The Nation Newspaper

Tag: dismisses

  • Court dismisses Adebutu’s suit against Kashamu

    A Federal Capital Territory High Court yesterday dismissed a suit by a member of the House of Representatives, Oladipupo Adebutu, against the emergence of Senator Buruji Kashamu as the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Ogun State for the March 2 governorship election.

    In a judgment, Justice Ajoke Adepoju held that Adebutu, who was nominated by the National Working Committee (NWC) of PDP for the governorship election, could not maintain his suit against the defendants because the primary election that produced him (Adebutu) was conducted in violation of a subsisting court judgment.

    Adebutu had, by the suit marked: FCT/FT/CV/29/2018, challenged the refusal of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to accept his candidacy.

    Justice Adepoju was of the view that the PDP NWC acted in bad faith by disregarding a subsisting judgment of a Federal High Court to produce the candidate.

    Justice Adepoju said since PDP was a party in the judgment given by Justice Ibrahim Buba (of the Federal High Court), the judgment of the court was binding on it and must be obeyed and respected so as to protect the sanctity of court in the interest of the rule of law.

    The judge noted that it was the party’s (PDP’s) NWC that has the power to conduct governorship primary election, but said the NWC, in exercising such power, must not act in violation of any court judgment.

    Justice Adepoju said the PDP NWC cannot hold valid primary election without a recourse to the Ogun State chapter of the party or outright approval of the party until the judgment against it by Justice Buba has been set aside by a higher court.

    The judge held that Adebutu’s suit cannot be maintained to declare him a governorship candidate because the PDP NWC, which conducted the primary election that produced him, acted in violation of a judgment of a Federal High Court delivered by Justice  Buba.

    Justice Adepoju said she arrived at the conclusion because of the need to ensure the protection of the sanctity of the court and its judgments by parties or individuals.

    She noted that the PDP did not do well by disobeying the judgment of Justice Buba with the way it conducted its primary election in Ogun State last year.

  • Court dismisses suit seeking N1b settlement over Odu’a subsidiary

    A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has dismissed a case instituted by Holidays & Tours Limited against Odu’a Investment Company Limited for lack of merit.

    In the judgment delivered by Justice I. N. Buba, the court affirmed that there was no valid and subsisting contract between Odu’a Investment Company Limited and Holidays and Tours Limited, as claimed by the latter.

    Holiday and Tours had alleged that there was a subsisting contract between it and Odu’a Investment, whereby Lagos Airport Hotel, a subsidiary of the Odu’a Group, was leased to it on “Lease, Redevelop, Operate and Transfer” basis.

    Holiday and Tours placed a Caveat Emptor (buyers beware) in a daily on April 21, last year, warning potential investors to disregard the expression of interest advert placed by KPMG on behalf of Odu’a Investment to reposition the hotel.

    The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that there was a contract between it and Odu’a and, therefore, was not entitled to any relief for an award of damages or injunction.

    Dismissing the suit for lack of merit, the trial judge described Holidays and Tours as “a busy body, gold-digging and dishonest suitor trying to reap where it never sowed”.

    He added: “The relief being sought by the plaintiff is the most egregious relief. The plaintiff was a small outfit which, before its bid in the Lease, Redevelop, Operate and Transfer scheme, never operated a major hotel in Nigeria but now sought this gold-digging prayer to be granted N1 billion gratuitously.

    “The plaintiff is, in the mildest, being clever by half and in the strongest of terms plain dishonest.”

    Justice Buba held that the plaintiff’s suit was a fund-raising project while other reliefs were thrown in as red herrings to give its impression that the plaintiff wanted to perform the contract.

    The judge dismissed the suit as unmeritorious.

    The court verdict means stakeholders and potential investors no longer have any encumbrance or pending litigation to debar them from bidding for Lagos Airport Hotel.

  • Court dismisses firm’s objection to dockworkers’ suit

    The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) has dismissed a preliminary objection filed by ENL Consortium Limited challenging a suit filed by its over 600 former employees.

