The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court

  • N4.4m subsidy fraud: Court declines to quash charges against oil marketer

    An oil marketer, Oluwaseun Ogunbambo has lost his bid to quash N4.4 million subsidy charge preferred against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission(EFCC).

    Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo of an Ikeja High Court in Lagos declined to strike out an application filed by Ogunbambo, seeking to quash the charge against him and three others by the EFCC.

    Justice  Onigbanjo dismissed the application for lacking in merit.

    Those charged by the EFCC with Ogunbambo are Mamman Ali, son of Dr. Ahmadu Ali, a former Chairman of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Christian Taylor and their firm – Nassaman Oil Services.

    Ogunbambo was, however, absent in court.

    In the application  filed by his counsel, R.A Oluyede, the defendant had prayed the court to quash all the counts and information filed against him for lack of jurisdiction.

    The application brought pursuant to Section 66(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and supported by a 26-paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Kunle Shote, also urged the court to discharge him.

    Responding to the application on point of law, EFCC counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo asked the court to dismiss the application on the ground that it is premature at this stage when plea had been taken by the defendant and trial had commenced.

    Oyedepo said the issue of competency of the charge could not be raised at the stage when the prosecution has not closed its case and had only called three witnesses, adding that it could not be said that the information filed against the defendant was an abuse of court process.

    Justice Onigbanjo in his short ruling, however, dismissed the application for lacking in merit.

    Earlier, the judge re-emphasied his bench warrant issued against Ogunbambo in another subsidy matter for the defendant to be produced in court.

    EFCC counsel, Oyedepo urged the court to issued another bench warrant against Ogunbambo despite a pending one issued against him earlier in another matter.

    Oyedepo argued that since Ogunbambo’s lawyer had tendered same medical report, he tendered in the other matter and claimed that the defendant  had sustained a spinal cord injury after falling from a bathtub in this same matter, another bench warrant should also be issued on him.

    But in his ruling,  Justice Onigbanjo emphasised that the  earlier  bench warrant issued against the marketer still subsists and ordered the EFCC to execute the warrant.

    He adjourned the case till May 6, 2014.

  • Court’s jurisdiction and enforcement of foreign verdicts

    Court’s jurisdiction and enforcement of foreign verdicts

    The issue of jurisdiction has again brought to the fore the futility of instituting suits abroad for offences committed locally as litigants are often faced with the problem of enforcement of judgments from such suits, writes ADEBISI ONANUGA.

    Of late, Nigerians and corporate bodies desirous of obtaining convictions against individuals and other bodies they have disputes with often take to instituting suits, irrespective of the jurisdiction of such suits. But they often times find it difficult enforcing judgments delivered in their favour by a foreign court, especially where defendants may not have appeared throughout the duration of the trial resides.

    The above scenario may have played itself out in an attempt by Access Bank Plc to register and enforce a judgment of a United Kingdom (UK) Court against a former Managing Director of the defunct Intercontinental Bank Plc, Dr, Erastus Akingbola.

    On September 13, 2012, Access Bank Plc approached a Lagos High Court, Igbosere, Lagos, presided by Justice Adedayo Oyebanji and filed an ex-parte application seeking to register and enforce a London Court judgement against Akingbola.

    The High Court of Justice, Queens Bench in London, had on August 1, 2012, ordered Akingbola to pay Access Bank £654 million (N212.2 billion) for alleged illegal purchased of shares when he was in charge of the defunct bank.

    Justice Oyebanji granted the bank’s request by registering the London judgment as a judgement of a Lagos High Court and ordered Akingbola to pay the judgment sum.

    But Akingbola, through his lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) petitioned against the decision of the court and subsequently filed an application dated September 27, 2013 before the court presided by Justice Babajide Candide-Johnson of the Lagos High Court in Igbosere asking the court to quash the registration of the said judgment for lack of jurisdiction. After a trial that lasted about six months, Access Bank lost its bid to get the court to enforce the judgement on the defendant. Justice Candide-Johnson on February 18, 2014 granted Akingbola’s prayers. He did not only set aside the order of Justice Oyebanji, he also set aside the controversial London judgment against the defendant.

    According to him, the London judgment and accompanying order of Mr. Burton of the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division Commercial London lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case in the first place being a matter exclusively for the Federal High Courts.

    The judge explained that Capital Market-related matters are issues which only Federal High Courts have exclusive jurisdiction. “In the final analysis, I hold that the High Court of Lagos State within the meaning of Madukolu Versus Nkemdilim lacks jurisdiction and competence to have entertained, heard and/or determined any aspect of the Registration and Enforcement proceedings in respect of the Foreign Judgment and Accompanying Enrolment Order of Honourable Justice Burton….”, Candide-Johnson declared.

