The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court

  • Court annuls NFF elections

    Court annuls NFF elections

    A Federal High Court sitting in Jos has  invalidated the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) election of September 30, 2014 held in Warri.

    The NFF polls of September brought Amaju Pinnick into office as president of the federation succeeding Aminu Maigari. But two members of the Chris Giwa-led group went to court to seek redress asking the court to stop the NFF congresses from holding.

    Justice Ambrose Allagoa of the Federal High Court in Jos declared in his ruling on Thursday that “I have set aside all the proceedings and decisions of the Warri Extra-Ordinary meeting of the 20th September and the Elective Congress of 30th September which were direct contraventions of the orders of this court as granted on the 19th September.

    “Nobody should foist on the court a complete case of hopelessness so that the principles of law and justice can be upheld. It’s not enough to say that the order of court was wrongly made, no matter how unorthodox, its subsisting orders, unless set aside, remains law and must be respected.

    “Defendants in this matter have not filed any counter affidavits in this court to contest the facts. There is no motion nor Memorandum of Appearance. This is a court of Record. On this note, the court has no option to protect the integrity and sanctity of court. Court orders are not tea party. Nobody is above the law. Impunity must be stopped.”

    The judge did not treat the contempt issue but added that all “parties (in the suit) are however warned” of disobeying his court.

    Supersport.com sources have, however, learnt that the NFF executive committee presided over by Pinnick will apply for a stay of execution of the ruling. The substantive matters in the case were adjourned by Justice Allagoa till November 25.

    With this development, there are fears that the world’s football-governing body, FIFA, could be forced to clamp down on the NFF and impose immediate sanctions that will include being barred from international football activities.

    FIFA had warned the country’s football federation that should any mishap befall its governance again, the international football body will be left with no option than to apply automatic sanctions that will run till May 2015 when FIFA’s congress holds.

  • NFF Exco appeals Jos Court ruling

    NFF Exco appeals Jos Court ruling

    • Files for stay of execution

    The Executive Committee of Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) has swiftly filed for appeal against the ruling of the Federal High Court, Jos Judicial Division of Thursday, which annulled the NFF Elective Congress of 30th September, 2014.

    The Judge had given the order annulling the elections despite a Preliminary Objection filed by the NFF challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case.

    NFF 1st Vice President, Barr. Seyi Akinwunmi said: “We have been notified of the ruling of the court, which was made in spite of our filing for a Preliminary Objection concerning the jurisdiction of the court.

    “However, our lawyers have gone to work immediately the order was made. We are appealing the ruling and also filing for Stay of Execution of the order.”

  • ‘Why court awarded Bi-Courtney N132b’

    ‘Why court awarded Bi-Courtney N132b’

    Following the failed attempt, on September 22, by the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) to take over the assets of billionaire businessman, Dr. Wale Babalakin (SAN) through a court order obtained by its lawyer, Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) over a controversial N50 billion debt, there have been several claims and counter-claims by both parties.

    The dismissed order had empower Agbakoba as the receiver to take over the assets of Babalakin, including the domestic Murtala Mohammed Airport terminal II (MMA2) and the old Federal Secretariat, Ikoyi.

    On September 29, Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Federal High Court in Lagos, in response to Bi-Courtney’s contention, described steps taken by AMCON to obtain the order as an abuse of court process and subsequently set it aside.

    The dispute began shortly after the Murtala Mohammed Airport terminal two (MMA2), operated by Bi-Courtney, started operations in May 2007. The concession agreement between the Federal Government and Bi-Courtney for the construction and operation of the terminal provided for a coordinating committee with three representatives from the Federal Government and three from the concessionaire in the event of any dispute.

    Based on allegations that there were a series of breaches on the part of the Federal Government, the concessionaire approached the arbitration body, stating that it had been denied the exclusivity clause and several revenue sources in the concession agreement.

    According to reports, Bi-Courtney is expected to make its revenue from passenger traffic, cargo handling, parking space, advertisements, space rental, and fuel surcharge on every litter of petrol sold, among others, as these were the revenue streams on which a consortium of banks had based their financial projections and assumptions before they granted the firm a loan to build the terminal.