    The court held that it has jurisdiction on the case.

    The dockworkers, through their lawyer Mr Toluwani Adebiyi, are pressing for the implementation of a collective bargaining agreement between the parties.

    They are seeking a declaration that the defendant’s non-compliance with the collective agreement signed on May 8, 2008 amounted to a breach of the terms.

    They want an order directing the defendant to pay each worker N5,805,384.96 as the total sum of unpaid minimum wages from 2008 till March 2016 when they were disengaged.

    The claimants prayed for an order mandating the defendant to pay them their pension contributions from April 2006 to May 2011, as well as their yearly leave allowance for  10 years.

    They asked for cost of action and damages as “may seem appropriate to the court”.

    The claimants said they and other 641 dockworkers were permanent employees of ENL Consortium for 10 years from 2006 to 2016.

    They claimed to have been frustrated into resigning their appointment “by the unrepentant inordinate breach of the collective agreement made by parties.”

    “In the 10 years of service, the claimants were made to operate under a dehumanised and slavery condition of work after which they were paid N350,000 each as redundancy benefit,” the claimants said.

    According to them, it was agreed that each dockworker would be paid a minimum monthly wage of N33,000, which the defendant allegedly breached.

    They said just before their disengagement, ENL Consortium “mischievously” engaged recruiting agencies to serve them backdated employment letters as if they were employed by the middlemen rather than the defendant.

    Five contractors – Daisy Chain Ltd, Bisbiak Enterprises Ltd, Tobef Continental Services Ltd, Quayside Maritime Services Ltd, and Bluech Lomado Shipping & Logistics Ltd – were said to have re-issued employment letters to all the dockworkers dated April 2016, to retroactively take effect from April 2006.

    The claimants said the defendant allegedly did so with the aim of evading liability.

    “The non-payment of the minimum wage of N33,000 monthly for 10 years, annual leave allowance, non-remittance of pension contribution, and non-issuance of tax certificate as evidence of tax deduction for 10 years are all in breach of the said agreement,” Adebiyi said.

    He urged the court to compel the defendant to honour the agreement reached with his clients.

    But, ENL Consortium, a port terminal operator, had urged the court to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction, an objection the court dismissed.

    A group, the Campaign for Democratic and Workers Right (CDWR), hailed the ruling and urged the firm to honour the agreement.

    In a statement by its Publicity Secretary Chinedu Bosah, the group said several of the former employees who suffered severe injuries in their course of their work were yet to be compensated by ENL Consortium.

    “CDWR calls on ENL to immediately pay their 10 years of unpaid time-related wages and other worthy entitlements, including adequately compensating injured workers.

    “The ENL management should seize this opportunity to go into negotiation with the workers for a quick settlement of the matter,” the group added.

  • Court dismisses suit challenging Oluwa of Lagos’ installation

    Justice Babajude Candide Johnson of an Ikeja High Court has dismissed a N5 million suit challenging the installation of the Oluwa of Lagos, Chief Mukaila Kolawole Oluwa.

    The court said the suit was “an abuse of court process that call for dismissal”.

    Three contestants to the Oluwa stool were Prince Ismail Abayomi Oluwa, Prince Samsideen Akibo Oluwa and Prince Tajudeen Ototo Oluwa.

    Aside from Chief Oluwa, the other defendant in the suit is the  Attorney-General of Lagos State who were sued as co-defendants.

    The decision of the court has paved the way for continuation of processes leading to the  upgrade of the stool of Oluwa to Obaship, which had been stalled by litigation.

    Justice Candide-Johnson frowned at the attempt by counsel to the claimants to usurp the function of the court by relying on “Bryne Garners deep issue format” rather than conjuring jurisprudential questions for the court to deliberate and determine, make neutral finding and arrive at independent judicial conclusions.

    The judge described the suit as an abuse of court process, noting that there had been a plethora of previous litigations spanning decades which had been resolved.

    “The claimants clearly ‘re-litigated what is res judicata and/or cause of action estoppels”, he held.

