The Nation Newspaper

Tag: High Court

  • Uboh, Lamorde’s accuser convicted over PEF’s vehicles

    Uboh, Lamorde’s accuser convicted over PEF’s vehicles

    A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Maitama, Abuja Monday convicted security expert, George Uboh.

    Uboh, who accused the former Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Lamorde of diverting crime proceeds recovered by the EFCC, was convicted on a three-count charge of breach of trust.

    The spokesman of the EFCC, Wilson Uwujaren said in a statement, that Uboh was convicted in a judgment read Monday by Justice S. E. Aladetoyinbo.

    Uwujaren said Uboh was sentenced to a cumulative of three years imprisonment, but with an option of N1million fine.

    Though Uboh was charged under the provisions of section 314, he was convicted under section 312 of the law which also bordered on another variant of breach of trust, because the EFCC was unable to prove that the he (Uboh) was an employee of PEF.

    Justice Aladetoyinbo in convicting him held that there was inconsistency in his statement at the point of his arrest and during trial.

    Uboh was said to have claimed that the vehicles in question were compensation for the debt the PEF owed him and during trial he claimed that the vehicles were for trade by barter for the debt the foundation was owing him.

    He was charged with criminal breach of trust involving the sale of vehicles belonging to the now defunct Police Equipment Foundation (PEF) headed by Kenny Martins.

    Uboh was accused of abusing his position as former Head of Security and Communication Department, PEF, to convert the properties of the foundation to his personal use.

    The charge reads: “That you, George Uboh, sometime in 2007 in Abuja, the judicial division of the high court of the Federal Capital Territory, being a servant in the employment of the Police Equipment Foundation, and in such capacity entrusted with certain property, to wit: six units of operational vehicles, did commit criminal breach of trust by selling one Toyota Hilux pick-up van through one Egbon Blessing, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 314 of the penal code.

    “That you, George Uboh, sometime in 2007 in Abuja, the judicial division of the high court of the Federal Capital Territory, being a servant in the employment of the Police Equipment Foundation, and in such capacity entrusted with certain property, to wit: six units of operational vehicles, did commit criminal breach of trust by selling one Toyota Hilux pick-up vans to Muha Motors, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 314 of the penal code.

    “That you, George Uboh, sometime in 2007 in Abuja, the judicial division of the high court of the Federal Capital Territory, being a servant in the employment of the Police Equipment Foundation, and in such capacity entrusted with certain property, to wit: six units of operational vehicles, did commit criminal breach of trust by selling two units of Toyota Hilux pick-up vans, and therefore committed an offence punishable under Section 314 of the penal code.”

    He had pleaded not guilty, thus setting the stage for full trial during which the prosecution called several witnesses to prove its case.

    Uboh claimed that the former National Coordinator, PEF, Kenny Martins, gave him some PEF vehicles to offset the debt owned him by the Foundation.

    However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he did not have any evidence of transfer of ownership of the vehicles from PEF.

    “I know the vehicles belong to PEF. But it was to offset the debt owed me. The Hilux pickup vans are four and not five,” Uboh said.

    When contacted, Uboh confirmed his conviction, but said he immediately paid the N1m fine and was released immediately after the judgment was passed.

    He faulted the judgment, saying the judge, in convicting him, shifted the burden of proof, which ought to be on the prosecution, to him. Uboh said he has immediately instructed his lawyers to appeal the judgment.

     

  • ICPC Vs lawmaker:  Court adjourned to June 10

    ICPC Vs lawmaker:  Court adjourned to June 10

    The Benin High Court presided over by Justice Esohe Ikpomnwen Monday berated counsel to the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences over actions the court described as delaying justice in the case between the ICPC and a member of the House of Representatives, Mr Philip Shaibu.

    The ICPC is prosecuting the APC lawmaker for alleged forgery of tax certificate from the Edo State Board of Internal Revenue. But at the proceedings Monday, the prosecutor failed to produce one of their star witnesses whom they claimed is on official duties in Borno state.

    And the court had in their last meeting warned that the case will not be adjourned again if the police officer said to be the IPO in the case failed to show up in court. Justice Ikpomnwen became angrier when the prosecutor, G.O.Igbadume failed to serve the Acting Chairman of the Board of Internal Revenue in the state, Mr Emmanuel Usoh, the correct subpoena which would have enabled him produce some documents requested by the court.

    Her response came after Usoh told the court that “ I was served with a subpoena and not a notice my Lord”. Justice Ikpomnwen who addressed the prosecutor, asserted that “ he (Usoh) made a technical point because I am sure you allowed somebody else prepare the papers for you and what they gave to you was different from what you asked for.

    “And that is why he (Usoh) did not come with any documents as we requested from the Board of Internal Revenue. I am not the one to do your job for you. Please you must ensure that you liaise with the Registrar so you can produce another subpoena that has the listed documents we requested for. We all must show seriousness in order not to delay justice,” she asserted.

    The court therefore adjourned till June 10, 2016, enable the prosecutor process a fresh subpoena and ensure that the correct paper is issued and served on the witness.

    However, the second prosecution witness, Mr Okharedia Ihimikpen was cross examined by both the defendants’ lawyer, Ken Mozia (SAN) and ICPC Counsel, G.O. Igbadume.

     

  • Oronsaye diverted N190m using secret account – Witness

    Oronsaye diverted N190m using secret account – Witness

    A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) heard Tuesday how former Head of Service of the Federation (HOSF), Steven Oronsaye allegedly diverted N190million belonging to the Federal Government.

    An operative of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ngunnan Kakwagh told the court, while testifying as the first prosecution witness, that Oronsaye unilaterally operated an Access Bank account in the name of the Presidential Committee on Financial Action Task Force (PCFATF).

    Kakwagh testified shortly after Oronsaye was arraigned on a fresh two-count charge in which he is accused of committing the alleged fraud on June 12, 2013 and December 30, 2014 using his position as the then Chairman of the PCFATF.

    The witness said PCFATF existed between 2012 and 2014 and received payments from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) through the account without the knowledge of other members of the committee.

    Kakwagh said Oronsaye received about N240m from the CBN through the account. She added that the defendant, in September 2013, also made “five structured payments” of N9m each, totalling N45m, into the account in one day.

    The witness said Oronsaye invested N190m in fixed deposit and converted it along with the accrued interest into personal use.

    Kakwagh, who was led in evidence by prosecution lawyer, O Uket, told the court that Oronsaye, as the sole-signatory to the account, equally issued cheques, in his name, to various individuals, who made withdrawals from the account.

    The witness, who said she was part of the team that investigated the petition against Oronsaye, said:”The team analysed the documents provided by the bank. One of the accounts was named the Presidential Committee on Financial Action Task Force (Current account) and the sole signatory is Mr. Stephen Oronsaye – the defendant.

    “The means of identification was the bio-data page of the international passport of the defendant. Further analysis of the statement of account (Access Bank), we found out that the account was opened in 2012 with the request from the defendant, to Access Bank, requesting that the account be opened, which he was the sole signatory as he chairman of presidential committee on FATF.

    “The (investigative) team found out that the account had been funded by three transfers from the Central Bank of Nigeria and N45m deposited by the defendant. The first transfer was for N50m in October 2012 from CBN. The second transfer was for N90m in May 2013. Then in September 2013, the defendant made five structured payments of N9m making N45m.

    “In 2014 however, the transfer of N100m was made into the account from CBN. The first N50m was withdrawn by a cheque. The defendant (Oronsaye) being sole signatory to the account, issued cheques, to various persons an in his name to make withdrawals from the account.

    “N100m transfer was also paid into fixed deposit account. The sums of N30m, N10m and three separate sums of N20m each was also paid into fixed deposit all on the same day,” she said.

    The witness told the court that PCFATF members and the office of the Accountant-General of the Federation denied knowledge of the Access Bank account and that the only account of the committee known to them was the one with the Zenith Bank Plc.

    “We invited Jalal Arabi (staff of the State House and Secretary to the PCFATF). When asked about the Access Bank account, he stated that the committee had an account with Zenith Bank of which he is a co-signatory with the defendant (Oronsaye) and as such he had no knowledge of the Access Bank account.

    “Mr. Francis Usani (as Head of the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit,), also stated that as member of the committee, he was only aware of the committee’s account with Zenith Bank.

    “The team wrote a letter to the office of the Accountant-General of the Federation. On inquiry, it was realised that the committee had approval from the office of the Accountant-General of Federation for Zenith Bank account and was known to the office of the AGF. The team also made inquiry whether government agencies were allowed to move funds allocated to them, and if so how and where?

    “Office of the AGF responded to our letter of inquiry, stating that the office of the Accountant-General of the Federation was unaware of Access Bank account of the committee and had not given any approval for the opening of the account. The reply also stated that government parastatals and agencies are only allowed to invest in treasury bills.”

    The witness also told the court that Oronsaye made other 26 investments with the money in the Access Bank account. She added that 22 of the investments were liquidated by the defendant.

    While being cross-examined by Oronsaye’s lawyer, Joe Agi (SAN) the witness said she did not inquire from the office of the AGF if it knew about the Zenith Bank account.

    Justice Olasumbo Goodluck adjourned to April 13.

    Justice Goodluck, before adjourning, rejected EFCC’s objection to Oronsaye’s bail application. She proceeded to grant Oronsaye bail at N10m with two sureties at N5m each.

    The judge directed that the sureties must be resident in Abuja and must be serving or retired civil servant not below the level of a director in the federal civil service o‎r its agencies.

    Justice Goodluck directed that Oronsaye’s passport tendered before a Federal High Court in Abuja, in relation to another case, should be submitted to her court in the event that the trial at the Federal High Court was concluded before the one before her court.

     

  • Murder trial: Court renews union leader’s arrest warrant

    Murder trial: Court renews union leader’s arrest warrant

    Justice Adedayo Akintoye of a Lagos State High Court in Igbosere Monday renewed a bench warrant for the arrest of the Lagos State chairman of Tricycle Owners and Drivers Association (TODA), Aiyenogun Babatunde, following his failure to appear in court to answer to a charge of murder.

    Babatunde is being prosecuted by Lagos State for allegedly killing one Yusuf Ademola, but he has failed to appear for his arraignment.

    The defendant is accused of stabbing Ademola to death on June 4, 2014, at about noon at the Boundary area of Ajegunle.

    Justice Akintoye made the order on October 13, 2015, pursuant to an application by state counsel, Mr. Tunde Sunmonu, in order to prevent Babatunde from moving outside the jurisdiction of the court.

    Monday, Sunmonu informed the court that Babatunde was still at large and there was reason to believe that he had procured another passport.

    “The defendant may be trying to obtain a visa to flee the country,” Sunmonu said.

    He added that the order of the court commanding the defendant to appear in court yesterday had been disobeyed.

    The defendant’s counsel Mr. Lukman Imam disputed the claim that his client was trying to abscond.

    In response to a query from Justice Akintoye as to why his client had refused to show up in court, Imam said: “I asked the defendant to be in court but being a human being, I don’t know why he’s not here. My client is on Bench Warrant already; we’re not afraid of trial.

    He then asked the court to rescind the arrest warrant against his client.

    Imam applied to withdraw his earlier application and substitute it with another one asking the court to set aside the bench warrant against his client.

    Ruling, Justice Akintoye said the Bench Warrant subsists. She added: “The defendant is on a Bench Warrant. I cannot rescind the warrant unless I see him first. Advise your client to appear in court.”

    She granted the defendant’s prayer and adjourned till March 23.

  • Court grants Dasuki, Salisu, Baba-Kusa bail

    Court grants Dasuki, Salisu, Baba-Kusa bail

    • Trial opens Jan 21

    A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja has granted bail to former National Security Adviser, Colonel Sambo Dasuki and two others.

    The others are ex-Director of Finance and Administration in the office of the NSA, Shuaibu Salisu and former Director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Aminu Baba-Kusa.

    They were arraigned on December 14 before the court on a 19-count charge bordering on criminal diversion of funds preferred against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    Friday, Justice Hussein Baba-Yusuf, in a ruling on their bail application, admitted each of them to bail at N250million and one surety at the same amount.

    The judge said the sureties must show evidence of owning a property in the Federal Capital Territory worth N250m.

    The judge further directed that the surety must be a Civil Servant not below the rank of a Director in the Federal Civil Service.

    The surety must also swear to an affidavit of means while the accused persons are expected to deposit their travel documents before the court in addition to informing the court whenever they need to travel outside the federal capital territory.

    The judge adjourned to January 21 next year for commencement of trial.

    Dasuki, Salisu, Baba-Kusa and two companies – Acacia Holdings Limited and Reliance Referral Hospital Limited were charged with conspiracy and criminal breach of trust under the Penal Code Act and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establsihment) Act.

    Dasuki and Salisu were accused of distributing funds held in the account of the NSA in the Central bank of Nigeria (CBN) to politicians, media practitioners and businessmen purportedly for political campaigns and organizing of prayer sessions.

    The duo was, in counts 5, 6, 7 and 8 accused of paying N2.2billion to Baba-Kusa through  the bank accounts of Acacia Holdings Limited and Reliance Referral Hospital Limited in Zenith Bank Plc.

    Dasuki, Salisu and former Special Assistant, Domestic Affairs to the President, Hon. Warimpamowei Dudafa (now at large) were, in count 1, said to have received N10billion, which they converted to $47m and 5.6m Euro, and claimed to have distributed to  the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential primary election delegates  around November 27, 2014.

    Dasuki and Salihu were, in count 2, said to have, between January 22 and March 19, 2015 “remitted N2, 120,000,000 into the account of DAAR Investment and Holding Company Limited   controlled by one Dr. Raymond Dokpesi for the funding of the media activities for the 2015 presidential election campaign for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    They were in counts 15, 16 and 17 accused of paying N670m “to the bank account of General Hydrocarbons Limited with Guaranty Trust Bank Plc controlled by one Obaigbena Nduka purporting the said sum to be payment for’ energy consulting’; “N250m to the bank account of Tony Anenih with First Bank of Nigeria Plc”; and “N345m to the bank account of Starbriid Limited with Stanbic IBTC Bank and Guaranty Trust Bank controlled by one Emmanuel Lawani on behalf of Senator Iyordhia Ayu for the construction of shopping mall at Jabi, Abuja.

    Baba-Kusa, Acacia Holdings and Reliance Referral Hospital were charged in counts 9, 10, 11 and 12 for receiving funds from Dasuki and Salihu which they knew to be proceeds of criminal conduct.

    The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge when it was read to them.

  • Breach of rules can only render a proceeding irregular, not a nullity

    This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Delta State sitting at Sapele delivered by Hon. Justice E.N. Emudiainohwo wherein the learned trial judge awarded the sum of N10,488,678.80 to the Respondent.

    The Respondent by a Motion Ex-parte pursuant to Order 23 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 1988 of the defunct Bendel State then applicable to Delta sought that the Writ of Summons regarding the suit be placed on the undefended list. The Respondent had attached exhibits to buttress his prayers in the said motion.

    The trial Court granted the order as prayed and ordered that the Writ of Summons bemarked undefended and placed on the undefendedlist, service was ordered on the defendant now Appellant. The Appellant’s counsel filed a notice of intention to defend with a supporting affidavit after being served with the court process.

    On the return date, both counsel addressed the Court based on the affidavit evidence filed by them. The Respondent argued that judgment be entered in his favour,  but it was the contention of the Appellant  that the matter be transferred to the general cause list. Judgment was entered in favour of the Respondent.

    Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal through a Notice of Appeal filed containing one ground of appeal wherein two issues for determination were raised as follows:

    1. Whether the case before the trial Court was properly brought under the undefended list inaccordance with the provision of Order 23 Rule1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules)1988 of the defunct Bendel State now applicable to Delta State.
    2. Whether the failure by the Respondent tocomply with the provision of Order 23 Rule 1 ofthe High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 1988 ofthe Defunct Bendel State now applicable toDelta State, is a fundamental defect capable of rendering the Writ of Summons and consequently the proceeding null and void.

    The Respondent in his brief identified one issue for determination, the Court however adopted the first issue identified by theAppellant.

    Appellant’s counsel submitted that the procedure under Order 23 Rule 1 of the High Court (CivilProcedure Rules) 1988 of the Defunct Bendel State applicable to Delta State is a special procedure ofplacing certain category of cases under the undefended list, to facilitate expeditious determination of non-contentious cases. Counsel further submitted that the decision to place a case on the undefended list is a judicial function of a presiding judge who is empowered to exercise his discretion after giving due consideration to the processes before the Court.

    Appellant’s counsel posited that the Writ was markedas undefended before the order was given and thattakes away the jurisdiction of the trial judge to hearthe matter. See Nwakama v Iko L.G.A ofCross River &Ors. (1996) DTLR pg 112 at 113ratios 1 & 2, Drexel E and N Res v Trans Int’lBank Ltd (2009) Vol. 15 W.R.N pg 1 at page 10ratio 2, JagalPharma Ltd v Hussaini (2008) 14W.R.N pg 160-167 ratios 1-6.

    Counsel further contended that the Respondent hasto first apply to Court to list the matter asundefended and the grant of such application is acondition precedent to the exercise of the Court’sjurisdiction and as such, the lower Court lackedjurisdiction to entertain the suit since the provision ofOrder 23 was never complied with by theRespondent. The exercise of the Court’s discretion inthe matter was never sought and granted. Counselcited ACB Int’l Bank Plc v Out (2008) All F.W.L.Rpt 406 pg 1817 at 1820 ratio 2, Confex Limitedv Nigeria Arab Bank Limited (1997) 2 N.W.L.R(Pt. 496) pg 643 ratio 1; (1997) LPELR-882(SC), City Eng (Nig) Ltd, vNAA (1999) N.W.L.R (Pt. 625) pg 76 ratio 1,2,6; (1999) LPELR-867(SC)and Drexel E and N Res v Trans Int’l BankLimited (Supra).Appellant’scounsel urged this Court to allow the appeal.

    Respondent’s counsel, argued that there is nothing under Order 23 Rule 1 of the HighCourt (Civil Procedure Rules) 1988 of the defunctBendel State as applicable to Delta State thatrequires an applicant for a Writ of Summons underthe undefended list to apply directly to the judge orany other person than the registrar for the issuance of a Writ of Summons as provided for in Order 5 Rule1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 1988.

    Counsel submitted that the Respondent is only required to complete and submit the pro forma Writ to the registrar of the Court who will determine, bythe accompanied documents, whether the Writ is oneto be placed on the general cause or undefended listwho, based on the supporting affidavit, can infer that the case is one the Respondent wished to haveplaced on the undefended list.

    Counsel insisted that in this case, the Writ of Summons was placed on the undefended list upon the order of the Court and theWrit remains a valid Writ of Summons. Counsel cited Waade Investment Nig. Ltd &Anor v TradeBank Plc(2006) All F.W.L.R. