The Nation Newspaper

Tag: dismisses

  • Appeal Court dismisses certificate forgery case against Suswam

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Makurdi yesterday dismissed an appeal brought against Benue State Governor Gabriel Suswam by a former governorship aspirant of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Mr. Terver Kakih.

    Kakih had sued Governor Suswam to a Federal High Court sitting in Makurdi, seeking, among others, a declaration that Suswam was not qualified to contest the 2011 governorship election; that Governor Suswam supplied false information in Form CF001 to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC); and that he (Kakih) be declared the governorship candidate of the PDP and by extension the governor-elect of Benue State on the platform of the PDP.

    In a judgment by Justice John Inyang Okoro, leading four other justices, the appellate court unanimously dismissed Kakih’s case anchored on 10 grounds of appeal and awarded N50,000 cost in favour of the PDP and Governor Suswam.

    However, the Federal High Court presided over by Justice Marcel Awokulehin on July 11, 2012 ruled that it had no jurisdiction to entertain Kakik’s case on the basis of PDP v Timpreye Silva’s case earlier decided by the Supreme Court. The court held that even if it had jurisdiction, Kakik did not prove his case as required by law.

    Before dismissing the appeal, the court considered notice of preliminary objection filed by Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, SAN, counsel to the PDP and Governor Suswam.

    In the preliminary objection, Suswam, through his counsel argued that the notice and grounds of appeal were in breach of the rules of the Court of Appeal and that the notice and grounds of appeal were not in respect of the judgment of the Federal High Court; that ground four of the notice and ground of appeal was in relation to an interlocutory decision.

    The Court of Appeal agreed with the preliminary objection raised by Suswam’s counsel and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

    Delivering judgment, Justice Okoro said court documents were serious documents that should not be left in the hands of a carpenter to prepare and read, adding that when objection was raised as to the fact that notice and the grounds of appeal were against the decision of the Federal High Court delivered on July 11, 2011 instead of 2012, counsel to the appellant could not respond, and queried: “What did he expect us to do?”

    On the merit of the case, Justice Okoro resolved the three issues in the appeal against the appellant, declaring that Governor Suswam was qualified to contest the 2011 elections; that the governorship primaries of the PDP in 2011 were conducted in accordance with the PDP electoral guidelines and the party’s constitution; and that the appellant was wrong to have taken his case to the Federal High Court, which lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case, thus upholding the decision of Justice Awokulehin of the Federal High Court Makurdi made on July 11, 2012.

    Reacting to the judgment, Governor Suswam said he had been vindicated and his accusers had been exposed as blackmailers desperate to dent his hard-earned reputation.

     

  • Court dismisses appeal against Wada’s victory

    The Court of Appeal, sitting in Abuja, yesterday dismissed the appeal by Jibrin Isah Echocho against Kogi State Governor Idris Wada.

    Echocho had filed a suit against the emergence of Wada as the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in the party’s primary after Echocho had reportedly been given the ticket.

    In the unanimous judgment by Justice Useni Mukhtar, the court upheld the decision of a Federal High Court, Abuja, which had dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    In the brief judgment read by Justice Akomolafe Wilson, the appellate court said by the provisions of Section 255(2) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 133 of the Electoral Act, the lower court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the suit and, therefore, the competence to strike it out.

    Justice Wilson said: “Any order is tantamount to exercising its coercive power. The Appeal fails on this ground; it is hereby dismissed.”

    Echocho, the winner of the January 2011 PDP primaries, had approached the High Court, challenging the process that brought in Wada and his swearing-in as governor.

    Justice Kafarati, in his judgment said Echocho lacked the locus standi to initiate the suit, because he did not participate in the governorship election that brought Wada to power.

    Besides, the judge said the court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the suit and held that it is a post-election matter which only the election tribunal can adjudicate upon since the election took place in December and the action was filed in February.

    He dismissed the suit for being an abuse of court process and awarded N100,000 cost against the plaintiff.

    Dissatisfied, Echocho, through his counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), approached the Appeal Court, praying it to set aside the judgment.

    Olanipekun argued that the court did not consider any of the fundamental, constitutional and jurisprudential issues submitted to it for adjudication.

  • Court dismisses NPAN’s suit against APCON

    Justice Musa Kurya of the Federal High Court, Lagos yesterday dismissed the suit instituted by the Newspaper Proprietors Association of Nigeria (NPAN) against the Advertising Practitioners Council of Nigeria (APCON).

    The judge upheld APCON’s objection against the suit, declined jurisdiction and held that NPAN lacked the locus standi to file the suit.

