The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court

  • Court strikes out suit to reinstate Salami

    Court strikes out suit to reinstate Salami

    The Federal High Court on Monday in Abuja struck out a suit seeking the reinstatement of Justice Ayo Salami as President of the Court of Appeal.

    The Registered Trustees of the Centre for the Promotion of Arbitration led other 10 plaintiffs to institute the case.

    Delivering the judgment, Justice Adamu Bello held that the plaintiffs lacked the `locus standi’ to institute the action.

    Bello further held that “in the circumstance, the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.’’

    “The suit is, therefore, struck out for lacking in merit. Only Justice Ayo Salami can bring the action challenging his suspension as President of the Court of Appeal.

    “This is not a violation of public interest issue but rather a private rights issue that can only be challenged by the person directly affected,’’ he said.

    The plaintiffs are: Jitobo Akande, Idris Musa, Allens Agbaka, Ibrahim Bawa, Princewell Akpakpan, Obruche Ayeteni, Nosa Ihaza, Timothy Odumosu, Stewart Salomi, Egogo Lawrence and Maxwell Adeniran.

    The News Agency of Nigeria reports that President Goodluck Jonathan, the National Judicial Council (NJC), Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of the Federation were the defendants.

    Salami was joined in the suit as a nominal defendant.

    The plaintiffs prayed the court to hold that the NJC, by virtue of the 1999 Constitution, ceded exclusive power to the Council to sanction judicial officers.

    The suit sought to compel the NJC to reinstate Salami as PCA.

    Salami was suspended on August 18, 2011 when the NJC claimed it found him guilty of “gross judicial misconduct’’.

    The plaintiff further sought a declaration that the NJC breached the provision of the Constitution by submitting its resolution on Salami to the President for approval.

    They sought an order directing NJC to implement the recommendation of its three-man panel urging the recall of Salami as President of the Court of Appeal among others.

    Speaking to journalists after the session, Akanike, the counsel to the plaintiffs, said the court `used narrow arguments’ on locus to deliver the judgment.

    He said that “my principal will brief me on the next action to take.’’

    Mr. Matthew Echo, the counsel to Salami, said he was delighted by the decision of the court, because “it judgment was given with great industry.’’

     

  • Impeachment: Imo Deputy Gov heads for court

    Impeachment: Imo Deputy Gov heads for court

    • Chief Judge raises probe panel

    Laced with impeachment threats, the Deputy Governor of Imo State, Sir Jude Agbaso has asked the High Court of Imo State and a Federal High Court in Owerri to stop moves to remove him by the state House of Assembly

    He asked the court to restrain the state Chief Judge, Justice A B Njemanze and the impeachment panel from taking further step with his removal from office, pending the determination of the suit.

    The deputy governor specifically urged the court to “stop the Imo CJ from acting on a request from the speaker of the state Assembly, Benjamin Anyanwu, to appoint a six- man panel to further proceed against his removal over unfounded allegation, conclusion or recommendation of the panel pending the determination of the suit.”

    The defendants in the suit are the six – man panel (Simeon Iwunze, Ikenna Emeh, Greg Okemili, Innocent Ekeh, Kingsley Dimaku and Samuel Anyanwu) the Speaker (Uwajumogu), state Assembly, Imo CJ, and the commissioner of police, Imo State Command.

    In a fundamental human rights enforcement suit filed at the state High Court, dated March 14, 2013, Agbaso averred that the constitution of the panel did not follow due process.

    He said if the impeachment panel is allowed to go ahead, it would “present a fait accompli on the court and render its decision nugatory.”

    The deputy governor pleaded with the court to “take judicial notice of the fact that the Imo CJ is aware of the pending suit.

    He said the CJ had assigned the suit to Justice F I Duruoha Igwe and directed that the matter be entertained on Monday, March 18, 2013.

    Some of the grounds for the reliefs being sought by Agbaso: include.

    The applicant is apprehensive that the defendants will go ahead with further breach of his right to fair hearing by proceeding on the contents of the challenged document against him before the substantive suit is determined, which will work exceptional hardship on the applicant.

    Unless the restraining court orders are made, the defendants will do everything any moment from now to present the court with a fait accompli and render the decision on the application nugatory.

    Given the nature of their statuses and offices personal service of the order and originating process cannot be conveniently effected on them.

