office of its Chairman in GRA, Ikeja.

    “We have now filed a Motion on Notice together with an Affidavit of Urgency to set aside the claimant’s execution and further execution of the judgment and restore the status quo ante pending the hearing and determination of the pending application before the Court of Appeal,” the letter read in part.

    At the fresh sitting on the new application last Friday, Justice Ogungbesan urged all parties in the suit, including an inter-pleader, Olayiwola Dada, to file their responses to Jagal’s application and other applications already filed before the court.

    Dada, who joined in the fresh suit, told the court through his counsel, Emmanuel Ogbitisen that although the previous judgment of the court did not affect him, but he urged the court for an order to “allow us to maintain the machines and have access to them so as to service them”.

    Counsel to the claimant (Jagal), Qudus Mumuneey, however, opposed any order of the court until he replied to all applications before the court. Mumuneey averred that as far as his client is concerned, “the case is technically dead”. He further told the court of his client’s intention to move a preliminary objection on the jurisdiction of court to hear the fresh application.

    But counsel to Johnson Products, represented by J.O. Omisade, his client was misrepresented before the Court of Appeal that his client ‘had not been diligent in prosecuting the appeal by its failure to file its Brief of Argument.

    “However, as shown in our Motion before the court and contrary to the misrepresentation of the claimant to the Court of Appeal, the 1st defendant (Appellant) had filed and served its Brief of Argument since 8 December 2010,” he said.

    Justice Ogungbesan has, however, adjourned the matter till tomorrow to address all the applications by the parties.

    Johnson Products Limited, in its brief of argument  before the Court of Appeal listed four main issues for determination in line with its ground of appeal and the facts and circumstance of the case.

    It asked the court to determine “whether the trial judge was right in holding that the Memorandum of Agreement dated April 17, 1980 and admitted as exhibit 8, has not conveyed any interest recognisable in law to the appellant; whether the learned judge was right in holding that the appellant”s  payment to the first respondent was not payment under exhibit P8 when the payment receipt, exhibit D2, clearly states that the payment was for the assignment of the first respondent’s unexpired residue”.

    The company also asked the court to determine “whether the appellant failed to prove its allegation of fraud against the first respondent at the lower court considering that the whole evidence adduced by the appellant in proof of the fraud was wrongly rejected by the trial judge” and “whether from the totality of evidence presented before the lower court, the trial judge was right in holding that the relationship between the first respondent and the appellant was landlord and tenant’s and not that of assignor and assignee.

    On the first issue, the appellant, citing authorities to support its argument, submitted that on the basis of exhibit P8, obtained valid and subsisting equitable interest in the subject matter of the appeal and urged the court to so hold.

    It further submitted that the payment of N1,340,000 by the appellant to the first respondent evidenced in Exhibit D2 was validly made and stands as the consideration under exhibit P8.

    It argued that the trial judge was wrong in holding that the first respondent is entitled to possession of the res, arrears of rent and mesne of profit and urged the court to so hold.

    The appellant urged the court to sustain its appeal and reverse the judgment of the lower court on the ground that the memorandum of agreement conveyed equitable interest in the property, subject matter of the appeal, to the appellant contrary to the decision of the trial judge; that the sum of N1.340,000 paid to the first respondent and acknowledged by the first respondent, is a valid payment under exhibit P8 and was never converted to any other purpose.

    It further submitted that the evidence adduced by the appellant in proof of its allegation of fraud was improperly evaluated by the trial judge and that occasioned miscarriage of justice and emphasised that by the totality of evidence adduced before the trial judge, the relationship between the first respondent and the appellant is that  of assignor and assignee.

     

     

  • Six jailed over unlawful assembly

    A Kado Grade 1 Area Court, Abuja, on Monday sentenced six men to two months imprisonment each, for causing public nuisance and unlawful assembly.

    The convicts – Umar Rabiu, Hassan Sani, Madaha Sagiru, Sani Nura, Hayatu Abdullahi and Musbau Yusufu, had pleaded guilty to the charges, the News Agency of Nigeria reports.

    The judge, Alhaji Abubakar Sadiq, said the sentence would serve as deterrent to other would be offenders.

    He, however, gave the convicts an option of N3, 000 fine each.

    The prosecutor, Cpl. Simon Emmanuel, had told the court that the Life Camp Police patrol team arrested the convicts on April 20 in an uncompleted building,

    He said upon interrogation, they  failed to offer satisfactory explanation about their assemblage.