    Justice Kurya upheld APCON’s argument that NPAN was in error in not instituting the suit in a representative capacity, having admitted in paragraphs 12 to 17 of the affidavit supporting its originating summons that the suit was intended to fight for the employees of the media being allegedly harassed by APCON and the police.

    The judge, who relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Salako v Dawudu (1997) 7 SCNJ page 278, held that NPAN was wrong to have filed the suit in its personal capacity. He faulted the plaintiff for not obtaining the leave of the court before filing the case.

    “The leave of the court was not sought and obtained to institute the suit in representative capacity. I am of the view that the respondent’s objection to the suit succeeds. The suit is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,” Justice Kurya held.

    NPAN had in the suit marked: FHC/L/CS/1067/2012, questioned the propriety of the provisions contained in articles 21 and 137 of the Nigerian Code of Advertising and Sales Promotion (NCASP). The provisions require media houses to submit advertisement materials meant for publication, for vetting by APCON. The suit was instituted by NPAN’s Registered Trustees.

    The plaintiff also had the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) as the defendant in the suit in which the plaintiff argued that the provisions of articles 21 and 137 of the NCASP are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 39 of the Constitution, guaranteeing the freedom of expression and to hold opinion. It urged the court to void the said provisions.

    APCON objected to the suit on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to file the suit. APCON contended that NPAN lacked the right to challenge a law meant to regulate its members’ conduct.

    It argued that the suit was wrongly instituted because the law being challenged by the plaintiff was enacted to regulate the activities of advertising practitioners, who are employees of the media houses.

    APCON further argued that the relationship between it and advertising practitioners is like the one existing between the Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria (CIBN) and bankers.

    The defendant contended that advertising practitioners are only using the media houses as a platform for their work just like bankers, who are being regulated by CIBN, use various banks, which employed them as their own platforms.

    In a counter argument, NPAN prayed the court to dismiss APCON’s objection and proceed to hear the case, hinging its position on the argument that NPAN has sufficient interest by suing on behalf of its members.

    It contended that NPAN has a mandate of protecting the interests of its members, who are media owners and whose interests are being “adversely affected” by APCON’s “unconstitutional regulations”.

    NPAN argued that contrary to APCON’s position, the suit was not meant to fight for employees of media houses being allegedly harassed by APCON and the police, but was meant to challenge the power of APCON to control newspapers.

  • Okada: Court dismisses suit against new traffic law

    A Lagos High Court in Ikeja has dismissed a suit filed by Okada riders challenging the new Lagos state traffic law which banned their operations on the federal highways in the state.

    Justice Aishat Opesanwo of Lagos High Court, Ikeja yesterday, held that the Law did not violate the rights of the Claimants.

    The okada riders had instituted the suit under the aegis of the Incorporated Trustees of All Nigerian Autobike Commercial Owners and Workers Association (ANACOWA) against Lagos State Government and the new law which included federal highways among the roads on which their operations had been banned.

    Joined as defendants in the suit are the Lagos State House of Assembly, and Attorney-General of Lagos State.

    In her judgment, the trial judge agreed with the submission of Lagos State Attorney-General, Mr. Ade Ipaye, who represented the State Government and Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, who represented the House of Assembly that the State Legislature has constitutional power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the State.

    His Lordship traced the history of the Law to the Road Traffic Ordinance of 1949 prior to the creation of the State in 1967.

    The Court dismissed the submission of the Counsel to the Claimants, Mr. Bamidele Aturu that the Law was discriminatory against the operators of commercial motorcycles.

    Justice Opesanwo held that the Road Traffic Law regulates other forms of vehicles and as such the right of the claimants to their constitutional right to freedom from discrimination has not been violated.

    Relying on the decision in Director, SSS v. Agbakoba, the court held that the Law did not violate the right of the claimants to move freely across the State as the “the objective of the Road Traffic Law is not the movement of person but the mode, means or tools of movement.”

    The judge also held that the originating summon of the plaintiff lack merit.

    “In totality, I hold that the originating summon is lacking in merit. I am obliged to dismiss this action. This action fails and it is hereby dismissed in entirety”, she said.

    Justice Opesanwo also held that counsel to the okada riders failed to support his claim that the Traffic Law enacted by the state House of Assembly encroached on the legislative powers of the National Assembly to make laws on the roads exclusively reserved for federal legislature with concrete evidence.

    Reacting to the judgment, the Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Ade Ipaye, in a statement, said that the decision of the court was for the collective good of Lagosians.

    “If there is any winner at all, it is the good people of Lagos State who desire to commute in a safe, secure and conducive environment.

    “It is also a relief to have legal confirmation of the sensible fact that a State House of Assembly has powers to make laws regulating conduct on every road within the State territory”, he said.