    The firm submitted to the arbitration body that the Federal Government was maliciously blocking these revenue streams by providing another terminal for the biggest airline operators. When Bi-Courtney started operating MMA2, only Chanchangi Airline was said to be flying from the terminal.

    Arik, and Virgin Atlantic, which later turned to Air Nigeria, were controlling between 60 to 70 per cent of the market; they were initially allowed to operate from the International Airport terminal. Aero was flying from its own station.

    Even, when Air Nigeria eventually moved to MMA2, the Federal Government allowed Arik and some other airlines to move their operations to the General Aviation Terminal (GAT), which is next door to MMA2, and should have been part of the concessionaire’s terminal under the agreement.

    The firm also submitted that the spaces being let out at the GAT should have been part of its revenue, and that the government has also been denying it of revenue from advertisement space, fuel surcharge, and several other sources.

    Although Bi-Courtney claimed that it never made up to 50 per cent revenue from the terminal, it had paid over N11billion of its debts to the banks before the outstanding debt was transferred to AMCON.

    AMCON had bought the debt from the banks at N19billion, which Bi-Courtney felt was wrong. Babalakin contended that most of the debts of AMCON were bought at discounted value, but that of MMA2 was bought at 100 per cent, with no discount.

    When the MMA2 dispute was resolved in favour of Bi-Courtney by the coordinating committee, the unanimous decision was that the Federal Government was in breach of the agreement; that it should hand over the General Aviation Terminal (GAT) to Bi-Courtney, and ensure that all domestic flights originate from the concessionaire’s terminal.

    Although the Federal Government was represented at the arbitration panel, its agencies allegedly refused to comply with the resolution. This development made Bi-Courtney to seek redress at the court. After a review of the case, the court found that all the decisions of the coordinating committee were correct, and it reaffirmed the decision in a 2011 judgment.

    The court also asked the government to forward an account of all the revenues it has made, and Bi-Courtney was asked to present an account of all the revenue it has lost as a direct result of the breaches. Bi-Courtney complied, and the Federal Government did not. The court thereafter awarded N132billion to Bi-Courtney to compensate for the breaches.

    Six appeals were filed against this judgment – two by the unions, one by Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN), one by Ojemaie Holdings, the handlers of Arik, one by Arik, and one by the Attorney-General of the Federation. All the appeals were dismissed within four years.

    Despite the court judgment and the submissions of the arbitration panel, the government allegedly went ahead to develop the GAT in further breach of the agreement.

    Bi-Courtney believes the actions of the Federal Government and AMCON have grave implications for a nation that is dreaming of a private sector-led resuscitation of public infrastructure and the nation’s economy. It has also described the government’s action as a deliberate attempt to frustrate investments, commercial development and job creation in Nigeria.

    Meanwhile, AMCON has since filed a notice of appeal of Justice Buba’s ruling and formulated four grounds before the appellate court. Some analysts see Babalakin’s travails as capable of discouraging investors.

     

  • Court remands driver for alleged murder 

    The police in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) have arraigned a 35-year-old truck driver in the employ of Dangote Group, Zaradeen Idris, at a Kuje Area Council Magistrate’s Court, for allegedly knocking down two pedestrians. He was accused of driving dangerously.

    Idris, a driver with Dangote Cement Company Obajana in Kogi State, was arraigned before Senior Magistrate Azubike Okeagwu.

    The prosecutor, Corporal Ocheche Samuel, told the court that the accused committed the offence in August.

    Samuel said the matter was reported at the Kuje Police Station, Abuja on September 29, by parents of the deceased who live at Gosa Airport Road.

    The prosecutor further said the accused drove dangerously along Gosa Airport Road and caused the death of Bello Habib and Olumakinde Kazeem.

    He said the accused also caused damage to a Peugeot 406 car with registration number Lagos AAA 437 BZ, an offence which he said contravened the provisions of sections 27 cap 548 of Road Traffic Violation (RTV).