    He said: “The posers then are:

    * If the CJ knew there was a case where himself was a defendant and there is a prayer for him to be restrained from as the CJ of the state from acting on a request by the speaker of the Imo State House to appoint a panel of 7 persons to further proceed against the applicant (Jude Agbaso) in any manner howsoever in connection with his removal from office as the deputy governor of Imo State;

    * Whether on an allegation, conclusion, finding or recommendation on any issue is, connected with or relating to the report of the special ad hoc committee constituted by the House of Assembly, why did he go ahead with the constitution of the panel knowing full well that section allows him 188(5) of 1999 Constitution, a period of seven days between the passing of the motion by the House and the appointment of seven persons by the CJ?

    * In view of the fact that the speaker and clerk of the House have received copies of the processes filed in court on Thursday 14th of March, and thereby being aware that there was a pending suit, could they legitimately in a country governed by rule of law do anything to overreach the pending suit. The Speaker is a trained lawyer and he ought to aware of the legal position.

    The applicant pleaded with the court to grant an “order of interim injunction, restraining the commissioner of police and his agents from harassing and intimidating him or invading his residence or office pending the exhaustion of all legal options available to him under the 1999 Constitution (as amended) against the defendants.”

    Agbaso is also seeking an order for substituted service of the court processes on the defendants through their agents or through advertisement in two newspapers including DAILY SUN newspaper.

    The impeachment threats against Imo State deputy governor, Sir Jude Agbaso, took a new turn at the weekend, as the state chief judge, Justice Benjamin Ahanonu Njemanze, constitutes a seven-member investigative panel to probe the allegations of misconduct attached to the Notice of Impeachment served on Agbaso by the Imo State House of Assembly.

    In a statement announcing the constitution of the panel, which was released yesterday, Justice Njemanze said his action was in “pursuant to Section 188 (5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), and other laws enabling me in that behalf.”

    He also said it was at the request of the speaker of Imo State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Ben Uwajumogu, contained in a letter with reference number IHA/SP.5H3A/23/15 of 13th March, 2013.

    According to the chief judge, the panel would investigate the allegations as contained in the articles of misconduct attached to the Notice of Impeachment annexed to a letter from the Speaker.

    The five allegations leveled against Agbaso include: * that with intent to deceive the committee and mislead the House, Agbaso denied, before the committee, that he ever had any dealings or telephone conversations with Mr. Joseph Dina of JPROS International Nigeria Ltd, in February – June 2012, “which facts were false and intended to cover your private/underground dealings with Mr. Joseph Dina;” * that “with intent to enrich yourself, you did cause Mr. Joseph Dina of JPROS International Nig. Ltd, to transfer the sum of four hundred and fifty eight million naira only (458,000,000,00) in two installments to two different bank accounts on your instruction and directive on the promise of award of 2 numbers of 15 kilometer of roads.”

     

    He was also accused of receiving a special drink “Blue label (Porsche Design) from the same company among other accusations of causing the state to lose funds.

    Members of the investigative panel include, Hon. Justice G. C. Ihekire, chairman, Vin Onyeka, Egonu Mere, Humphrey Ajaelu, Mrs. Cecelia Chinyere Oladimeji, James Gozie Nze, and Okparaku Nwarie as members.

     

  • Court jails two illegal lottery operators

    THE Lagos State Special Offences Court has sentenced Messrs Biodun Adegbola and Ahmed Toro to two years imprisonment with an option of N500, 000.00 fine.

    The convicts were arrested in February 2013 at Isokoko, Agege for conducting illegal lottery using coupon in Lagos State.

    The General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the Lagos State Lotteries Board, Mr. Lanre Gbajabiamila, reiterated that the board will not relent in its effort in ridding the state of illegal lottery activities.

    He added that approved and authorised public online lottery operators in Lagos State include Premier Lotto Limited, Winners Golden Chance Venture and Winlot Global Resources Limited.

    He said patronising operators other than those registered and approved by the State Government is a punishable offence under the Lagos State Lottery Law.

    Gbajabiamila identified lottery as a lucrative venture for potential investors and advised all illegal and unlicensed operators to regularise their operation with the board on or before Friday, 15 March or risk prosecution.

     

  • Court orders Army Chief to confirm sentence

    Justice Uche Agomoh of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, yesterday ordered the Chief of Army Staff to confirm the sentence of Adeosun Kazeem or release him from custody before April 29.

    Justice Agomoh made the order sequel to a charge by Kazeem against the Army for sentencing him to 15 years imprisonment without confirmation.