    With these words, Johnson then vacated the exparte order of July 4, 2013, which originally empowered Access Bank to register and execute the judgment debt and subsequently struck out the Bank’s application.

    This decision is reminiscent of the Court of Appeal Judgment of November 21, 2013 which struck out a theft charge preferred against former Managing Director and Chief Executive of Finbank Plc, Mr. Okey Nwosu on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

    About a month after the removal of the Bank Chiefs, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) charged them before the Federal High Court Lagos accusing them, among others, of share fraud, concealment and reckless granting of loans without adequate collateral. However, while the charges before the Federal High Court were still pending, EFCC in 2011 rearrested them with a view to rearraigning them on stealing charges at Lagos High Court and by May 31, 2013, the trio of Akingbola, Nwosu and Francis Atuche, Former Managing Director of defunct Bank PHB, had all been rearraigned at the Ikeja High Court.

    But in a judgment delivered on November 2013, the Court of Appeal held that the Lagos High Court in Ikeja, where the stealing charges were filled against Nwosu and others lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter because it arose from Capital Market-related transactions, which only Federal High Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to handle.

    “What is therefore, in existence is the fraudulent conversion of funds of the bank as instructed into shares. If the funds in question have turned into shares which is an issue in the Capital Market, can the High Court of Lagos State therefore invoke its jurisdiction on such matter on a charge of stealing? Why will the prosecution then resort to another charge of stealing at the High Court of Lagos when the existence of the thing said to have been stolen is turned under the control of capital issue….?”, the court had questioned.

    From the foregoing, a spectre appears to be haunting prosecution, a development which former Justice Charles Archibong made a veiled reference to on April 2, 2012. The former Justice of Federal High Court, Lagos had on that day struck out the case against Akingbola for “lack of diligent prosecution”. This happened because several months after Akingbola’s arraignment, EFCC failed to call any witness. Also, during the period, the commission amended the charges against him three times and was not allowed to take his plea.

    The February 18, 2014, ruling by Justice Candide-Johnson setting aside the judgment of the London Court and rejecting its registration may well be another judicial score for the former boss of the defunct Intercontinental Bank.

    The Akingbola matter is not the first to be undertaken by Access Bank in a foreign court. A similar scenario occurred recently when the bank, had rushed to United Kingdom Court to obtain injunction against another Nigerian company, Capital Oil Limited before a Federal High Court ordered the withdrawal of the case from London and for it to be heard in Nigeria.

    There is a notion that some Nigerians are now in the habit of rushing to foreign courts, especially United Kingdom, to institute cases which ordinarily should have taken place in Nigeria. This practice happens even when concerned parties are Nigerians resident and doing business in Nigeria such as the one leading to Burton’s judgment.

    Commenting on the development the Managing Partner of Indemnity Partners, a Lagos based legal services firm, Chuks Nwachukwu condemned the situation, adding that it undermines Nigeria’s judiciary. He argued that: “It appears the UK system eagerly adopts any case brought to UK and supports the plaintiff as an economic strategy to fund its system and earn huge legal fees from outside UK jurisdiction.”

    Justice Burton’s judgment arose from a civil suit filed in 2009 by Access bank in London against Akingbola in the wake of his removal by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) as Chief Executive of defunct Intercontinental Bank.

    The judgment, delivered in July 2012, found Akingbola liable of causing substantial loss to the defunct Bank to the tune of N212,294,089,160.15 when the Nigeria stock market collapsed. He was ordered to pay personally. The judge, although, said there was no evidence that Akingbola participated personally in the share purchase as the CEO of the bank, but that “on balance of probability” he must have knowledge of it.

    Consequently Access Bank sought to execute the judgment in Nigeria and on July 2, 2013, it brought an exparte application to the court to register the judgment as that of the Lagos court, a request which was granted by the court on July 4, 2013, but swiftly challenged by Akingbola in September 2013.

    Prior to the ruling Akingbola and Access Bank had on January 16, 2014 exchanged legal argument with the Bank insisting on the enforcement of the judgment debt.

    Counsel to the Bank, Mr. Kanyinsola Ajayi (SAN) in his submission argued that the Bank had satisfied all conditions for the registration and enforcement of the judgment. He said Akingbola was served with all the processes filed at the English Court and that he submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and personally gave evidence with other witnesses, concluding that the court acted with jurisdiction when it gave judgment.

    But Akingbola countered Ajayi’s argument in his submission byhis counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who argued that both the English Court trial and subsequent judgment were riddled with multiple illegalities.