    He noted that the ruling houses in the Oluwa Chieftaincy family are five and not four as claimed by the claimants and that the issue had been settled in various judgments delivered by Justice Olusola Thomas, in suit No. LD/826/70, Justice L. G. A. Marsh in LD/4420/94, and Justice Olufun-milayo Atilade  in suit LD/353/2000.

    “Those judgments as far back as 1970, about 47 years ago, have unequivocally held that there are actually five not four branches of the Oluwa Chieftaincy family which are (1) Asalu, Odofin, Idewu,  Faro and Amore” as against the houses pleaded by the claimants: Idewu, Adogia, Amore, Faro and Asalu.

    Justice Candide-Johnson further observed that the claimants legal strategy in this new suit is to say that there are five branches but noted that there are good reasons to exclude a particular branch from an entitlement to fill a vacancy in the Oluwa Chieftaincy Family.

    “This arguably is why there are issues revolving around the allegation that this present first defendant, Chief Mukaila Kolawole Oluwa, is from Abatan Compound inhabited by shrines and settled Arotas (slaves) and that there is a distinction between Odofin and Odofin Oyejo.

    “When I read the judgments in ID/826/70 and LD/4420/94, it is obvious that it is now too late and an abuse of court process for other branches of Oluwa Chieftaincy Family to continually explore avenues to re-litigate issues that have been effectually resolved with finality in the high court of Lagos State”.

    According to the judge, if the claimants believed they had a genuine argument that the reigning Oluwa came from Odofin Oyejo, which is non-existent, and not Odofin branch of the Oluwa Chieftaincy, they should have gone to the extent of carrying out DNA blood test to determine the paternity of the defendant, Chief Mukaila Kolawole Oluwa, that he is rather of Arota (slaves) stock from Abatan Compound.

    “I note with all seriousness that there is no DNA blood test produced nor initiated by order of court which this court would have been disposed to grant, if claimants had applied. In this technological 21st Century there are very precise scientific ways to determine paternity and genealogy especially with the Forensic Labs now available in Lagos State and around the world”, he said.

    According to the judge, the claimants’arguments that the Oluwa of Lagos came from Abatan Compound which was being used to roast oysters and are domestic staff and for worship of shrines are not tenable.

    “I hold that I cannot find justification to uphold the claimants’ suggestion that all and every person connected to Abatan Compound inclusive those connected with the area involved in roasting oysters and the area for the worship of shrines were all domestics or Arotas.

    “It would be wild and indefensible for a court without any other corroborative or definitive nexus to say regarding a land where in different sections, different activities were ongoing, that Oluwa Chieftaincy Family members would not be also present there, even in a supervisory capacity,” the judge held.

    “On the whole, I am satisfied that on the competing evidence, there is no merit to the legal strategy of the claimants to disinherit the first defendant, Chief Mukaila Kolawole Oluwa, as a legitimate member of Oluwa Chieftaincy Family from the Odofin branch of the Family”, the judge said.

    “This suit is an abuse of court process that calls for its dismissal, … the claimants case therefore, fails and the suit is dismissed forthwith”, Justice Candide-Johnson held.

  • Court dismisses lawyer’s N200m suit against Lekki residents

    A Lagos State High Court has dismissed a suit by a lawyer Mr Fredrick Chinedu Anaje, who claimed that he was denied access to a road on the Island.

    Justice Wasiu Animahun dismissed the suit on the ground that the applicant’s rights were not violated.

    Anaje sued residents of Peninsula Garden Estate in Lekki, Eti Osa Local Government Area, alleging that they erected a wall barricade on Ogombo Road without approval from the state government.

    He sought a declaration that preventing him from using the road by erecting the wall was unconstitutional and amounted to a violation of his right to freedom of movement guaranteed by Section 41 (1) of the 1999 Constitution.

    The applicant prayed the court to declare that the respondents’ act of “forcefully and maliciously” subjecting him to use an unsafe, bushy and impassable road was unlawful and amounted to “degrading and inhuman treatment”.