    Emmanuel said the offences contravened Sections 198 and 102 of the Penal Code.

  • Ayangburen stool: Court to rule on May 22

    Ayangburen stool: Court to rule on May 22

    Justice Akintunde Savage of a Lagos High Court sitting in Ikorodu will on May 22, 2015 rule application seeking to nullify the selection of Odofin of Ikorodu, Chief Kabiru Shotobi as the new Ayangburen by the king makers.

    Justice Savage, at the end of a five-hour sitting, announced the date for the ruling last week after hearing the arguments and submissions of counsels to the various parties in the suit.

    The applicants, Mathew Adetayo Shodipo, Omobo Sokelu, Shakiru Shodipo, Nurudeen Fakomaya and Albert Aina had filed a suit, IKD/454GCM/2014 (for themselves and on behalf of the Lambo branch of the Lasunwon ruling house of Ikorodu) and through an originating summon challenged the nomination of Shotobi by the kingmakers as the oba-elect of the ancient town.

    Joined as  respondents in the suit are Ezekiel Shodipo, Tajudeen Odofin (for themselves and on behalf of the Adegorushen branch of the Lasunwon ruling house the Odofin of Ikorodu, Chief Kabiru Shotobi; the Olisa and regent of Ikorodu, Chief Zacheus Oludele Odusoga; Solomade of Ikorodu, Chief Afolabi Adekayaoja; Apena of Ikorodu, Chief Karimu Ore and Oponuwa of Ikorodu, Chief Jacob Kolawole Adaraloye (for themselves and on behalf of the kingmakers.

    Others are Ikorodu Local Government; Ikorodu division of council of Obas and Chiefs; Secretary, Ikorodu Chieftaincy Committee, Ikorodu Local government: Lagos State Ministry of Chieftaincy Affairs and Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Lagos State.

    At the resumed sitting of the court last week, counsel to the applicants John Osighala told the trial judge, that  filed several affidavits, counter affidavits and further affidavits in response to various papers filed  by other counsels in the matter.

    Osighala said they were seeking powers of the court to determine six issues raised in their originating summon dated December 29, 2014, which was supported by a 22 point affidavit,  and to which was attached three exhibits marked  A, B, and C.

    He said the court has judicial and inherent powers under section 6(6) of the 1999 constitution to determine the questions raised.

    He said if the six questions were answered in the affirmative, then  the court should grant them the five reliefs sought which he said  were hinged on the affirmation of the six issues raised before the court.    Osighala said “it is unarguable that exhibit A, which is the consent judgement delivered by Justice Habeeb Habiru (now a Justice of the Court of Appeal) in suit, is an enrolled order of the court, It is clear and unambiguous.”

    He submitted that the court should look at  Exhibit A and other judgement of a Lagos High Court and Court of Appeal marked exhibit 10 and 11 in other papers filed before the court, in reaching decision on the proceedings in the court adding, “the court should give them holistic and natural effect”.

    He explained that the “effect” in Exhibit A was that parties in that suit are the same in the on-going suit before he court and that they include privies, agents and ancestors in title.

    The lawyer posited that it was also not in dispute that the respondents did not appeal against the decisions in the consent judgement marked exhibit A and therefore “it is binding on all parties” adding that parties in the suit have been caught by the doctrines of “estoppel”.

    “In the circumstance and in line with the principle and doctrine of reciprocity, we urge your lordship to answer the questions in affirmative and grant the reliefs sought”, he stated. Osighala noted that the counsels to the respondents, in order not to be caught by the doctrines of estoppels, raised several issues in their counter affidavits to the originating summon and that he dealt with all of them.

    He pointed out that one cardinal issues raised in all the counter affidavits was the difference between an obaship and a chieftaincy title and that he responded to the issue in three-fold.

    He argued that exhibit A which is the consent judgement simply said “the next available chieftaincy” adding that all other legal arguments being raised by counsels to the various respondents on the difference between “obaship and chieftaincy” was an attempt to re-write the consent judgement in suit number IKD/57/2007 stressing, “exhibit A is clear and unambiguous and it stated “the next available chieftaincy title to the family”.

    He said there are only three titles available to the Lasunwon Ruling House of Ikorodu and listed them to include Ayangburen of Ikorodu, Odofin of Ikorodu and Otunba of Ikorodu.