    Kazeem, a soldier attached to 82 Division, Bori Camp, Port Harcourt was reportedly found guilty of manslaughter after an orderly room trial and was sentenced three years ago.

    The confirmation of his prison terms is yet to be released, despite his continuous incarceration in military custody.

    In his affidavit presented in the court, through his lawyer, Ikenna Oba, Kazeem said the failure to confirm his sentence has infringed on his right to appeal the orderly room judgment.

    He also noted that his continuous stay in the military custody for three years without his jail confirmation negates the provision of Section 148 (1) of the Armed Forces Act, which provides that “if an accused stays in custody for 60 days without confirmation, he should be released unconditionally pending whenever they are ready to renew.

    “My client has been sentenced in the past three years without confirmation of his sentence, if he continues to remain in custody without confirmation his fundamental right has been infringed upon.”

    However the defence counsel, Patrick Agada, objected, saying that his confirmation would soon be released.

    He argued that the accused has already been sentenced for 15 years out of which he has served three years, adding that he has not served longer than he was sentenced.”

    The judge adjourned the case till April 29 for ruling but said: “I wish to hear that the applicant has either been released or confirmed in the next adjourned date.”

     

  • ‘Court rulings ‘ll empower NAICOM to implement premium payment’

    The National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) has said it will take advantage of court’s rulings to implement the new premium regime.

    In a circular entitled: Settle court case on partial/instalment/non-payment of insurance premium, signed by its management, the commission noted that the settled Appeal Court cases on insurance premium are clear indications that anything short of full payment at the commencement of an insurance contract renders such transaction null and void.

    It said the Provision of Section 50 (1) of the Insurance Act 2003 which states: “The receipt of insurance premium shall be a condition precedent to a valid contract of insurance and there shall be no cover in respect of an insurance risk, unless the premium is paid in advance”, is indeed in the interest of the insured going by decided cases on the issue by competent court of law.

    The Commission quoted case one as Court of Appeal in Ajaokuta Steel Co. Limited V. Corp. Insurance Limited where it was decided that the fundamental purpose of an insurance contract is to give cover for an insurance risk. Thus, a law, such as Insurance Act, which says that there is no insurance cover unless premium was pre-paid, is, in fact, saying that the contract is void if no premium was paid.

    The Commission said: “By virtue of Section 50(1) of the Insurance Act, No 2 of 1997 (as amended), the receipt of insurance premium is a condition precedent to a valid contract of insurance and there can be cover in respect of an insurance risk unless premium was paid in advance.”

    The second quoted case by the Commission in the circular was the case involving Leadway Assurance Company Limited Limited V. J.U.C. Limited (2005) 5NWLR 539 at 543: “By virtue of Section 50(1) of Insurance Act, 1997, the receipt of an insurance premium is a condition precedent to a valid contract of insurance, and there is no cover in respect of an insurance risk unless premium is paid. In other words, a valid insurance contract is made when premium for the insurance is paid.

    “Case 3, in IGI Company Limited V. Adogu (2010) INWLR pt 337 at 357 the Court held that the premium paid must be full and stated that: Section 50 of Insurance Act 2003 does not contemplate installment payment of premium in an insurance contract.”

     

     

     

  • Court sacks Delta lawmaker

    A Federal High Court in Asaba, Delta State, on Friday sacked the member representing Ukwuani constituency in the state House of Assembly, Mr. Alphonsus Ojo, for decamping.

    Ojo was elected to represent his constituency at the April 26, 2011 election on the platform of the Democratic Peoples’ Party (DPP) but decamped to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) last year.

    Ojo in his Notice of Summons argued that the DPP was in crisis necessitating his decision to resign his membership of the party.

    But the DPP and Mr. Chukwuma Dafikpaku dragged the lawmaker before the court, claiming that his action violated the provisions of Section 109 (1) g and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and prayed the court to declare the seat vacant.

    In suit number FHC/ASB/CS/129/12, the Delta State House of Assembly, the Speaker of the House and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) were joined as defendants.

    Justice C.M.A. Olatoregun-Isiola granted the prayers of the plaintiffs and averred that the second defendant (Speaker of the House) was “under mandatory responsibility to declare the seat of the 3rd defendant (Ojo) vancant.”

    The court also directed the 4th defendant (INEC) to immediately commence the process of conducting fresh election into the Ukwuani constituency seat at the Assembly.

