The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Federal High Court

  • Chinese bags 12-month jail term

    A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has sentenced a Chinese woman, Liang Zuli to a 12- month jail term for attempting to smuggle ivory.

    She was charged to court on a two- count charge of attempting to export ivory and being in possession of ivory.

    The prosecuting lawyers for the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA), Alabo Wakoma Esq. alongside Nemi Alali Esq. and Barrister (Mrs.) Blessing Ezeife, stated that the accused had committed offence against NESRA regulation of 2011, which focus on the protection of endangered species in international trade.

    Counsels to the accused, Barrister Okwusogu SAN with Okechukwu Muomalu, Esq. informed the court that the accused wished to change her plea.

    Upon the Judge granting her request, the accused changed her pleas from “not guilty” to “guilty”.

    Liang Zuli was arrested by Officers of the Nigerian Custom Service (NCS) in March at the Murtala Mohammed International Airport (MMIA) while attempting to smuggle polished ivory out of the country.

  • Court halts contempt proceedings against FCMB, others

    Court halts contempt proceedings against FCMB, others

    Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Lagos has stayed further proceedings in a contempt proceedings initiated against First City Monument Bank (FCMB) Plc and three of its principal officers.

    The judge, in a ruling yesterday, hinged his decision on the need to respect an October 15 order by the Court of Appeal, Lagos, staying the contempt proceedings pending the determination of an application by the bank and its officials.

    He stated that an enrolled order of the appellate court was brought to his attention, in chambers, by 8.54am yesterday by a Deputy Registrar in his court.

    The affected officials of the bank are Ladi Balogun (Group Managing Director), Segun Odusanya (Deputy Managing Director) and Peter Obaseki.

    The contempt proceedings, initiated by Hensmor Nigeria Limited, was informed by the company’s claim that the bank refused, despite a garnishee order absolute made on July 2 this year, to defray a judgment debt of N6.8billion entered against one of its customers.

    The court had, on December 2, 2011 upon a suit by Hensmor, held in favour of the plaintiff and entered judgment against one of the bank’s customers – Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA).

    Realising that NIMASA was unwilling to obey the judgment, Hensmor initiated a garnishee proceedings, resulting in an order nisi made by the court on May 15 this year. On July 2, the garnishee was made absolute against FCMB, even with the pendency of NIMASA’s appeal against the judgment and its application seeking to restrain FCMB from paying the judgment sum from its account with the bank pending the determination of its (NIMASA’s) appeal.

    NIMASA also filed an application dated September 25 before the Court of Appeal, challenging the garnishee order absolute and urged the appellate court to restrain the bank from obeying the order absolute pending the determination of its appeal.

    Also, the lower court ordered Hensmor to serve Form 48 (Notice of consequences of disobedience of court order) on the bank. Faced with a dilemma on the possibility of NIMASA returning to make demand should its appeal succeed, the bank prayed the trial judge to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal, a prayer the court refused and proceeded to order a substituted service of Form 49 (notice to show course why order of committal should not be made) on the bank and its affected officials.

    The trial court was to commence hearing on the Form 49 yesterday when a copy of the enrolled order by the Court of Appeal was served on the judge and Hensmor’s lawyer, Mrs E. N. Omorodion. She told the court about the development and sought an adjournment.

    Justice Abang consequently adjourned to October 29 to await the decision of the bank’s pending application slated for October 18 for hearing by the Appeal Court.

     

  • Court rejects plea to stop Jonathan’s impeachment

    Court rejects plea to stop Jonathan’s impeachment

    A Federal High Court, Abuja yesterday refused to stop the House of Representatives from initiating impeachment moves against President Goodluck Jonathan over poor budget implementation.
    Justice Gabriel Kolawole declined the ex parte application by the National Chairman of African Liberation Party (ALP), Dr. Emmanuel Osita Okere, who asked the court to stop the House.
    Emphasising the need for caution, the court said it must have been established that the impeachment proceedings had begun before it could hear the suit in order not to interfere with the functions of the House.
    By the proviso of Section 143 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, the court held that no single arm of the National Assembly can unilaterally impeach the President, adding that it requires a joint resolution of the House and the Senate before the President could be removed.
    By not joining the Senate as a party to the suit, the court said, the ex parte motion could not succeed.
     “This may not be the proper occasion for this court to grant ex parte order against the 2nd and 3rd defendants, as the reliefs sought by the plaintiff largely benefits the President,” the court said.
    Justice Kolawole accordingly refused the ex parte order and adjourned the matter indefinitely for the Chief Judge to re-assign the case.
    Moving the ex parte application, the Applicant’s counsel, Alex Williams, had prayed the court to grant an interim order restraining the House, saying it was capable of distracting the President from discharging his duties.
    The defendants are Speaker Aminu Tambuwal, the House of Representatives, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice and President Goodluck Jonathan.
    In his affidavit in support of the originating summons, the plaintiff stated that the move to impeach the President  is heating up the polity, describing it as a disguise to cause political turmoil.
    The plaintiff asked the court to determine whether
    *Upon proper reading and interpretation of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended, whether any provision of the Constitution made 100 per cent implementation of the federal budget of Nigeria for each fiscal year as appropriated by National Assembly mandatory.
    *Upon proper reading and interpretation of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended, whether the National Assembly are empowered to impeach the President from office for failure to implement the budget by 100 per cent for any given fiscal year?
    * Whether the constitution prescribed any time frame or date in each fiscal year within which to declare the budget as non-implemented?
    If the above questions are answered in his favour, he is seeking the following reliefs:
    *A declaration that the move by the National Assembly to impeach the President from office for non-implementation of 100 per cent of the 2012 budget is premature, abuse of legislative powers, malevolent, unconditional, null and void.
    *An order of perpetual injunction restraining the leadership of the National Assembly from impeaching the President for non-implementation of 100 per cent of the budget as appropriated
    *An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from harassing or further harassing the President with threats of impeachment or commencing any process of impeachment of the President for non-implementation of 100 per cent of the budget.
    *An order prohibiting the President or the executive arm of government from hurriedly executing any part of the budget when/where the circumstances at hand does not permit prudent execution of such.