    He said the third respondent, Chief Kabiru Shotobi, having ascended the position of Odofin of Ikorodu upon the consent judgement, and that upon the demise of  Ayangburen on August 22, 2014, it then means that the next available title to the family  is Ayangburen of Ikorodu.     Osighala posited that it was wrong for the other counsels to now want to re-write the history of the family by exempting the title of Ayangburen from the titles available to the family. “The consent judgement listed the three titles available to the family. So the next available is the Ayangburen of Ikorodu.”

    Referring to a 1958 Declaration filed by the counsel to the 11th and 12th respondents, S.A. Quadri, he argued that Section 4(2) under Chieftaincy Law, in spite of amendments, was still very applicable to the matter in court saying that the Customary Law regulates selection of Ayangburen and that the sub-heading sees the Ayangburen as a Chieftaincy.

    He also referred to a Supreme Court of Nigeria judgement in  Arowolo versus Akapo case which  was cited in all written addresses to counter affidavits before the court as encapsulating obaship as  chief  in generic word.

    He submitted “paragraph 4.03 of the written address submitted that the word “Obaship” is generic and so held by the Supreme Court that in  Arowolo versus Akapo suit. So arguments canvassed that there is a difference between obaship and chieftaincy is not valid”.

    Citing Onogbe(JSC) to buttress his argument, he said, “It follows therefore that before a person is selected for the position of oba, he must first be presented by the ruling house” adding that  all arguments being canvassed by the respondents, particularly second respondent, clearly showed that they are caught by the principle of estoppel  for now”. He stressed that if the defendants had anything, they would have appealed against the 2007 judgement of the court and urge the court to answer his client’s prayers in affirmative and grant the reliefs sought.

    Counsel to the  first and third respondents, Gbenga Hassan, opposed the application saying that the applicants were merely seeking to interprete the 2007 judgement of the court to suit them.  He formulated his arguments on three main issues and submitted that the court lack the power to interprete the judgement.                                                                                                                     Hassan argued that the claims of the applicants are incompetent having failed to exhaust all remedies before coming to court, explaining that there are mediatory procedures they should have followed which cannot be waived. He said since they have failed to explore the mediatory role, the court should dismiss their application.

    On the second issue, he argued that exhibit A clearly showed that it was chieftaincy title that was conceded and not obaship position.                                                                                               Relying on arguments canvassed in his counter affidavit, he said it was clear that the next available chieftaincy title was Otunba of Ikorodu and not oba of Ikorodu. He submitted that the grand norm regulating chieftaincy titles in the state now is the Obas and Chieftaincy Laws of Lagos State and that section 2 of the law defines chieftaincy titles as relating to the immediate community and obaship to paramount ruler of a native community recognized by the government.                                                                                                                         “For the applicants to say that chieftaincy and obaship are same is misconceived. I therefore urged the court to discountenance it”, he said citing  the decided case of Rabiu versus Kano State government to buttress his arguments that obaship and chieftaincy titles are not the same.

    He posited that the first and third respondents are clearly not in breach of the consent judgement tagged exhibit A and that “applicants are too ambitious to misconstrue the purport of the consent judgement” and  urged the court to hold that they were not in breach of exhibit A.

    He argued that the reliefs sought from court by the applicants are baseless and unfounded in law and intended to mislead the court.

    On the third issue, Hassan submitted that the applicants are estopelled having waived their rights during the selection process.

    According to him, “by the action of the applicants to jointly participated  in the selection process, they have waived their right as they did not complain at selection stage”.                  He said exhibit C, which is the minutes of the family meeting, showed that the applicants participated in the selection process and did not object to the process emphasizing , “they cannot approbate and reprobate now having not objected to the process”.

    He further submitted that exhibit A is a contractual agreement between the parties and urged the court to hold that they can no longer complain at this stage of the process and that the court should dismiss the application.

    At this stage, Hassan informed and referred the court to a rejoinder filed before the court on points of law, dated March 4, 2015.

    But Osighala challenged the competence of the rejoinder, arguing that it was not known to the adjudicatory system and that there is no provision for it within the rules of the court.

    “To file a process termed a rejoinder is an abuse of court process. I object to it and should be struck out”, he submitted before the court.

    But Hassan, citing decided case of Ojukwu versus Onyeador 1991 7 NWLR part 203, argued that fresh issues raised by applicants can be responded to by respondents by way of rejoinders and urged the court to discountenanced the arguments of counsel to the applicants that the rejoinder be disregarded.