     

  • Court grants bail to 15 Russians

    Court grants bail to 15 Russians

    •Directs Ambassador to ensure their availability for trial

    Reprieve yesterday came the way of 15 Russians charged with unlawful importation of arms and ammunition. A Federal High Court in Lagos has granted them bail.

    They are to be released to the Russian Ambassador in Nigeria, who is to produce them for trial.

    Their ship – MV Myre Seadiver is equally to be released following the defence’s provision of $500,000 bond to be obtained from First Bank Plc.

    Justice Okechukwu Okeke set these conditions in a ruling filed by the defence.

    The conditions were suggested by prosecution lawyer Ernest Ezebilo.

    The 15 accused were arraigned on February 19 on a four-count charge, to which they pleaded not guilty.

    They were arrested aboard a cargo ship – MV Myre Seadiver-containing the alleged unlawful shipment, within the nation’s territorial waters in Lagos on October 18 last year by men of the Nigerian Navy.

    The accused include Zhelyazkov Andrey (the captain of the ship) (53), Savchenko Sergrey (36), Chichikanov Vasily (49), Varlygin Igor (48), Komilov Alexandr (32), Lopatin Alexey (38), Baranovskly Nikolay (50).

    Others are Mishin Pavel (31), LLia Shubov (33), Dmitry Bannyrn (40), Alexander Tsarikov (44), Kononov Sergel (44), Korotchenko Andrey (23), Vorobev Mikhail (40) and Stepan Oleksuik (52).

    Yesterday, defence lawyer, Chukwuwike Okafor had, while arguing his clients’ bail application, urged the court to make an order granting bail to all the accused and their vessel.

    He noted that since the essence of bail was to ensure accused attend trial, his clients should be allowed on bail.

    Okafor told the court that his clients would be available for trial, if granted bail.

    At that point, Justice Okeke asked the prosecution lawyer to state the conditions under which the accused could be admitted into bail.

    Replying, Ezebilo said, for the sake of overriding public interest, the accused could be released on bail to the Russian Ambassador in Nigeria, who must produce them as the need arises.

    He said the vessel could also be released should the defence provide $500,000 bond.

    Justice Okeke adopted the conditions.

    The judge held that the accused should be released on bail to the Russian Ambassador in Nigeria, who will produce them from time to time.

    Justice Okeke suggested three banks, any of which the bond could be obtained.

    They are First bank, Zenith and Guarantee Trust bank.

    The Russian consul officer, Radomir Ganich chose First Bank, following which the judge ordered that the bond be obtained from First Bank.

    He adjourned to April 10 for trial.

     

    The accused are charged with importation, without lawful authority, of “a cache of firearms and ammunitions prohibited from importation under Section 18 of the Firearms Act Cap F28 Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2004”.

    The accused persons were said to have been in possession of firearms prohibited under Part 1 of the Schedule to the Firearms Act Cap F28 LFN 2004, without a license.

    The ship and its captain are also accused of unlawfully entering the country through its territorial waters “without due clearance and declaration of the goods carried therein on board the ship”.

     

     

  • Ex-bank workers in court

    The National Industrial Court (NIC) has fixed May 6 for the hearing of the suit filed against Zenith Bank by some of its sacked workers.

    Justice Kola Olalere adjourned the case till that date to enable the defence counsel, Obafemi Oluwole, to make some corrections in the statement of defence.

    The judge reprimanded Oluwole for making the request when it took the defendant six months to file its defence. She awarded N15,000 cost against the defendant.

    She urged the defence counsel that all corrections are made and positions regularised by February 28 in preparation for the definite hearing of the case.

    Twenty-four former workers of the bank went to court to challenge the mode of their disengagement and the basis of the entitlements paid them. They are asking the court to compel the bank to pay them N550 million which they claim it owes them.

    The plaintiffs averred that they were notified of their disengagement via e-mail and SMS messages between April 24 and 25, last year. The defendant later gave the claimants their letters of disengagement which were back dated to March 24, last year.

    This, they said, negated their conditions of service as stipulated in the defendant’s staff handbook.

    They said: “It is a claimant’s condition of service while in the defendant’s employment and the policy of the defendant that three months’ notice should be given before the termination of employment of an employee by the bank or the employee should be paid three month’s salary in lieu of the notice. Prior to their said disengagement, the claimants were not given any notice of disengagement nor were they paid salary in lieu of notice as required by their conditions of service and policy of the defendant.”