    Idris pleaded not guilty after the charges were read to him.

    Magistrate Okeagwu adjourned the case to today for further hearing.

  • Court restrains ex-Head of State’s son from accounts

    Court restrains ex-Head of State’s son from accounts

    Justice Saliu Seidu of the Federal High Court in Lagos has restrained Mr Risqua Mohammed, son of late Head of State, General Murtala Mohammed, from withdrawing from his accounts in any bank.

    The judge granted a mareva injunction barring him and his company, AMG Petroenergy Limited, from tampering with their money until a debt recovery suit filed against them by Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB) Plc is heard and determined.

    GTB sued them over their alleged refusal to liquidate a multi-million dollars credit facility, despite repeated demands.

    The judge ruled on an ex-parte application filed by GTB’s lawyer, Norrison Quakers (SAN).

    The bank said on May 18, 2011, it granted two import credit facilities for $40 million to the defendants, with an additional existing term loan of N630 million.

    The facilities were said to have been for financing the establishment of local letters of credit in favour of the Nigerian Liquefied Natural Gas/Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation/Pipeline and Products Marketing Company (NLNG, NNPC/PPMC) and NGL to fund the payment of Gas/Condensate/Naphtha lifted based on allocation to the company by the Federal Government.

    The bank said the facilities were also used to finance the establishment of letters of credit for the purchase of refined petroleum products from international and local sources for onward supply to Total Plc, Mobil Oil Plc, Exxon Mobil and Total Upstream.

    The facilities were further meant to accommodate associated freight and logistics costs, as well as refinancing of the existing debts of the first defendant (AMG Petroenergy Limited).

    Mohammed, as the Chairman and Managing Director of the first defendant, was said to have personally pledged to repay the credit facilities.

    But trouble started when, at the expiration of the facilities’ tenure in August 2012, the defendants allegedly failed to meet their obligations.

    Quakers said it was evident from the defendants’ actions that they were not prepared to liquidate the outstanding debt, which stood at N1.365 billion, while interest continues to accrue at the bank’s lending rate.

    “The plaintiff cannot allow this flagrant violation of the defendants’ obligations to continue as its depositors’ and shareholders’ funds are at risk,” Quakers said.

    The bank promised to indemnify the defendants in the unlikely event that the order ought not to have been made.

    Justice Saidu adjourned till November 3 for hearing of the motion on notice.

  • Court of Appeal Ekiti moves to Ilorin

    Court of Appeal Ekiti moves to Ilorin

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Ado-Ekiti, the Ekiti State capital, has been moved to Ilorin, the Kwara State capital.

    The relocation, which might not be unconnected with recent politically-motivated unrest in the state in the past weeks, would be temporary, according to a source.

    Hoodlums unleashed a series of unrest within the high court premises, which also houses the magistrate and appeal courts.

    Vice chairman, state chapter of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Gbemiga Adaramola, confirmed the reports at the weekend.

    Adaramola said the relocation would take effect from today.

  • PDP crisis: Court urged to restrain ex-chair

    PDP crisis: Court urged to restrain ex-chair

    Federal High Court in Abuja has been urged to restrain the former Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Anambra State, Ken Emeakayi, from further parading himself in that capacity, having allegedly resigned on January 9, 2012.

    The request formed part of the five prayers contained in a suit by the party’s Administrative Secretary, Casmir Ajulu, but filed by his lawyer, Kenneth Nkwocha. It has Emeakayi, the PDP and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as first, second and third defendants.

    It is the plaintiff’s contention that despite his resignation, and the pending expiration of the tenure of the party’s Executive Committee, which he headed, on October 24, Emeakayi has allegedly continued to claim that he will (as the party’s chairman) conduct the primaries for the national and state assembly elections next year in Anambra State.

    Ajulu said the case was informed by his realisation that the internal bickering in the leadership of the party would hamper its performance next year if not resolved.

    He averred in a supporting affidavit that by the three judgments delivered by the Ihiala and Nnewi divisions of the High Court of Anambra State, the first defendant was to serve out what was left of the tenure of the Executive Committee, led by Chief Emma Nweze, which was inaugurated on October 25, 2010.