    Olanipekun argued that the English Court first, lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case. He quoted several decided cases both in the United Kingdom and Nigeria including Supreme Court cases, to support his position. He said a foreign court could not assume jurisdiction on a person who is transiently present within the jurisdiction in respect of assets outside the jurisdiction. According to him, it was the freezing order obtained by the Bank in the United Kingdom against Akingbola that compelled his presence in London and stranded him there.

    The learned counsel also argued that Lagos High Court lacked jurisdiction to register the judgment since it could not have entertained the claim leading to the judgment in the first place. Only Federal High Courts, he argued, could handle civil causes and matters arising from Companies and Allied Matters Act, which is the subject of the judgment.

    Olanipekun contended that the procedure adopted by the High Court of England in arriving at the decision was in conflict with the Nigerian Constitution and Law of Evidence. He stated for instance, that the trial was conducted over video, with the judge sitting in London, while Akingbola and his witnesses were compelled to give evidence over video in a Lagos Hotel via video link. Also, the British judge tried to seek the assistance of the Federal High Court to compel the witnesses to appear, but the Federal High Court replied that the procedure being adopted was alien to Nigerian Laws as witnesses could not be compelled in a civil case.

    Olanipekun told the court that his client was not only denied his right to appeal the decision of Justice Burton, the court also relied on hearsay testimonies of four claimant witnesses (Mr. Mahmoud Lai Alabi, Mr. Owolabi, Mrs. Folake Akingbade and Mr. Olusola Olayinka) to establish the truth of allegations made against Akingbola without producing them for cross examination. All the Banks witnesses, he argued, refused to come to court to testify on oath and be cross examined on their statements.

    Following Justice Burtons judgment and accompanying orders in July and September, 2012 respectively, Akingbola, in exercise of his right of appeal, applied to the same High Court of England for leave to appeal its decision, but he was refused. Dissatisfied, he made two separate applications to the Court of Appeal of England and was again refused the right of appeal.

    Accusing the Bank of not disclosing the foregoing facts to the court while bringing the application for registration, Olanipekun faulted the process which produced a judgment while denying an accused the right to appeal, fair hearing and using hearsay evidence to support a claim of that magnitude.

    Quoting several legal authorities, Olanipekun maintained that the Supreme Court holds inalienable an accused right to appeal as set forth in Abubakar V Yar ‘Adua (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt 1078) 465 at 496 where it held as follows: “An appeal is a constitutional right which cannot be taken away from or denied an appellant. No court of law has the jurisdiction to take away from or deny an applicant his constitutional right to appeal”.

    Olanipekun concluded “If likelihood of bias does not vitiate a judgment in other climes, it certainly does in Nigeria; If hearsay evidence can ground a judgment in the UK, same cannot ground a judgment in Nigeria; Furthermore, If fraud can be proven in UK on the balance of probabilities, such procedure is expressly forbidden in Nigeria”.

     

  • Mother, son ask court to vacate caveat on Will

    IN Ikeja High Court in Lagos has been asked to vacate the caveat placed on the Will of the late Harry Afolabi Lardner (SAN).

    Mrs. Elizabeth Oladunni Lawrence and her son,  Oladipo Harry Lardner, made the request through their counsel , Jitobo Akanike at the resumed hearing of a suit before the court presided over by Justice I. Harrison

    They told the court that the late Harry Afolabi Lardner’s Will was read without the knowledge of Oladipo Harry Lardner, who is claiming to be the son of the deceased.

    The claimants, through their counsel, Akanike, made this known at the resumed hearing of the suit.

    They are, therefore, asking the court to vacate the caveat placed on the Will of the late Lardner.

    They are also seeking for an order of injunction restraining the second, third and fourth defendants from acting and administering the Estate of the Late Lardner or in any way meddle with his Estate until letters of Administration and proper probate are jointly granted to the second claimant and either of the two of the second, third and fourth defendants.

    Joined as defendants are the Probate Registrar, High Court of Lagos State, Mrs. Harriet Ann Omobolanle Adesola; Mrs. Rosamond Vera Cruz and Barrister Tokunbo Ayanniyi.

    Mrs. Lawrence, who told the court that she is the mother of the second complainant, Oladipo, said the first defendant, the Probate Registrar, neglected to notify her son of the date  fixed for the reading of the Will.

    The claimants aver that as soon as the Will was read the second and third defendants furnished the first defendant with the second claimant’s contact address to serve him notice of caveat placed on none entry of the Will to the probate.

    They claimed that sometime in May 2008, the claimants applied to the first defendant requesting to search for the Will of the late SAN.

    He said after their application to search the file, it was discovered that the second and third defendants, through their counsel, had placed a caveat restraining the grant of probate or Certified True Copy of the Will.