    He asked for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents or their agents from taking any step that would infringe on his rights to movement and personal dignity.

    Anaje sought N200million in general damages against the respondents for violating his rights, as well costs of the action “on a full indemnity basis”.

    Mr Sulyman Bello, Olu Adewusi, Dr Maureen Igwe, Nicholas Adesina, Abiodun Ekeade, Funmilayo Ekeade and Femab Properties Ltd are the respondents.

    Anaje said he lives on a street in Ogombo town and that he uses the Ogombo Road, which he said was for the public, to access the Lekki-Epe Expressway.

    According to him, despite being issued with contravention notices by the state, the respondents restricted the residents’ access to the road by building the wall, thereby forcing them to use an unsafe, bushy and impassable road.

    But, the respondents, in a counter affidavit sworn to by Adesina, said Femab Properties bought the large expanse of land on which the estate and the road in dispute are.

    He said the government later confirmed that the two roads leading to the estate were private, and that it advised other residents in the neighborhood to take steps to make other access roads motorable.

    The respondents, through their lawyer Adebayo Adesola, argued that although contravention notices were issued, the wall was not demolished, which supports their claim that the government admitted that the wall was on a private road.

    Justice Animahun noted that Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution provides that every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person and shall not be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.

    To the judge, Anaje’s case is that the road’s blockage indirectly made him to commute through a road that was not motorable, which the lawyer felt constituted inhuman and degrading treatment.

    “What the case reveals is that the applicant would not have complained of infringement of Section 34 of the Constitution if the other access road is motorable. It follows that infringement of the applicant’s right arose from the deplorable state of the road.

    “It is my view that this head of claim is only maintainable against whoever made the road to be in deplorable condition,” the judge held.

    The judge, after discussing what fundamental human rights entail, said he could not hold that a citizen has a fundamental right to use good roads.

    “The conditions of roads vary. In some areas good roads are a necessity. In some, they are a luxury. In some other locations, motorable roads are not required. An example is the riverine areas.

    “In other words, the right to a good road may be recognised in law but it is certainly not an inalienable right. It does not qualify for litigation under Chapter IV of the Constitution.

    “It is a luxury in the class of economic, social and educational rights guaranteed in Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Constitution and yet rendered unenforceable.

    “I, therefore, hold that the claims anchored on Section 34 of the Constitution are not well founded and, therefore, fail,” Justice Animahun held.

    The judge also dismissed Anaje’s claim that his right to freedom of movement under Section 41 of the Constitution was violated.

    “This appears easy. Once there is no confinement and there is an alternative route, there cannot be an infringement of freedom of movement,” he said.

    Citing the case of Adeyemo vs Akintola (2004) 12 NWLR (PT 887) 390, Justice Animahun added: “The above implies that restriction of movement will not arise where the applicant is at liberty to use alternative routes.

    “The restriction envisaged under Section 41 of the Constitution must be total. This is not the case here.

    “In view of the above, I hold that the fundamental rights of the applicant were not infringed.

    “The amended originating motion on notice dated 19/06/2017 therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.”

  • Court dismisses EFCC’s 50-count charge against Sylva, others

    Court dismisses EFCC’s 50-count charge against Sylva, others

    Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has dismissed the 50-count charge of money laundering preferred against Bayelsa State All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate, Timipre Sylva and others by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    The judge, in a ruling yesterday on the preliminary objection by Sylva and two others, held that his court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the charge, which he said was an abuse of process.

    Justice Ademola said since one of two similar charges filed by the EFCC against Sylva and others had been dismissed and the other struck out, the decision to consolidate the earlier charges in the new one showed desperation to convict them at all costs.

    The EFCC filed the fresh charge on June 12 shortly after Justice Armed Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Abuja, dismissed an earlier charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/167, which the commission filed against Sylva and others.

    Also, Justice Evoh Chukwu of the same court struck out another charge filed against Sylva.