    Ajulu said the first defendant’s tenure as the chairman of the Anambra PDP’s Executive Committee took effect from July 11, 2011 when Chief Nweze resigned and his resignation letter was received by him (the plaintiff) as the administrative secretary.

    The plaintiff also showed a letter, which he said was written by the first defendant’s lawyer, Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN), dated May 8 last year, asking INEC to note that the Executive Committee (which the first defendant became its head at the resignation of Nweze), was inaugurated on October 25, 2010 and had a tenure of four years.

    He said Emeakayi resigned as the chairman via a letter of January 9, 2012, following which he (the plaintiff) had been managing the affairs of the party and its secretariat.

    He argued that even with the first defendant’s resignation and following the expiration of his tenure as the chairman on October 24, he  allegedly continued to parade himself as the chairman, who will conduct the national and state assembly elections in February.

    Ajulu averred that unless restrained, Emeakayi “will continue to parade himself and hold himself out to the party’s stakeholders in order to deceive them that he is the substantive chairman of the party in Anambra State, and the second and third defendants are likely to accord the first defendant recognition, contrary to the provisions of the constitution, the subsisting judgments of the court and his resignation letter of January 9, 2012.”

    The plaintiff, who raised four questions for the court’s determination, seeks among others, a declaration that the tenure of office of the first defendant as the chairman of the PDP, Anambra State chapter and a member of the Executive Committee, having been inaugurated on October 25, 2010, lapses on October 24 by effluxion of tome and by virtue of the extant judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction.

    The plaintiff also prayed for an order that the first defendant can no longer parade himself, act or function as the  chairman of the Anambra State chapter of the PDP after his resignation on January 2012.

    He seeks an order declaring the acts, conduct, functions and decisions of the first defendant beyond January 2012 when he resigned as the chairman of Anambra State PDP as being illegal, null and void ab initio, and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from parading himself or holding out himself, in whatever manner or ways, as the chairman of the PDP in Anambra State beyond October 24.

    Ajulu also prayed the court for an order restraining the second and third defendants and their agents from dealing with, liaising or according any recognition to the first defendant in respect of any party matter or business, howsoever described that relate to the office of the chairman of the PDP, Anambra State chapter beyond October 24.

    No date has been fixed for the case’s hearing, although Ajulu also  filed an affidavit of urgency, urging the court  to hear the case on the grounds that time was of the essence.

  • Court dismisses plea of non-contractual relationship with supplier

    Court dismisses plea of non-contractual relationship with supplier

    The appeal in this case, arose from the  judgment of Hon. Justice F.I. Oyelaran of the Oyo State High Court delivered at Ibadan on December 6, 2012. The Appellant – New Age Beverage Company Ltd, in the course of its business, engaged one Mrs. Abiola Odeyemi to procure sugar for its use in its manufacturing business. The said Mrs. Abiola Odeyemi went to the Respondent – Mrs Abiola Aramide, procured some quantity of sugar and paid for the supply. Subsequently, the Respondent insisted on direct payment of supplies made to the Appellant by the issuance of cheques directly to the Respondent in her name and in consequence, further supplies procured from the Respondent by the same Mrs Abiola Odeyemi were paid for by cheques issued in favour of the Respondent and no longer Mrs. Abiola Odeyemi after Mrs. Abiola Odeyemi had introduced the Respondent to the Appellant. Between December 2009 and January 2010 the Appellant requested for and was supplied with 700 bags of sugar by the Respondent amounting to N5,740,000.00 (Five Million, Seven Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira only). Of the amount, the Appellant issued three cheques in payments totally N3,900,000.00 (Three Million Nine Hundred Thousand Naira only) to the Respondent leaving an outstanding sum of N1,840,000.00 (One Million Eight Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira). When the outstanding balance was not paid as expected, the Respondent through her solicitors wrote the Appellant demanding payment for the sum outstanding. The Appellant did not respond to the letter which prompted the Respondent to sue the Appellant at the Oyo State High Court at Ibadan. In the High Court, the Appellant contended that although it had issued some cheques in favour of the Respondent, it (Appellant) has no contractual relationship or privity with the Respondent and that it had paid the aforesaid Mrs. Abiola Odeyemi the outstanding balance. The High Court Judge gave judgment in favour of the Respondent adjudging the Appellant liable to pay the sum of N1,840,000.00 as claimed. Aggrieved with the judgment the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Appellant formulated five issues for the determination of the appeal and the Respondent also formulated three issues. In determining the appeal the Court noted that all the issues, whether raised by the Appellant or by the Respondent could be narrowed into two or three at the most viz.