    Also In his reaction, the state Commissioner for Transportation, Comrade Kayode Opeifa, commended the motorcycle operators for their decision to challenge the Law in a civilised manner by exercising their constitutional right to go to court.

    Opeifa urged the commercial operators to partner with Lagos State in ensuring that the transportation system obtainable in Lagos State is sustainable and befitting of the State.

    However, counsel to the Okada riders, Mr. Bamidele Aturu said they would appeal against the judgement of the high court.

    “While we respect the decision of the judge as a court of law, we disagree with the decision and we shall promptly seek redress on behalf of our clients at the Court of Appeal.

    “We have relentlessly made it clear we do not think it is right to argue that there are no federal trunk roads in Lagos State as this may encourage the Federal Government to abandon maintenance of roads that we all know to be federal roads. This is what we meant when we argued that Lagos State Government was pursuing a pyrrhic victory by the argument”, Aturu said.

    He remarked that they do not intend the matter to end like that.

    “We know that this is not the end of the matter. Citizens have many options at their disposal for challenging policies that they consider destructive of the ends of democracy and their existence.

    “We shall leave our clients with the decision, while we pursue their appeal speedily.

    The Lagos State Road Traffic Law which came into effect on August 2, 2012 restricts the operations of commercial motorcycle on about 475 out of the over 9,000 roads in Lagos State.

    The Law also prohibits other activities considered inimical to road traffic including hawking, drunk driving, counting of money and sale of alcoholic drinks within 100 metres of bus stops, and motor parks within the State, amongst others

  • Baribote dismisses sack by club bosses

    Baribote dismisses sack by club bosses

    Victor Baribote has said he is not aware his NPL board has been sacked, insisting club bosses are not working within the league statutes.

    Sixteen NPL clubs met Tuesday night in Abuja to dissolve the board of the Nigeria Premier League led by Baribote and appointed a six-man interim committee to run the local league pending fresh elections to the board.

    However, Baribote said Wednesday he is unaware of such a decision.

    “I am not aware of any meeting. If the clubs plan to hold an emergency meeting, I as the chairman of the league ought to be informed,” Baribote argued.

    “And in any case, the league statutes do not support such a meeting.”

    Officials of majority of NPL clubs passed a vote of no confidence on the Baribote-led board, alleging among other things several breaches and violations of NPL Statutes.

    According to spokesman of the clubs Fan Ndubuoke, the NPL congress slated to hold today in Kano was illegal as none of the clubs were notified of this three months prior to the congress as stipulated in the Statutes.

    The Heartland general manager also said they got their powers to dissolve the NPL board from Article 22 of the Statutes after setting aside Articles 24, 25 and 26.

    The clubs therefore unanimously agreed for an interim committee led by Mike Idoko to now fix another congress before December 10.

  • Court dismisses deposed Deji of Akure’s suit

    An Ondo State High Court, sitting in Akure, the state capital, has dismissed a suit filed by the former Deji of Akure, Mr. Oluwadare Adesina. Adesina was challenging his deposition by the state government in 2010.

    The court said the deposed monarch’s case lacks merit because his counsel, Mr. Olusola Oke, failed to produce his two witnesses in court.

    Oke said he would need a subpoena to summon the first witness because some people were threatening to deal with him, if he appeared in court.

    He said the second witness, who is the plaintiff, had been flown abroad for medical treatment.

    Adesina’s lead counsel prayed the court to adjourn the case to enable his witnesses appear in court.

    He said: “We intend to call two witnesses; the first witness was with me on Friday at about 8am and we had a pre-trial briefing. I also spoke with him at about 6pm on the same day and at all these times he gave me assurances that he would be in court this morning.

    “It was today that he told me his family and agents of the defendants came to his house, requesting him not to come to court. In the circumstance, I will need a subpoena to summon him.

    “Regarding the second witness, who is the plaintiff, his deposition, banishment and permission to travel overseas were gazzetted. His permission to travel overseas is on medical grounds. Going by the arrangement I have with him, I was to call him a week to the hearing date. That I did and he told me he has cancer.

    “Considering all this circumstance, I urge the court to grant us one more adjournment and I undertake on behalf of the plaintiff that, if by that next date, neither he nor his witness is in court, we should be barred from asking for further adjournment.”

    The state government’s counsel, F.K Salami, urged the court to dismiss the case, saying it has been adjourned too many times at the instance of the plaintiff.

    Salami said: “Pursuant to Order 37 Rule 8 of the Order State Rules of the High Court, 1987, I urge the court to dismiss this suit.”