    In a 34-paragraph statement of claim, they are asking the court for a declaration that the second claimant, who is the child and the only son of the late Lardner, is a beneficiary of the Estate of the late SAN and is well known to the second and third defendants.

    An order from the court directing the first defendant to admit the Will of the late Lardner into Probate in favour of the second claimant, second and third defendants being the beneficiaries named in the Will.

    The claimants, further urged the court to direct the second and third defendants to give a full and detailed accounts of all monies and Real Estate of the late SAN.

    The claimants also said the fourth defendant, a legal practitioner, who worked with the late SAN, joined as executor in the said Will of late Lardner.

    However, the defendants, through their counsel C. Joseph (SAN), denied each and every claim in the statement of claim.

    The defendants averred that the claimants are not the wife and child  of the late Lardner.

    The defendants admitted paragraph four of the statement of claim only to the extent that a supposed Will of late Lardner was read to them by the first defendant in February 2009.

    With particular reference to paragraph three of the statement of claims, the defendants averred that their father had no male issue  in his life time and that their father was only survived by the second and third defendants only.

    They also denied placing caveat against the supposed Will of their father in the custody of the first defendant and also denied a statement of claim put on the claimants to the strictest proof thereof.

  • Death of Corps member: Man to die by hanging

    A High Court sitting in Ikere-Ekiti, Ikere Local Government Area of the State yesterday sentenced  Theophilus Pius, 26,  to death by hanging for the murder of a female youth corps member, Anthonia Okeke.

    Pius, a commercial motorcyclist, reportedly colluded with others on 19th December 2008 to kidnap and later murder of Anthonia, a serving corps member at the time, in Ilawe-Ekiti who had hired him (the motorcyclist) to take her to the motor park in Ikere while going for Christmas celebrations in her hometown in Anambra State.

    Justice Adegoriola Adeleye also handed Pius a separate ten-year sentence for kidnapping late Anthonia which culminated in her  death in the hands of ritualists.

    Anthonia,  a Chemical Engineering graduate of Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, was from Umuno Ndiuno  in Ezeagu Local Government area of Enugu  State.

    Justice Adeleye, had submitted that the evidence as presented Mr. Adeleye Familoni, the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) at the  State Ministry of Justice, against the accused person as sufficiently useful and reliable to  convince the court that the accused person was actually guilty.

    Adeleye said: “I submit that the Prosecution Counsel has been able to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. He has been able to establish that
    the Defendant is culpable and no criminal shall go unpunished  in the
    face of law”.

    Spokesperson for the family, Mr. Obinna Okeke, Anthonia’s elder brother, commended the judgment, saying “the verdict has proved that those with criminal intentions cannot have their ways as long as the government is determined to apply the relevant laws against them in a diligent manner”.
    Okeke  also thanked the State Ministry of Justice, the police, the human rights groups and National Youth Service Corps for pursuing  the case to “its very useful and meaningful end”.

    In his comments, the  DPP, Familoni, noted the judgment  was a victory of “light over darkness and of good against evil doers”, adding that those who desire to make money by any means would always meet a dead end

    According to him, the Justice Ministry would continue to ensure that judicial means were applied “against those with criminal tendencies in the State”.

  • Court issues bench warrant on AGF, Defence Minister, others

    Court issues bench warrant on AGF, Defence Minister, others

    Justice Olubunmi Femi-Adeniyi, of the Lagos High Court, Ikeja, has issued a bench warrant against the Attorney- General of the Federation (AGF), Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN); his Defence counterpart, Mr. Labaran Maku; the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), Air Marshal Alex Badeh and the Nigerian Army.

    They are to appear in court on March 27, this year to defend a N18.7 billion  suit brought against them by market men and women over the sealed mammy market, Giwa Barracks, Falomo.

    In a ruling, Justice  Femi-Adeniyi ordered  the Inspector-General of Police, Mohammed Abubakar to produce the Federal Government officials in court.

    The judge gave the order following their refusal to appear in court to defend the suit.

    Justice Femi-Adeniyi last December granted an ex-parte motion, to be served on the defendants, following their refusal to comply with an earlier order instructing them to reopen the closed Mammy Market within Giwa Barracks, Falomo, Ikoyi, Lagos.

    The Defence authorities had in February 2007, sealed the 225 shops in the market at the expiration of one week notice given to the market men and women to vacate the place.

    But the market men and women resisted the  order, which they claimed did not mention anything about payment of compensation over billions of naira they had invested in the market as assets.

    The market association met with the then Commanding Officer, Group Captain Patrick Mbanugo and pleaded that the military should see reasons, but he told them that the closure was an order from above.

