Tag: Court

Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has fixed June 27 for further hearing in an ongoing contempt suit initiated by the Guaranty Trust Bank Limited against the Directors of Afex Exchange Commodities Limited over alleged N17,808,452,467.107 loan indebtedness.

Justice Aneke fixed the date after hearing the argument and submission of the applicant’s lead Counsel, Mr. Ade Adedeji (SAN) and the respondent’s counsel, Prof. Adewale Olawoyin (SAN) over the Afex Exchange Commodities Directors’ disobedience to the order of court.

The plaintiff, Guaranty Trust Bank Limited, had through his counsel, Chief Ajibola A. Aribisala (SAN), filed a suit marked FHC/L/CS/911/2024 against the respondent, Afex Exchange Commodities Limited, to recover the outstanding indebtedness of Afex in the sum of N17,808,452,467.107.

The contempt proceedings were initiated against the directors of Afex Exchange Commodities Limited based on their disobedience to the order of the court made on 27th May 2024.

The parties cited in the contempt proceedings are Afex Exchange Commodities Limited, and its Directors namely, Ayodeji Olaleye Balogun, Jendayi Fraaser, Justin Lee Topilow, Mobolaji Oluwatomi Adeoye and Koonal Bharat Ghandi.

The court had at the last sitting ordered the contemnors who were not in court to appear in Court yesterday 20th June 2024 following the issuance of Form 49 which was served on them via newspaper publication.

However, at the resumed proceeding yesterday, the plaintiff/applicant’s (GTB) lead counsel, Mr. Ade Adedeji (SAN), told the court that two contempt proceedings are pending before the court.

He said one is ripe for hearing while the other is not.

He said the first one is the contempt proceeding against Afex Commodities Exchange Limited’s five directors which is ripe for hearing.

The second one, which is the contempt proceeding against the directors of 27 commercial banks, is not ripe for hearing, he said.

The 27 banks include Access Bank Plc, Citibank Nigeria Limited, Ecobank Plc, Globus Bank Limited, Jaiz Bank Plc, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, Fidelity Bank Plc, First Bank of Nigeria Plc and First City Monument Bank Plc.

Others are Guaranty Trust Bank Plc, Heritage Bank Limited, Keystone Bank Limited, Lotus Bank Limited, Parallex Bank, Polaris Bank Limited, Premium Trust Bank Limited, Providus Bank Limited, Signature Bank Limited, Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc, Standard Chartered Bank Nigeria Plc, Sterling Bank Plc, Sun Trust Bank Nigeria Limited, TAJ Bank Limited, Titan Trust Bank, United Bank For Africa Plc, Wema Bank Plc and Unity Bank Plc as 1st to 27 respondents respectively.

However, the banks were all represented by their lawyers, while Prof. Olawoyin (SAN) represented Afex Exchange Commodities Limited and its five Directors.

Read Also: Nigeria ready to send astronauts into space, says minister

Mr. Ade Adedeji (SAN) submitted to the court that when a specific order is being made by the court, it must be obeyed.

He argued that none of Afex’s Directors were in defiance of the order of the court.

He said: “My lord, the parties in contempt are not in court.

“The contemnor cannot sit in their comfort home and be sending a lawyer to court in a contempt proceeding.

“The law is trite that they must appear before the court.”

Mr. Ade Adedeji (SAN) buttressed his argument, saying the company directors invocated the contempt proceeding, and further responded to the submission by Olawoyin SAN that the issue of jurisdiction be treated first.

He cited the case of Ebodaghe v. Okoye 2004 18 NWLR Pt 905 page 472.

The plaintiff’s counsel said the Supreme Court decision on the issue is clear, that contempt must be given priority.

He noted that the defence counsel did not apologise to the court for why the contemnors were not present.

“They are trying to avoid coming to court. The integrity of the court matters a lot,” Adedeji said.

But Prof Olawoyin (SAN) in his response said he was briefed on Tuesday about the matter.

He said he was not aware of what transpired earlier in the case that he got to know of some fact upon enquiry.

“When I inquired about the whereabouts of the contemnor, I filed the application before the court. 

“The people listed as directors in the suit are no longer with the company.

“There are only three directors in the company now and one of them is in court, Mr. Akinyinka. And the other one went for Umrah (Hajj) with due respect.

“I will never be part of disrespecting the court. I need to extract facts. I prayed the court to give us an opportunity and grant us adjournment,” Olawoyin said.

He urged the court to give him the opportunity to be heard and deal with the matter appropriately.