    1. What was the jural relationship between the appellant and the respondent? How was the relationship created? By the parties or by operation of law?

    2. On whom was the Primary Onus of proof in this case, was the onus discharged?

    3. Did the respondent as plaintiff prove her case at the court below?

    On the first issue, the Appellant’s counsel contended in his brief that there was no contractual relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent as will enable the Respondent maintain an action in debt against the Appellant. The Appellant contended that from the evidence, the only contract that existed (if any) was between the Respondent and Mrs. Abiola Odeyemi and not the Appellant. On this issue, the Court stated that Mrs. Abiola Odeyemi started out as an agent of the Appellant in the procuration and payment of the consignments of sugar from the Respondent. Later when the Respondent objected to continue dealing with Mrs. Abiola Odeyemi as a kind of go-between, Mrs Abiola Odeyemi then introduced the Respondent to the Appellant as the Principal for whom she was acting and thereupon dropped out of the transaction. What then are the jural relations involved in this rather uncomplicated transaction? The Court stated the common law principles of agency as encapsulated in the maxim “Qui Facit per alium, facit per se”. “He who acts by another acts by himself because the common law allows one man to authorize another to contract for and to bind him by an authorized contact. The Court held that relationship of principal and agent arises where one party, the principal consents that the other party, the agent shall act on his behalf and the agent consents so to act. The relationship need not be contractual, need not be expressed and could be implied – see

    Chitty on contract vol 2 (24 ed) p2002

    The Court held that the agent Mrs. Abiola Odeyemi having disclosed the principal dropped out of the transaction and her principal i.e. Appellant became directly responsible to the Respondent in respect of goods directly ordered by it and supplied by Respondent. The Court held that this is a basic rule of agency (i.e. disclosed Principal) and it applies with full force in the transaction in this case. The Court further held that there is thus established a direct contractual privity between the Appellant and the Respondent entitling the Respondent to sue the Appellant in respect of such contract.

    The Court further stated that the rationalization of the transaction and a basis for the decision of the learned trial judge would be on the principle derived in equity – estoppel which broad term is now statutorized in Section 169 of the Evidence Act thus:-

    “When one person has either by virtue of an existing court judgment, deed or agreement, or by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representatives in interest shall be allowed, in any proceeding between himself and such person or such person’s representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing’’

    The Court held that on this issue, the learned trial judge had every justification in arriving at the conclusion she reached that there was privity of contract between the Appellant and the Respondent. This issue was therefore resolved against the Appellant.

    On issue No.2, the Court stated there was evidence that the Appellant ordered for bags of sugar which were supplied. There was also evidence of cheque payments made directly to the Respondent. The Court held that these alone were sufficient to draw the conclusion of a binding commercial transaction between the Respondent and the Appellant and justify the finding in debt by the trial judge against the Appellant.

    On the 3rd issue raised whether the respondent proved her case in the lower court, the Court adopted the reasoning considered in relation to issue No.2 above and hasten to answer the question in the affirmative, that the Respondent by preponderance of evidence proved her case in the trial court and was entitled to the judgment as entered by the trial Judge.

    On the whole the Court held that the appeal lacks merit and was accordingly dismissed.