    Sequel to their failure to secure a reprieve, they approached the court on February 19, 2007, and  commenced a civil action before the Lagos State High Court  against the defendants.

    They claimed  among others, a perpetual injunction, declaratory reliefs and N18.7 billion  as damages against the defendants.

    The court granted them an interlocutory order  on April 25, 2008, directing the defendants to re-open the market for them to take inventory of all goods and properties of the claimants.

    The court also gave an order restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, developers and privies from demolishing, defacing, altering and, or removing in any manner, reconstructing and rebuilding of any or all of the claimants 225 shops at the market pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

    At the resumed hearing, counsel to the market association, Mr. Stanley Ochoga told the court that the settlement move by the defendants was long overdue and without a head way.

    Ochoga said the refusal of the defendants to obey the court order and appear in court showed lack of seriousness on their part.

    He, therefore, prayed the court to issue a bench warrant on the defendants to appear in court at the next adjourment.

    Responding, AGF’s counsel, Mr. B.R Ashiru prayed the court to give the defendants more time to perfect the settlement.

    He said defendants are still interested in the settlement agreement and would soon come up with the terms of settlement. Ashiru prayed the court not to issue the bench warant as requested by the defence counsel.

    But Justice Femi-Adeniyi in her short ruling noted that the settlement agreement was long overdue as the case started 10 years ago.

    She acknowledged that defendants might still be willing to settle but that they have not exhibited any  concrete move towards settlement.

    The judge, therefore, granted the request of the claimant and issued the bench warrant against the AGF, Minister of Defence, Chief of Defence Staff, Group Captain Patrick Mbanugo and the Nigerian Army (operating as ministry of defence & defence headquaters).

    She thereafter adjourned the matter March 27.

  • Court dismisses Chevron’s objections to N17.223b suit by Bayelsa communities

    Justice Ibrahim Buba of Federal High Court, Lagos, has dismissed the preliminary objections by Chevron Nigeria Limited and Fode Nigeria against a suit by some fishermen in some communities in Bayelsa State.

    In his ruling, Justice Buba said the suit was competent.

    The judge described as baseless the preliminary objections by the defendants against the claimants.

    The claimants in the suit are fishermen of Koluama 1; Koluama 2; Ekeni; Ezetu 1; Ezetu 2; Foropa; Fishtown and Ikibiri communities in Southern Ijaw and Brass Local Government Areas of Bayelsa State.

    They are asking Chevron and Fode Nigeria for N17, 222, 528, 441.00 as compensation for the losses they suffered as a result of gas blow-out that occurred on the Chevron operated KS Endeavor Rig drilling in the Funiwa 1 gas well, on the North Apoi Oil Platform on January 16 2012.

    The claimants/plaintififfs, through their counsel, Mrs. Tonbofa Eva Ashimi had alleged that Chevron’s negligence was responsible for the explosion and prayed the court to hold the oil firm liable for economic losses and environmental damages.

    They also alleged that Chevron failed to take the necessary precautions to prevent the explosion and did not adequately control it with available technology.

    Chevron, through its team of lawyers, led by Professor Tunde Fagbohun (SAN), filed an objection, challenging the competence of the suit.

    The company, in its notice of objection to the suit, argued that it did not receive any evacuation requests from the rig and that the staff aboard always maintained the power to halt all work if they truly believed working conditions were unsafe.

    Justice Buba has, however, ordered the suit to be set down for hearing while a date is to be fixed for commencement of hearing of the substantive suit.

     

  • Court fixes March 25 for judgment in suit against Airtel

    Court fixes March 25 for judgment in suit against Airtel

    Justice Mufutau Olokoba of the Lagos High Court, Igbosere, will on March 25, deliver judgment in a N50million suit by a telecoms firm, Globacell Nigeria Ltd, against a Global System for Mobile communication (GSM) service provider, Airtel Nigeria.

    Written addresses will also be adopted on that day, the judge said.

    Globacell asked the court to determine whether a subsisting contract between it and Celtel Nigeria Ltd (now Airtel Nigeria) empowers the communication giant to receive payment for recharge cards without supplying them to the claimant.

    The firm also wants the court to determine whether the contract empowers Airtel to unilaterally cancel the Ongoing Revenue Service Commission (ORSC) agreement between them without recourse to it.

    The court is also to decide whether an affirmative answer to the issues will not entitle Globacell to be granted judgment as per its writ of summons and statement of claim.

    Airtel, on the other hand, wants the court to determine whether the subsisting agreement between it and Globacell was governed by a letter dated September 14, 2006 or a Distribution Agreement dated February 25, 2008.

    It also wants the court to determine whether it reserves the right under the agreement to increase or reduce Globacell’s ORSC-backed credit facility, and whether Globacell is entitled to its claims.