Meanwhile, counsel representing Citibank prayed the court to discharge her client (Citibank) but Justice Aneke said she had to come back on the next adjourned date.

Also, Mr. Olajide who represented Sterling Bank – the 21st respondent – filed an application to be joined in the suit.

Olajide said he filed the application to show cause, Mr. Adedeji (SAN) responded that was not ripe for hearing.

Justice Aneke subsequently adjourned further hearing in the suit to June 27, 2024.

At the last adjourned date, Chief A. A. Aribisala (SAN) had told the court that the contempt proceedings are sui generis (of their own kind) and take precedence above any other applications before the court.

He submitted that every person to whom an order of the court is directed has an unqualified obligation to obey the order until it is discharged or set aside on appeal.

Chief Aribisala (SAN) argued that the alleged contemnors were still liable to show cause as to why they should not be punished for contempt.

On May 27, Justice Aneke granted an interim Global Standing Instruction (GSI) injunctive relief, following an application by Chief Aribisala (SAN) on behalf of GTBank.

GSI was created as a last resort for banks and financial institutions to recover outstanding loans from chronic debtors.

The court also granted:

•“Pre-judgment interest on the N15,766,475,417.06 at the prevailing rediscounted rate of 28 per cent yearly, as approved by the CBN from April 18, 2024, when the plaintiff’s letter of demand dated April 17, 2024, was delivered to the defendant until judgment is delivered in this suit.

• “Post-judgment interest on the said sum of N15,766,475,417.06 and cost of recovery and incidental expenses in the sum of N2,041,977,050.047.”

The court further granted a mandatory injunction ordering the defendant/respondents to allow the plaintiff to appoint its appointed agent to take over the commodities/produce stored by the defendant in the 16 warehouses across seven states.

The Appeal Court, Port Harcourt Division in a virtual sitting has reserved judgement in the case between Martins Amaewhule, 24 others and the Victor Oko-Jumbo-led lawmakers in Rivers State.

The court of appeal reconvened on Thursday  via zoom to hear the appeals brought against the judgement of the state High Court by the former Speaker, Amaewhule.

A Rivers State High Court, in Port Harcourt, on May 10 stopped Martin Amaewhule from parading himself as the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly and 24 other lawmakers from sitting as members of the state assembly.

The court gave the order after considering a motion brought before it by Victor Jumbo, and two others, who argued that the seats of Amaewhule and 24 others had been declared vacant.

Justice Charles Wali, while ruling on the motion ex parte, also barred 24 other members of the Assembly from accessing the complex or carrying out any such Legislative assignment in the name of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

Dissatisfied with the verdict of the State High Court, Amaewhule and others approached the appellate court to set aside the motion ex-parte.

Amaewhule and others prayed the court to stay execution of a high court judgement, which sacked them from office.

 They asked the court to set aside whatever decisions Jumbo had taken while in office.

At the hearing, Amaewhule’s legal team while adopting its briefs urged the court to uphold the appeal.

The team argued that the ex-parte motion granted by the High Court should be set aside as the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the matter

Read Also: Kogi guber dispute: SDP, Ajaka ask Appeal Court to sack Ododo

But all the respondents’ lawyers asked the court to dismiss the appeal describing it as incompetent.

After hearing  the submissions of the lawyers in the appeal, the three-man panel led by Justice Jimi Olukayode-Bada reserved judgment.

The appellate court in a ruling on June 14 ordered that all parties in the suit maintained status quo and cease every form of hostilities until the matter is heard and decided.

The appeal court further stopped the State High Court or any other court from entertaining the matter until it was decided. 

The Court of Appeal also heard other appeals relating to the crisis in Rivers and adjourned till Friday, June 21 for further hearing.

The Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, will today hear a suit on the House of Assembly crisis.

The outcome of the case will have a bearing on the status of the sacked council chairmen, whose expired tenure was extended by the Martin Amawule-led House of Assembly before the governor appointed caretaker chairmen to take charge.

The appellate court had ordered parties to maintain the status quo.

The Court of Appeal gave the order in a suit by Martin Amaewhule and 24 others against Victor Oko-Jumbo and five others.

Amaewhule and others seek to vacate an order by the High Court recognising Oko-Jumbo as the Speaker.

Read Also: Sanwo-Olu: we’ll arrest kidnappers of Fouani brothers

Justice Charles Wali had ordered Amaewhule and others to stop parading themselves as Speaker and lawmakers.

The judge held that all the laws made by Amaewhule and others, including those affecting councils, were a nullity until the matter was determined.

Oko-Jumbo and others contend that Amaewhule and others had lost their seats, having defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The Appeal Court adjourned till today and warned parties against taking any step that would affect the merit of the case.