     

    •Edited by LawPavilion

    LawPavilion Citation: (2014) LPELR-23266(CA)

     

  • Court orders landlord, tenant to explore out of court settlement

    Court orders landlord, tenant to explore out of court settlement

    Justice Owolabi Dabiri of Lagos State High Court, Ikeja has directed a landlord,Mr. Banji Adesanmi and the Lagos State to settle with a tenant, Yemi Omodele.

    Justice Dabiri gave the order while ruling in a suit filed by Omodele against his landlord and  five other defendants.

    The other defendants include Construction Management Skill Ltd, Peace Tiding Ventures Limited, Mr. Leke Oyetan, Attorney General of Lagos State and Commissioner of Finance Lagos State

    Omodele had appeared for himself in the suit as plaintiff while Miss. Hallima Ahmed and Olawale Ijabiken  appeared for the first to fourth defendants and for fifth and sixth defendants respectively.

    Omodele, in the suit NO. ID/974/2013 claiming jointly and severally against the defendants a sum of N100, 000,500.00 as damages for segregation  and sealing of a building belonging to his landlord, Adesanmi, located at 2, Akinremi Street, Anifowoshe, Ikeja allegedly by agents of the government.

    The plaintiff is claiming that part of the building which was sealed up on June 28, 2013 was not reopened until February 7, 2014, the day the suit filed in court since December 10, 2013 came up for hearing for the first time.

    According to the plaintiff, while the part he claimed to be occupying was sealed up, the  part of the building that  is occupied by the landlord and his two companies joined in the suit, was not sealed by the government.

    At the resumed hearing of the matter which was to hear two notices of preliminary objections filed by counsel to first to fourth defendants, the trial judge brought it to the notices of counsels that the issues raised in the suit are matters that  be settled out of court.

    She ordered parties in the suit to therefore seek solution to the dispute outside the court since the issue involved are landlord-tenant matter.

    “I have read the papers filed in this suit. The issues are what can be resolved. Counsels and the parties are to meet and resolve the dispute amicably. Case adjourned to November 21, 2014 for report of settlement or hearing of the two notices of preliminary objections filed”, the judge ordered.

  • Court asked to reopen Abuja multi-billion naira market

    High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)  has been urged to order the reopening of the multi-billion naira Wuye Market, Abuja.

    It was shut following an earlier order of the court.

    The market, with a capacity for 1,700 shops, was commissioned in February by President Goodluck Jonathan. It has not been put to use due to the disagreement among interested parties.

    The court had, shortly after the market was commissioned, restrained the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), a mortgage firm, All Purpose Shelters Limited (APSL) and the Abuja Property Development Company, from allocating the shops or opening the market for business.

    The court had, in its interim order, restrained the defendants “from allocating any office or offices in the market pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.”

    The suit with No: M/864/14 was filed by over 370 subscribers to the market project, under the aegis of Wuye Ultra Modern Market Owners, built under the public private partnership (PPP) and Build,Operate and Transfer  (BOT) agreement.

    But the 3rd defendants, APSL, in its amended statement of defence, urged the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case and order the re-opening of the market for business.

    Trouble started when the plaintiffs had demanded for keys after being given letters of provisional offer of allocation of shop/open space, but APSL was said to have insisted on their payment for the shops on the ground that it built the market with its own resources and bank loan.

    The plaintiffs claimed that APSL had, through an advertisement, invited and other members of the public to pay certain amount for allocation of shops in the market.

    The plaintiffs stated that the offer letter was released o them because they had met the terms of their allocation, a claim APSL described as untrue.

    “The letters released to the plaintiffs were clearly marked “letter of provisional offer of allocation of shops/open space” which is dependent on other conditions stipulated in their letters of provisional offer”, APSL said.

    It stated that the time it ought to recoup its investment has started running since February 6, 2014 when the market was commissioned.

    “The 3rd (APSL) defendant humbly urge the honourable Court in view of its investment to hold that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to Shops at Wuye Ultra Modern Market, Order that the shops be allocated t people who have paid for the value of development and Order that full scale business transaction be commenced to avoid dapidation of the buildings”, the 3rd defendant said.

    The case has been adjourned to October 9, 2014.