    Globacell, through its lawyer, Mr Sunny Omoragbon had sought an order compelling Airtel to restore its existing ORSC-backed credit facility worth N3.8million, which it alleged the GSM company cancelled illegally.

    It also sought an order compelling Airtel to pay it N2.6 million, being daily earnings of N75,000 per day that it makes from sale of recharge cards, from May 27 till June 30, 2008, “and the same amount until judgment is delivered.”

    The court is also to order Airtel to pay interest of 25 per cent on the sum until judgment is delivered, and thereafter at the rate of 30 per cent until it is liquidated.

    Globacell urged the court to order the GSM company to pay it N50million as damages to cover the alleged trauma, embarrassment, loss of income and business opportunities suffered by its Managing Director, Mr Mark Davies “as a result of the unilateral cancellation of the ORSC agreement by the defendant.”

    Besides, it wants a declaration that Airtel’s alleged refusal to release the stock of recharge cards it paid for amounts to a wrongful and illegal cancellation of the ORSC-backed credit facility “and therefore constitutes a breach of the agreement between parties.”

    Globacell claimed that Airtel granted it the ORSC facility of N1.1million through a September 14, 2006 Offer Letter, and that due to its excellent performance, the facility was increased to N2.3million on February 9, 2007.

    Airtel, therefore, owed it the fiduciary duties of acting in good faith and acting in Globacell’s best interest, ensuring that the facility is not disrupted, stopped or cancelled without just or reasonable cause; that it supplies the claimant the cards it paid for, and that it is given “the mandatory 24 hours notice of the defendant’s intention to cancel the ORSC credit facility.”

    The claimant told the court that it paid N2,434, 705 to place an order for 2,500 units of N1,000 Recharge Cards and 50 units of N3,000 Bumper cards on the basis of the “expanded ORSC arrangement.”

    Globacell said it should have been entitled to a stock of cards worth N2.5million in line with the agreement, but to its disappointment, Airtel said it had overstretched the credit limit, and that the facility had been slashed by 70 per cent.

    The claimant said there was no basis for Airtel’s arbitrary slashing of the facility, as it never overstretched its credit limit, nor did Airtel inform it of such development.

    The claimant further averred that based on Clause 11 of the agreement, Airtel ought to give it a mandatory 24-hour notice before it could cancel the agreement.

    Failure to do so, Globacell said, engendered “serious dislocation of, and disruption to,” its business, “with attendant negative chain reactions associated therewith.”

    However, Airtel denied Globacell’s claims, saying that the “ORSC-backed credit facility or any other credit facility extended to the claimant has been fully utilised by the claimant.”

    The defendant added that the credit facility covered by the Offer Letter of September 14, 2006 had a tenor of 60 days, and had long expired before Globacell allegedly placed the order for the recharge cards.

    Besides, Airtel informed the court that with the entry of a Distribution Agreement of March 1, 2008, the Offer Letter or any other prior agreement no longer had any binding force on the parties, as the facility had expired by effluxion of time and lost its legal force.

    It said it never acted arbitrarily toward Globacell nor acted in breach of the terms of the Offer Letter, and that it was not under obligation to give the claimant any mandatory 24-hours’ notice.

    Airtel said Globacell is not entitled to its claims, and prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety or strike it out with substantial cost.

     

  • Customary Court judges urged to restore hope in judiciary

    Customary Court judges urged to restore hope in judiciary

    The judiciary  is making efforts to find  solutions to  its problems. The Customary Court, as the first point of contact with the law,should restore the hope of the public in the judiciary, writes Adebisi Onanuga.

    Judges of the Customary Courts got a marching order last week. They were to restore the hope of the common man in the judiciary. Various speakers at a one-day workshop in Lagos organised by the Lagos State Judicial Service Commission gave them the order. The theme of the workshop is “Administration of Justice at the Grassroot:Myth or Reality”

    Among those that gave the charge were the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Ade Ipaye, a former chairman of the House Committee on Judiciary, Hon. Abdul-Lateef Hakeem, who gave the keynote address and the Executive Secretary, Lagos State Judicial Service Commission, Mrs. Ayodele Odugbesan.

    Ipaye admonished the  judges to shun any act of corruption that tends to confirm the notion that government officials are corrupt.

    He counseled them to be fair in their dealings, stressing that it is  their responsibility to restore the hope of the society in the judiciary.

    The commissioner reminded them that as customary court judges,  they are part of the government.

    “Customary Courts are part of government machinery. So, whenever you sit, you are a key representative of government. Whatever you do, whatever you said, it would all be said about you.