The National Industrial Court has held that the Employee Compensation Act 2010, the extant law dealing with compensation for work-related injury claims, does not exclude the right of action in negligence for industrial injury claims.

The decision was handed down by the Presiding Judge of Owerri Judicial Division, Justice Nelson Ogbuanya while delivering Judgment in the suit filed by Anthony Utibe against his erstwhile employer, Jiuxng Intergrity Industries Ltd, a Chinese Construction Company, over the permanent disability injury he sustained at work.

The claimant, who worked as a mason with the defendant, got injured while washing the cement mixer machine at the instruction of his supervisor.

As the machine was not switched off, the machine held his right hand inside and immediately cut off his two fingers and fractured the third finger, which was later amputated by surgery.

After all medication and surgery, a final medical report confirmed that he had sustained permanent disability on his right hand.

He was laid off by the company, which refused to pay him any compensation, and he sued under the common law principle of negligence.

The defendant had through its counsel contended that other than bearing the medical expenses and costs associated with the treatment, it was no longer liable to pay any amount to the claimant, and if there is any more liability, it should be made under the Employee Compensation Act 2010 (ECA).

Read Also; ISPON drags expelled members to court over impersonation, fraud

The company maintained the position that the claimant’s right of action lies only under the ECA.

It raised the issue of contributory negligence on the basis that the claimant was aware that the machine was not switched off when he put his hand inside to wash it.

After a careful evaluation of evidence and pleadings of the parties, Justice Ogbuanya, in a well-considered judgment, resolved the issue in favour of the claimant.

He held that the legal route for seeking compensation for workplace injury is not only available under the ECA but also by way of general damages in an action founded on the common law principle of negligence, as in the instant suit.

His Lordship said: “A cursory review of the current legal regime for injury claims arising from industrial accident since the enactment of Employees’ Compensation Act (ECA) 2010, has presented two optional but mutually exclusive routes to receiving remedy of compensation for injury sustained at work or workplace– (1) the statutory route through ECA and (2) through the common law principle of negligence.”

He noted that the established ‘principle of election’ set up under the ECA, is to the effect that a victim of workplace injury is enjoined to elect which of the two routes (statutory or common law), to take in search for remedy.

According to the judge, if the statutory route is taken, the National Industrial Court can only be approached on Appeal over the review of the disputed compensation computed and paid by the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF) Board, as the recovery of compensation under the statutory route is payable by the NSITF Board.

If, however, the common law route is elected, the National Industrial Court has original jurisdiction, and compensation can be payable by way of general damages for proven acts of negligence on the part of the defendant’s employer.

On the substantive suit, Justice Ogbuanya, while holding that bearing the cost of medical treatment does not, ipso jure (by the law itself), relieve the defendant employer from making payment for compensation of the victim-employee or even to his/her dependent in case of injury resulting in death, found the defendant liable in negligence for breach of duty of care owed to the claimant.

The judge noted: “Appropriate Health, Safety & Environment (HSE) safety protocols indicating safety measures in place at the construction site were lacking in the defendant’s organisation.

“The defendant failed to lay any evidence in support of its bare averments on the alleged non-adherence to ‘proper safety protocol’ by the claimant.”

On the whole, the court, using an ‘annuity-format’ measure of the quantum of damages awardable, and after considering the issue of unfair labour practice arising from the manner the claimant was laid off after sustaining the permanent injury in the course of duty for the defendant company, awarded compensation to the claimant.

The Institute of Safety Professionals of Nigeria (ISPON) has dragged former members expelled from the institute to court over impersonation and fraud.

The President of ISPON, Engineer Timothy Iwuagwu in a statement in Uyo said that those expelled were engaged in defrauding unsuspecting victims by offering ISPON training courses and issuance of fake certificates.

Iwuagwu explained that their actions violated the ISPON Act 2014, adding that they are currently facing 10 count criminal charges slammed on them by the federal government.

He warned those indulging in the offensive practices, citing section 14 (1); (2)(a) and (b); (3)(a) and (b) of Institute of Safety Professionals of Nigeria Act, 2014 (Act No. 2) Published Extraordinary in the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 62, VOL. 101.

He said: “They are involved in false claims of professional membership of ISPON, promoting quackery, offering ISPON training courses, defrauding unsuspecting victims and issuance of fake certificates bearing the name of ISPON.