     

  • Court fixes June 1 for illegal demolition case

    The Court of Appeal in Lagos yesterday fixed June 1 for the hearing of an appeal filed against Lagos State government and the police over the demolition of houses in some communities in Badagry.

    The appellants, who are residents of Atinporomeh, Araromi Ale Extension and Mowo communities in Badagry, had instituted a fundamental rights suit at a Badagry High Court, ýdemanding N100 billion as general damages for “unlawful and wrongful invasion and demolition” of their houses.

    They are Charles Adu, Joshua Medepo, Godwin Ogungbe, Oluseyi Adeleye, Alao Alapanla, Johnson Adebiyi, Justice Ovemurai, Afolabi Olukoya, Ibrahim Adedeji, Kolawole Adewumi, Edun Talabi, Joseph Onwueka, Joseph Ibukun, Adebayo Oke, Olanipekun Ayanleye, Sylvester Enebeli, Shittu Abdullahi, Afolabi Kehinde, Ahmeed Alade, Iwueze Emmanuel, Oladimeji Oluwaseun, and Martha Adeogun.

    But, Justice ýYetunde Adesanya struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction.

    Dissatisfied, the plaintiffs approached the appellate court to set aside the lower court’s decision.

    At the appeal court yesterday, Justice Sidi Bage adjourned the matter after the appellants’ lawyer, Declan Kemdirim, said both the government and the police have not filed their defence.

    Consequently, Justice Bage said the appeal would be heard on the appellant’s brief alone.

    The appellants are contending that the lower court erred when it held that their claim was intertwined with the issue of title to land, adding that there was no justification for such conclusion.

    They argued that the trial judge erred in law because she relied on the affidavit of the first to fourth respondents that the reliefs of the appellants were deeply rooted in the title and therefore came to a wrong conclusion by striking out the suit.

    They want the court to set aside the ruling and allow their appeal.

    Joined as respondents are Inspector-General of Police; Lagos State Commissioner of Police; Area Commander, Area K Command; Ministry of Police Affairs and Lagos Task Force on Environment and Special Offences.

    Others are Lagos State Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban Development; Lagos State Lands Bureau; Attorney-General of Lagos State and Attorney-General of the Federation.

  • Court freezes Lamido’s, govt’s accounts

    A Federal High Court, sitting in Dutse, the Jigawa State capital, has frozen Governor Sule Lamido’s accounts and those of the state government.

    The court summoned the commercial bank handling the accounts to appear before it and give the statements of the accounts.

    The court’s decision followed the governor’s and his administration’s alleged refusal to obey the court’s order to pay N50 million damages to an All Progressives Congress (APC) senator-elect and others.

    The court, presided over by Justice Sabiu Yahuza, gave the order yesterday, when the plaintiffs returned to court through their lawyer, Umar Aliyu, and complained that the defendants did not comply with the judgment.

    Aliyu expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision.

    He said: “We sued the governor, the Jigawa State Government, Birninkudu Local Government Area and police commissioner for illegal trespass, attacking my client’s residence in Birninkudu and violation of his right.

    “We convinced the court beyond reasonable doubt with genuine evidence. The court made the judgment in our favour and ordered the defendants to pay my clients N50 million. The defendants failed to abide by the court’s verdict within the period provided by the law.

    “That was why we went back to court and complained…”

    The Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Yakubu Abdullahi Ruba, declined to comment on the matter.

    The commissioner did not answer the calls to his mobile phone.

    In reply to a text message sent to his mobile phone, he said: “At airport Dutse; will call you.”

    Later, he sent another text message: “I’m now meeting the Secretary to the State Government. I will call you after.”

    But he did not call up till the time of filing this report last night.

  • Eligibility: Court orders service of processes on Yobe governor

    Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Abuja, yesterday ordered the service of court documents on Yobe State Governor Ibrahim Gaidam in a suit challenging his eligibility to contest in the April 11 governorship election.

    Justice Mohammed gave the order in his ruling on an ex parte application filed by Ayuba Sabo and Ahmed Abubakar, who were governorship aspirants and members of the All Progressives Congress (APC), like the governor.

    The plaintiffs have also filed a petition before the Yobe State Governorship Elections Petitions Tribunal, challenging the governor’s victory in the April 11 poll.

    Justice Mohammed ordered that the governor and the Independent National Electoral Commission (defendants) be served through newspaper publication.