    They claimed the bank failed to consult with them or with any trade union before terminating their employment and did not apply the principle “of last in, first out” as required by their conditions of service.

    The plaintiffs said the defendant arbitrarily computed what it paid them by using an erroneous template fraught with inconsistencies contrary to what is specified in the bank’s staff handbook.

    They urged the court to order the bank to pay them their “full entitlements” because what was paid to them after their disengagement fell short of their actual benefits as stipulated in the staff handbook.

  • Maina: Court extends time for Senate, others on affidavits

    Maina: Court extends time for Senate, others on affidavits

    The Federal High Court on Monday in Abuja granted the Senate an extension of time to file a counter affidavit on a motion, challenging its resolution for warrant issued on Abdulrasheed Maina.

    The News Agency of Nigeria reports that Maina, Chairman of the Pension Reform Task Force Team, had dragged the Senate and seven other defendants to court in respect of the warrant for his arrest.

    The other defendants are the Senate President, Clerk of the Senate, Senate Committees on Establishment & Public Service and the State and Local Government Administration.

    Also dragged to court are the Inspector General of Police, Sen. Aloysius Etuk, Chairman, Senate Committee on Establishment and Public Service as well as Sen. Kabiru Gaya, Chairman, Senate Committee on State and Local Government Administration.

    At the resumed sitting on Monday, Justice Adamu Bello held that “since the respondents had yet to file their counter affidavits, arguments on the application cannot go on.”

    “In the circumstance, the respondents are given three days within which to file their counter affidavits and the applicant has three days to reply,’’ he said.

    In a related development, Mr. Magaji Mahmud (SAN), counsel to Maina filed an oral application praying for an order for the maintenance of “statuesque’’ by all the parties.

    He submitted that such an order was necessary to stop the threat coming on his client from the respondents.

    The application was however, opposed by the counsel to the Senate, Mr. Ken Ikonne (SAN), as according to him, similar relief was dismissed by the court on February 15.

     

  • Kudirat: Court to hear Al-Mustapha’s appeal April 29

    Kudirat: Court to hear Al-Mustapha’s appeal April 29

    The Court of Appeal, Lagos will on April 29, hear an appeal filed by former Chief Security Officer to the late Gen. Sani Abacha, Major Hamza Al-Mustapha, over his conviction and death sentence.

    He and Lateef Shofolahan, a former personal assistant to the late Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, are challenging the sentence handed them by a Lagos High Court on January 30 last year.

    They were said to have killed the late Kudirat Abiola, wife of the late politician and business mogul, Moshood Abiola.

    The court, presided over by Justice Chima Nweze, fixed the date after the counsel representing both convicts applied for leave to regularise their briefs of argument.

    Al-Mustapha’s lawyer, former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President, Joseph Daudu (SAN), applied for leave to file their appellants brief of arguments and to serve the respondents.

    Shofolahan’s lawyer, Mr Olalekan Ojo, also moved a similar application for his client, aligning himself with Daudu.

    The respondent, Lagos State, represented by the Solicitor-General, Mr Lawal Pedro (SAN), did not oppose the applications.

    Justice Nweze granted the applications and adjourned.

    The convicts were arraigned on a four-count charge of conspiracy and murder of Alhaja Abiola on June 4, 1996 along the Lagos/Ibadan Expressway.

    The trial judge, Justice Mojisola Dada, had found them guilty of the offence and sentenced them to death by hanging.

    The two appealed, challenging the death sentence.

    In the notice of appeal filed by Ojo, the appellants are contending that the death sentence handed by the lower court was unwarranted, unreasonable and a manifest miscarriage of justice.

    According to them, the trial judge erred in law by arriving at the conclusion that they conspired to kill Alhaja Kudirat on June 4, 1996.

    They are urging the court to set aside the judgment and discharge them of the charges of conspiracy and murder.

    Al-Mustapha’s appeal was premised on four grounds, while that of Shofolahan was hinged on five grounds.

    They faulted the judge’s treatment of the contradictory statements of Barnabas Jabila a.k.a. Sgt. Rogers and Mohmamed Abdul, as well as the reliance on the testimony of Dr. Ore Falomo on the bullet extracted from the body of the late Kudirat.

    The appellants also faulted the rejection of portions of Jabila’s testimony which they felt favoured them, while applying only claims that did not favour them.