    The Chief Judge, Justice Olasehinde Kumuyi, who presided, said: “This suit was filed on June 15, 2010, almost two-and-a-half years ago. If by now we are still not sure of when trial will commence, we cannot continue to keep the case in the court’s record book.

    “As I told the learned counsel to the plaintiff, this case can be relisted until they are ready to prosecute it, provided it is done within the provisions of the rules.”

    Adesina was deposed for engaging in a brawl with one of his wives, the late Bolanle.

  • Court dismisses Daniel’s suit

    An Abuja High Court yesterday dismissed a suit filed by former Ogun State Governor Gbenga Daniel.

    Daniel had urged the court to declare that his arrest and detention by operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from October 6 to 12, 2011, at the Asokoro Headquarters of the commission was unconstitutional and a violation of his right to freedom of movement.

    He said he was “unlawfully” detained for seven days without being charged for any offence and demanded N200 million as damages for what he called “psychological torture, harassment and threat”.

    Daniel demanded that the EFCC apologises to him in Punch and ThisDay. He also sought an order restraining the EFCC from further arresting, detaining or threatening to arrest him.

    Justice Folasade Ojo held that the EFCC acted within the limits of its statutory powers, when it arrested and detained Daniel.

    She said Section 6 of the EFCC Establishment Act, 2004, gives the commission power to investigate and prosecute economic and financial crimes.

    Justice Ojo said Daniel’s arrest and detention on suspicion that he siphoned about N7 billion from the Ogun State Treasury during his eight-year tenure was lawful.

    She said under the laws setting up the EFCC, anybody could be invited, arrested and detained for a certain period of time.

    Justice Ojo said the evidence the EFCC brought to court showed that the commission granted Daniel administrative bail on October 7, 2011, after taking his statement.

    She said the bail was granted on the condition that Daniel presents two sureties, who must be serving directors and own landed property. The second condition, she said, was that Daniel deposits his international passport with the EFCC.

    Justice Ojo said: “The evidence before me, as provided by the EFCC, shows that he was granted administrative bail with some conditions to be met. I find the conditions upon which bail was granted liberal enough.

    “So, how can he explain to the court what he declared in his affidavit that he was not able to meet the bail conditions because the terms on which he was granted bail were too harsh?

    “I find this hard to believe. How can a former governor not be able to produce two serving directors in a ministry as sureties? Or is it the part that says deposit your international passport that is harsh for him to meet?

    “I have carefully looked at this case. The plaintiff has failed to show that his stay in the EFCC custody for seven days amounts to a breach of his rights. I, therefore, hold that this application for compensation for violation of rights lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.”

  • Court dismisses Akingbola’s application to recall witness

    The former Managing Director of defunct Intercontinental Bank Plc, Erastus Akingbola, yesterday failed in his attempt to recall a defence witness to the witness box.

    Justice Habeeb Abiru of a Lagos High Court, Ikeja, dismissed the application filed by Akingbola, seeking the court’s permission to recall a witness, Mrs Ayoola Ayinde.

    Akingbola is standing trial with his associate, Bayo Dada, for allegedly stealing N47.1 billion belonging to the defunct Intercontinental Bank (now Access Bank Plc).

    In his application dated October 9, which was filed by his counsel, Felix Fagbohungbe (SAN), Akingbola sought to recall Mrs. Ayinde, the former head of foreign operations of Intercontinental Bank to tender 75 documents as exhibits.

    Akingbola had wanted Mrs. Ayinde to tender the documents and to explain the £8.5 million and £1.3 million transactions she carried out on his instructions.

    Fagbohungbe said this was to show that the money transferred to Fulgher was owned by Rockson Engineering Ltd, which contradicted the charge before the court.

    He said:” In the charge, the first defendant (Akingbola) is alleged to have stolen the bank’s money.

    “We are now saying through these documents that the money belonged to Rockson and that the total amount in Rockson’s account was paid out based on the 75 instructions, including that of the first defendant”.

    Ayinde had, on June 21, testified that Akingbola had instructed her to transfer the money to Fulgher Solicitors, a United Kingdom law firm and that it was a regular transaction.

    But the EFCC counsel, odwin Obla(SAN), opposed the recall of the witness.

    Obla argued that the request for the recall of the witness was a ploy to delay the trial.

    In his ruling, Justice Abiru held that it was not necessary to recall Mrs Ayinde as she had tendered all the relevant documents in her possession as exhibits.

    Abiru said:”There is nothing new the witness is coming to say. It is pointless for me to recall her.

    “Of these 75 documents, only one is relevant to this charge and she has tendered it and it was admitted by the court as Exhibit D4.”

    He adjourned the matter till October 23.