    The new charge had Sylva, Francis Okokuro, Gbenga Balogun, Samuel Ogbuku, Marlin Maritime Limited, Eat Catering Services Limited and Haloween-Blue Construction and Logistics Limited as defendants.

    They were accused of using the companies to launder about N19.2 billion from Bayelsa State coffers between 2009 and 2012, under false pretences of using the money to augment workers’ salaries.

    Justice Ademola noted that since a judge of the court (Justice Mohammed) had dismissed a similar charge, the only option for the prosecution was to appeal the decision rather than bring a fresh charge containing the same facts and on the same issues before his court.

    “The ruling of my brother Justice A. R. Mohammed, dismissing the earlier charge, still subsists. That ruling ended the jurisdiction of this court; until it is set aside by a superior court, this court lacks the jurisdiction to hear this charge.

    “It is the court’s opinion that this criminal charge is a complete abuse of the process of this court. It shows evidence of malice and desperation to perverse the process of court.

    ‘’From the foregoing, therefore, this court dismisses the charge preferred against the defendants,” Justice Ademola said.

    On hearing the judge’s pronouncement, Sylva, dressed in white traditional attire and cap, smiled broadly as he shook hands with his co-accused, who sat close to him.

    When the judge rose, an elated Sylva went to where his lawyers were seated and shook hands with them, with the lawyers chorusing: “Congratulations, your Excellency,” to which he responded, “thank you.”

  • Oghenekaro dismisses Enyimba link

    Oghenekaro dismisses Enyimba link

    Nigeria Under-23 international Etebo Oghenekaro has distanced himself from reports linking him with a transfer to Enyimba next season.

    A report yesterday claimed that the Nigeria Professional Football League (NPFL) champions are lining up a move for the Warri Wolves offensive all – rounder, but Etebo has put to bed those rumours by pledging his allegiance to The Seasiders.

    “It is not true I am joining Enyimba, it’s paper talk. I have not been in contact with anyone from Enyimba, ” Etebo Oghenekaro told allnigeriasoccer.com on Thursday night.

    “Hopefully,I remain with Warri Wolves or move abroad next year.”

    The 20 – year – old Etebo Oghenekaro is tied to Warri Wolves until January 14, 2016, according to the player.

  • Lawyer kicks as NJC dismisses petition against Ondo CJ

    Lawyer kicks as NJC dismisses petition against Ondo CJ

    A lawyer, Femi Emodamori, has condemned the dismissal of a petition he filed against the Ondo State Chief Judge, Justice Olasehinde Kumuyi, by the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    Emodamori petitioned the NJC, alleging that Justice Kumuyi abused his office by directing the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Eyitayo Jegede, to administer the oath of office on Deputy Governor Lasisi Oluboyo.

    The lawyer was surprised that the NJC could reply that the petition had no substance, despite earlier describing it as a petition which “speaks for itself” and directed the chief justice to respond within 14 days.

    His reply to the NJC reads: “I received your letter dated October 28 on the above-subject matter wherein you stated that you had been directed to inform me that ‘there is no substance’ in my petition dated September 4 in respect of the above-captioned matter and that ‘the error noticed on the oath papers is not enough to warrant action to be taken by council on the chief judge’.

    “Your letter was sequel to an earlier one dated September 17 signed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and Chairman of the National Judicial Council, Mahmud Mohammed, directed to Justice O. Kumuyi (the Ondo State chief judge) to react within 14 days.

    “The NJC chairman had, in that letter, described my petition as a petition, which “speaks for itself”. The petition was forwarded with that letter to Kumuyi and a copy of the letter was made available to me.

    “It would be difficult to understand how a petition that “speaks for itself” would subsequently be described as a petition having “no substance” by the same NJC.

    “I stated in the petition that Justice Kumuyi “deliberately or wilfully” issued a false public certificate claiming to be the person who administered the oath of allegiance and oath of office on the Ondo State Deputy Governor, thereby committing a felony contrary to and punishable under Section 105 of the Criminal  Code Act.