    “Any act of corruption would confirm the notion that government officials are corrupt. Every act of fair dealings brings hope to the common man in the society.

    “We owe the society the responsibility of restoring hope in the judiciary. So, let us be mindful of what we do because it not only reflects the personality, but the entire institution,” he said.

    The commissioner disclosed that the state Customary Laws are presently undergoing another review to accommodate some aspects of criminal jurisdiction.

    According to him, some aspects of the criminal offences would henceforth, be handled at the local level.

    Ipaye said the state government was very much inclined to accepting suggestions from those advocating that some neighbourhood criminal offences of lesser gravity be handled at the local level and is working seriously on the suggestions.

    “We are bringing this power back. When we do, we rely on you to display appropriate sense of responsibility in dispensing justice,” he said.

    He, however, counselled the judges to apply criminal law only in extreme cases when the criminal jurisdiction  is restored.

    He explained that part of the reasons while the criminal laws were initially expunged from the Customary Laws was to prevent judges at the local level from being influenced and using their position to send people to prison arbitrarily.

    The Chief Judge of the state, Justice Ayotunde Phillips, who was represented by the Deputy Registar of the state High Court, Mrs. A.O. Soladoye urged the judges to maintain a high level of honesty and integrity in the administration of justice at the grassroot.

    “Remember that Lagos State judiciary is the foremost judiciary in the country and we must be seen to be maintaining that lead,” she said.

    The Executive Secretary, Lagos State Judicial Service Commission Mrs. Ayodele Odugbesan said the issue of jurisdiction was of utmost importance to all levels of courts in the state.

    “We are never tired of jurisdiction, this is the main root of the courts, whether it is the Customary Court or the Supreme Court. A court that does anything outside its jurisdiction is only fooling itself. It’s decision can never stand,” she said.

    Mrs. Odugbesan said the state’s judiciary has adopted  Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), which is now gaining ground across the world, as an alternative way of resolving disputes.

    She said the practice has now been fully entrenched in High Court Rules, Magistrate Court Rules and of late, the Customary Court Rules.

    According to her, that is why a high premium was placed on training and re-training of judges particularly, customary court judges.

    She said the commission was committed to the training of customary court judges, hence the annual workshop.

    She explained that the choice of this year’s workshop topic, “Administration of Justice at the Grassroot:Myth or Reality”, was intended to find out whether the judges were practising customary law as it ought to be practised and whether the society can put their hope in the customary court judges to get justice.

    Deputy Director, Lagos Multi-Door Courthouse (LMDC), Mrs. Adeyinka Aroyewun, who delivered a paper on “The Mediation Process” said the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is the best approach to getting dispute resolved within the shortest time possible.

    Listing its advantages, Aroyewun said both the complainant and defendant enjoy a lot of confidentiality and can both make input into what they want and decide settlement terms, which ultimate becomes the judgement.

    She listed the success story of the LMDC to include resolution of a case of disengaged 50 staff of a bank, which had been in court for 12 years and a dispute over a property between two companies which had been in court for over 16 years, which were resolved in one session.

    She also recalled the case of a widow, who was trying to enforce an earlier promised of scholarship for her children made by a corporate body following the death of her husband, which had dragged for years before it was resolved in two sessions.

    Chief Magistrate Eniola Fabamwo in her paper entitled: “Customary Courts in Lagos State: Jurisdictional Issues and The Current Challenges in a Fast Growing Economy” explained why Lagos State does not have Customary Court of Appeal as obtained in other states such as Edo, Delta, Abia, Ebonyi, Imo, Benue, Plateau, Nassarawa, Kaduna and Taraba and the Federal Capital Territory(FCT).

    She explained that the combined effect of Sections 282(1) and (2) and Section 245 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria restricts appeal from Customary Courts to Court of Appeal to only civil matters where it involves questions of customary law.

    “States that have Customary Court of Appeal in operation are caught by this provision and can only allow civil cases based on customary law. In other words, other cases including criminal cases tried by Customary Court of Appeal.”

    She reasoned that it would be wise to continue to keep the present structure in the state whereby appeals from the customary courts go to the Magistrate Courts, the High Courts and the Court of Appeal without any restriction.

    Former Chairman, House Committee on Judiciary in state House Assembly, Hon. Abdul-Lateef Hakeem lamented that the public took to self help and engage in jungle justice because they have lost faith in the system.

    Hon. Hakeem, whose key-note address was on the theme of the workshop, admonished the judges against miscarriage of justice, stressing that they should use their position to influence the society positively.

    Quoting several passage from the Bible, Hon. Hakeem urged them to administer justice fairly, reminding them that they were writing their own history in everything they do.