    The judge also ordered that Gaidam and INEC respond to the suit within seven days after the publication.

    Gaidam was deputy governor to the late Mamman Ali, but assumed the governorship position following the former governor’s death in January 2009.

    He won the 2011 governorship election and the April 11, 2015 election on the platform of the APC.

    The plaintiffs averred that if Gaidam was allowed to contest in the election and declared winner, he would be spending the third term in office, contrary to the provisions of the constitution.

    The plaintiffs relied on the provisions of Sections 180(2)(b) and 182(1)(b) 191(1) of the Constitution, arguing that Gaidam, having taken the oath of office on two occasions, was no longer eligible to contest the April 11 election.

    In a supporting affidavit, they averred that with Gaidam’s re-election he “will end up spending three terms of a period of 10 years and four months, against the provision of the 1999 Constitution which allows for two terms of a period of eight years, with each term being just four years”.

    The plaintiffs, through their counsel, Chief Adeniyi Akintola (SAN), submitted 10 issues for determination.

    Their prayers read: “A declaration that having regard to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) it is not unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal and not permissible for any person to occupy the office of a governor of a state of Nigeria for more than a cumulative and or aggregate period of eight years when it is practicable to hold election into the office of the governor of Yobe State.”

    “A declaration that by virtue of section 180(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the tenure of office of Alhaji Ibrahim Gaidam, the 1st defendant herein, as the governor of Yobe State, began on May 29, 2007 when he took the oath of office as the deputy governor alongside the last holder of the office, the late Mamman Ali, thus making his two terms terminable on May, 29, 2015, having won the second term in May 2011.

    “An order of injunction restraining the first defendant from contesting or attempting to vie for the office of the governor of Yobe State, or occupying same after 28 May, 2015, when his tenure, compromising two terms of eight years shall by the constitution would have come to an end.

    “An order directing the second defendant not to countenance the name of the 1st defendant submitted to it as a candidate in the forthcoming governorship election of Yobe State slated for April 11, 2015.

    “An order of perpetual injunction, restraining the first and second defendants, their servants, agents, privies whatsoever or howsoever called, from presenting or accepting as a candidate, for the elections to the office of the governor of Yobe State, the first defendant as an aspirant, having been caught by extant provision of the Constitution with regard to the ‘two previous elections’ limit and two terms of eight years?”

     

  • Ecobank urges court to jail DMO chief

    Ecobank urges court to jail DMO chief

    AFederal High Court in Lagos has been urged to commit the Director-General, Debt Management Office (DMO), Abraham Nwankwo to prison for contempt of court.

    DMO is the government agency saddled with processing fuel subsidy claims by oil marketers, as well as the issuance of sovereign debt notes.

    Ecobank Nigeria Limited made the appeal before Justice Mohammed Yunusa after accusing the DMO of frustrating its effort to recover debts from an oil firm, First Deepwater Discovery Limited (FDDL).

    Justice Yunusa had in a ruling on February 25, directed that the DMO should transfer the outstanding fuel subsidy sum due FDDL into the company’s account with Ecobank.

    The bank alleged that the oil firm has a cumulative subsidy claim of about N1.8 billion with DMO, with N845 million due for payment, prompting Justice Yunusa to rule that the agency should transfer with dispatch, the said sum into the defendant’s account with Ecobank, in order to offset part of FDDL indebtedness to the bank.

    The judge ordered that the DMO should  “communicate the PEF/Admin Charges on the balance sum of N1,020, 451,733.22 to the plaintiff/applicant via the receiver/manager and to pay forthwith, remit or otherwise transfer the entire sum to the first defendant’s account with the plaintiff/applicant.”

    But addressing the court on Tuesday, the bank through its lawyer,  Kunle Ogunba (SAN),  also prayed that one Umaru Abubakar, who is the DMO’s officer in charge of processing fuel subsidy claims by oil marketers, be jailed for contempt.

    He claimed that despite being served through the agency’s principal officers on February 27, DMO was yet to take the necessary steps to transfer the said funds, thus, frustrating the bank’s effort at recovering its customers’ money allegedly held by FDDL.

    Ecobank, in an affidavit in support of the contempt charges deposed to by a lawyer in Ogunba’s law firm, Ajibola Ajiboye, stated that in spite of alleged contemnors with Forms 48 and 49 (contempt charge) they had refused to buldge.