    “I exhibited photographs and video recordings showing that it was the Ondo State attorney-general and commissioner for Justice that administered the oaths to the petition.

    “I went further to exhibit the false certificate issued by Justice Kumuyi, which your letter under reference described as “oath papers” wherein Justice Kumuyi falsely, intentionally and criminally represented himself and personally signed as the person who administered the oaths. I stated that Justice Kumuyi had abused and brought his office into disrepute.”

  • Ooni stool: Court dismisses suit against Ife 1980 Chieftaincy declaration

    Ooni stool: Court dismisses suit against Ife 1980 Chieftaincy declaration

    An Osun State High Court sitting in Osogbo yesterday dismissed a suit challenging the competence of the Ooni of Ife 1980 Chieftaincy declaration.

    The declaration was the authority relied upon by the Ife kingmakers in asking the Giesi Ruling House to present the successor to the late Oba Okunade Sijuwade.

    The Lafogido Ruling House through Sooko Adegoke and Prince Marcus Adebola Akimoyero had approached the court to stop Governor Rauf Aregbesola, the Obalufe of Ile-Ife, Oba Solomon Omisakin (now late) and the Lowa of Ife, Chief Joseph Ijaodola from allowing only Giesi Ruling House present the next Ooni.

    The plaintiffs asked the court to set aside the 1980 Ife Chieftaincy Declaration which they described as “lopsided, unjust, unconstitutional and unfair.”

    Justice Oyebola Adepele Ojo,  in her judgement said the plaintiffs’ litigation was belated as the declaration was made in September 14, 1979 and registered in January 28, 1980.

    She said they should have filed their objection within five years of the registration of the declaration.

    The suit was accordingly dismissed.

    Meanwhile, stakeholders including Ife Elders,Princes (Ajo  Sookos), Ife Development Board, Ife Progressive Forum, religious leaders and Ajo Baales, have met on resolving the logjam sparked by the succession race.

    Sources said the meeting received position papers submitted by  the Sookos on the issue.

    The worried Sookos had set up a committee with three representatives from each of the four ruling houses – Osinkola, Ogboru, Giesi and Lafogido.

    It was gathered that the meeting agreed that each ruling house should present three aspirants to the kingmakers who will thereafter pick one as next Ooni.

    The chairman of the meeting, Chief Mosadoluwa Omisore, and the secretary ,Professor Muibi Opeloye, in a resolution asked the Sookos to “appeal to the ruling houses to withdraw the cases in courts in order not to cause undue delay in the selection process.”

    They said that “even though there is obvious need for review of the Ooni’s chieftaincy  declaration” such should wait till the new Ooni is installed since the chieftancy declaration cannot be amended during an interregnum.”

  • Appeal Court dismisses Otti’s application

    Appeal Court dismisses Otti’s application

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Owerri, the Imo State capital yesterday struck out the appeal by the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) in the general election, Dr. Alex Otti.

    Otti challenged the decision of the tribunal for refusing to grant him extension of time to call more witnesses in his petition against Governor Okezie Ikpeazu of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    Chairman of the Appeal Panel Justice Jimmy Bada noted that the lower Court did the right thing by refusing the time extension as it would amount to waking up a dead person after the parties had submitted their final addresses and fresh witnesses were allowed.

    The court noted that the application failed on the three issues presented before it, saying it was also wrong for the applicant to fail to front load the pre-trial materials from the lower tribunal, saying it amounted to accepting the decision of the lower court.

    Bada agreed with counsel to the first respondent, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), that the decision to file an appeal by the applicant was a “mere academic exercise”.

    “Though counsel to the applicant noted that there would be life in the matter if the appeal succeeds, reopening a matter for fresh evidence when final addresses have been submitted is alien to our law”, he said.

    The appellate court, after a review of the notices submitted for and against by counsel to the parties, upheld the preliminary objection sought by Olanipekun to dismiss the appeal.

    “Granting the reliefs sought by the applicant would amount to over-enriching the applicant against the other parties and therefore, the appeal failed… and is struck out”, the court said.