    Hakeem emphasised that the judges are in good stead to change the society because they occupy a very relevant position in the hierarchy of the judiciary.

    He counseled them to keep abreast of customary laws and new developments stressing, “a good knowledge of customary laws is what is needed to enhance administration of justice”.

    “Demonstrate patience and be open minded at all times and listen to all sides before arriving at decisions,” he counseled.

     

  • Court adjourns case to March 11

    Justice Chukujekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court, Lagos has adjourned to March 11 hearing in a suit between Lagos Deep Offshore Logistics and Samsung/Total over a $3.8billion Egina floating production, storage and off loading (EPSO) oil platform.

    The adjournment followed the opposing lawyers’ argument on the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.

    The Total operated deepwater oil field, Egina, is located in Oil Mining Lease (OML) 130 and the FPSO is a platform that would produce oil from the deepwater asset, which is expected to begin production in 2017.

    According to an industry stakeholder, Mr. Alex Akao, the contract awarded to Samsung Heavy Industry and LADOL by Total for the integration of a Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) platform to be cited at LADOL base in Lagos, assumed litigation following alleged schemes by Samsung to exclude the indigenous firm from the juicy job.

    The development prompted LADOL to seek injunctions against Samsung and Total based on the emerging controversy. Also joined in the suite are Total Upstream Nigeria Limited (Total), Nigerian Content Monitoring Board (NCDMB), and the Minister of Petroleum Resources.

    The case assumed a fresh dimension last week when counsel to the first and second defendants, Wole Olanipekun SAN, and Adewale Atake, in their submissions argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case.

  • Court orders Shell to pay Delta community N305.637m

    AN Asaba High Court has ordered Shell Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC) to pay N305,637,381.60 as special and general damages to no fewer than 400 people in the fishing community of Okia in Burutu Local Government Area of the State.

    Delivering judgement in a suit instituted in 2001 by Pius Gbenevei, Benson Barda, Chief Francis Gold, Chief Ben Ekiokanga and Reuben Braboke on behalf of the communit, Justice Ibrahim Buba said the money was special and general damages for the destruction of the plaintiffs properties and capital value for temporary loss of income in fishing rights.

    The judge also awarded allowance for drinking water for the plaintiffs.

    The plaintiffs prayed the court for N232,837million as capital value for the temporary loss of income from fishing; N9,019,068 for fishing nets, graded; N4,500,000 as allowance for fresh water supply among others.

    The plaintiffs averred that sometimes in August 1998, there was crude oil spillage from the defendant’s Forcados Offshore loading terminal baseline called 48″ Forcados Loading Spill August 20, 1998 in which some barrels of crude oil spilled into the Forcados and Ramos rivers.

    They alleged that the defendant negligently allowed the spill to be dispersed by tide, current and sea waves, thereby spreading to Okia community and resulting in the extensive damage to fishing gears, ponds, farmlands, crops, fishing channels swamps, among others.

    The plaintiffs averred that as a result, “the community resources for livelihood became irredeemable devoid of the wealth of fish and marine snails, crabs, periwinkles and mollusks for fishing as a result of escape of fish from the rivers and creaks and by direct annihilation of the fish and marine snails, crabs among others in the swamps, lakes, ponds and canals.

    They had claimed that the soil could no longer supports the growth of crops and that the forest, production of native salt and wood essential to their wellbeing were adversely affected by the spillage.

    According to the plaintiffs, the property of the inhabitants of the community,s including fishing nets, fishing lines and fishing traps which were set in the canals, rivers, lakes, creaks and ponds were completely destroyed by the spillage from the defendant’s 48″ Forcados Offshore Loading terminal base/line consequent upon which they claimed to have complained to the defendants on August 26, 1998, asking for compensation.

    The plaintiffs claimed to have written a letter to the defendant through their counsel, Ugwuka Nnmadi on September 25, 1998, informing them of the devastating effect of the spillage on their property and requested for compensation.

    They averred that up till the time of the institution of the suit, the defendant allegedly refused to carry out a joint field investigation and assessment of their claims as promised but that instead the defendants continue to carry out normal operations in the area since 1998 till date.

    While waiting for the supply of relief materials, assessment and verification of their claims and payment of compensation by the defendant based on the assurance by the state government, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant instead wrote to the community on November 29, 1999 that its management has approved N400,000 to the fishing community as ex-gratial payment so as to maintain cordial relationship with the host community.

    They averred that it is only when spillage occurred and is investigated by the defendant and found to have occurred as a result of sabotage that the defendant can offer ex-gratial payment purely to maintain cordial relationship with the host community, adding that this was not the case in the said spillage that occurred at 48″ Forcados Offshore Loading terminal base/line.