    The applicant urged the court to commit Nwankwo and Abubakar to prison, adding that disobedience of court orders should not be treated with levity by any court.

    However, the DMO officials have filed a counter-affidavit through their lawyer, S.E. Omoraghon, praying for a dismissal of the contempt charge.

    The court adjourned to May 13 for hearing on the contempt charge.

  • Court okays extradition of ex-Mint boss to UK for trial

    •Okoyomon appeals decision

    Federal High Court in Abuja has acceded to a request by the Federal Government for the extradition of a former Managing Director of Nigerian Security, Minting and Printing Company, Emmanuel Ehidiamhem Okoyomon, to the United Kingdom for trial on fraud related charges.

    Justice Evoh Chukwu, in a judgment yesterday on the Federal Government’s application for extradition filed through the office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Mohammed Adoke (SAN), held that the applicant provided sufficient evidence to warrant the grant of the application.

    He granted the application and ordered that Okoyomon be remanded in prison until he is extradited to the UK within 30 days.

    But, Okoyomon has filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Abuja against the judgment by Justice Chukwu.

    He has equally applied for a stay of execution of the judgment pending the determination of his appeal.

    The UK government, through its High Commission in Nigeria, in July 2014 requested the Federal Government to help extradite Okoyomon to the country for trial over his alleged complicity in the bribery allegation involving officials of the Central Bank of Nigeria, the NSMPC and the Securency International Pty of Australia between 2006 and 2008.

    The offences were said to have violated the provisions of the Corruption Prevention Act of the United Kingdom.

    Based on the request by the UK, the government applied to the court for an extradition order, an application which Okoyomon, through his lawyer Alex Iziyon (SAN) opposed via a notice of objection, on the ground that there was no existing extradition treaty between the UK and Nigeria.

    He argued that the extradition treaty between the United States of America and the Great Britain, signed in London in 1931 and the London Scheme of Extradition within the Commonwealth,  relied on by the applicant, were  not applicable and justiceable in Nigeria within the meaning of the provision of Section 12(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

    Yesterday, Justice Chukwu dismissed Okoyomon’s objection and held that the 1931 London Treaty between the U.S. and Great Britain, made applicable in Nigeria by legal instruments on June 24, 1935, is an existing  law by virtue of the provision of Section 315(4) of the Constitution and is applicable in Nigeria.

    “Having said the 1931 London Treaty between the U.S. and the UK is applicable in Nigeria and is an existing law, it does not require to pass the crucibles of both 1979 and 1999 Constitution, which must be subjected to the provision of Section 12 of the same constitution,” the judge said.

    On the applicant’s allegations to the effect that the respondent was wanted in the UK in relation to some criminal allegations, the judge observed that Okoyomon raised no defence against the allegations, which formed the grounds of the request for his extradition.

    Justice Chukwu, who noted that Okoyomon is a British citizen, said he would never recklessly surrender a Nigerian citizen, and a non-Nigerian alike, unless the court was satisfied beyond measure that such a person deserved to be extradited.

    The judge held that “the applicant has satisfied the court with materials substantial enough to grant his application,” and proceeded to grant the application.

  • Court dissolves 16-year-old union

    Court dissolves 16-year-old union

    THE Agege Customary Court has dissolved the 16-year-old marriage of Mr and Mrs Joseph Ibeh.

    Mr Ibeh told the court that his wife, Eneh, is adulterous, troublesome and a threat to his life.

    Ibeh said they met while in secondary school, adding that he single-handedly sponsored her university education.

    “My wife’s attitude changed overnight. She was not the same woman I loved. She brought different men home whenever I was on sea, referring to them as her siblings. The last time I came home, I met another man in the house whom she referred to as her brother. I realised they spoke different languages but I didn’t suspect her,” he said.

    Mrs Ibeh didn’t deny the allegations, blaming it all on her husband for not performing his matrimonial duty.

    She said:”He knows the nature of his job and each time he is around, he complains of tiredness. What should I have done? I know all this is because he wants to marry another woman.”

    The couple confirmed the relationship had broken down completely.

    A mediation session was fixed for the couple and they both agreed on dissolution.

    The union produced three children between ages 7 and 15.

    The court’s President, Pa Adekunle Williams, said they ceased to be husband and wife.

    He ordered the petitioner to give his wife N150,000 to re-settle with the children. The amount, he ordered, should be paid within 30 days.

    Pa Williams referred the estranged couple to the family court for the children’s custody.