Read Also: Court orders substituted service on Justice Taiwo, 2 other members of Benue probe panel

“They have violated the ISPON Act 2024. The offenders are former members, some of who, for fraud and impersonation, are facing 10 Counts of Criminal Charges by Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“Also they have willfully refused to subject themselves to the rule of law after unsuccessfully challenging their expulsion at the Law Court. Of note is that they have continued to disobey the various court orders and judgements”.

He admonished transport operators and commuters on the need to observe and obey road safety and other rules.

Iwuagwu wished all Muslims safety during and after the Eid-El-Kabir festivities while urging Nigerians to change their attitude to safety matters. 

“The Institute of Safety Professionals of Nigeria ISPON assures Nigerians that the preponderance of incidents of accident, injury, illness and death due to increased unsafe acts and unsafe conditions can be reasonably reduced through attitudinal change”, he said.

A Federal High Court in Abuja has discharged two officials of virtual currency trading firm, Binance Holdings Limited – Tigran Gambaryan and Nadeem Anjarwalla – from a tax evasion charge brought against them and the firm by the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS).

While Gambaryan is currently being held in prison in Abuja, Anjarwalla escaped from lawful custody earlier this year.

Binance, Gambaryan and Anjarwalla are also being tried on a separate money laundering charge brought against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Trial has commenced in the case by the by the EFCC, with prosecution calling its first witness.

At the mention of the FIRS case on Friday, Binance’s lawyer,  Tonye Krukrubo (SAN) disclosed that his client has sent the name of one of its representatives in Nigeria to the court and the FIRS.

FIRS’ lawyer, Moses Idehu confirmed the development and sought the court’s permission to substitute the existing charge with an amended one, dated June 13.

Idehu said his client has decided to discontinue its case against the two officials of Binance – Gambaryan and Nadeem, leaving only the firm as the sole defendant.

He then urged the court to direct that the Binance’s new representative be directed to enter the dock and plead to the amended charge on behalf of the firm.

Krukrubo objected and argued among others, that Nigerian law does not mandate a representative of a company that is sued to stand inside a dock and plead on its behalf.

Read Also: Court frees two Binance’s officials from tax evasion case

Krukrubo was of the view that a representative of a company that is sued may not need to attend court and could even write the court in respect of the company’s position in the case.

At that point, he prayed the court to discharge Gambaryan and Nadeem from the FIRS case since a representative has been official sent to the court, a position Idehu agreed with.

Ruling, Justice Emeka Nwite ordered lawyers to both sides to file written addresses, arguing their positions on the issue of whether or not Binance’s representative should be made to mount the dock and plead to the charge on behalf of the firm.

Justice Nwite proceeded to strike out the earlier charge and equally strike out the names of Gambaryan and Nadeem as defendants in the case.

The judge then adjourned till July 12 for arraignment of Binance on the amended charge.

A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered that two officials of the Account and Finance Department at the Rural Electrification Agency (REA) – Umar Musa Karaye and Emmanuel Titus Pada – be remanded in Kuje Prison pending the hearing of their bail application on June 20.

Justice Emeka Nwite ordered their remand following their arraignment on two separate four-count charges in which they were accused of complicity in N1.853 billion fraud in the federal agency.

They were alleged to have misappropriated public funds meant for the provision of electricity to rural communities across the country.

Both accused pleaded not guilty when the charge, filed by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), was read to them.

Justice Nwite had, on June 6, issued a bench warrant for the arrest of Karaye, Pada, and Henrientta Onomen Okojie for their failure to appear in court for arraignment, which was earlier scheduled for that day.

Karaye and Pada attended court yesterday, and they were arraigned.

Their arrest warrants were vacated following an application by the prosecuting lawyer, Osuobeni Akponimisingha.

Karaye is the sole defendant while Pada is the only defendant on the second charge.

Read Also: Tinubu appoints Yakubu as new Budget Office Chief

It was learnt that Okojie, named as the sole defendant in another charge, will be arraigned today.

Following Karaye’s and Pada’s not guilty pleas, Akponimisingha applied for a date for the commencement of trial.

Karaye’s and Pada’s lawyer Idoko Alhassan told the court that he filed bail applications for his clients, which had been served on the prosecution.

But Akponimisingha told the court that he had not received copies of the defendants’ bail applications.

Justice Nwite averred that the prosecution was still within time to respond to the applications.

The judge adjourned till June 20 for the hearing of the bail applications and to July 10 for the commencement of trial.

On June 6, another official of the REA, Usman Ahmed Kwakwa, was arraigned on a four-count charge filed by the ICPC over the alleged fraud in the federal agency.

Kwakwa pleaded not guilty to the charge and Justice Nwite granted him N50 million bail.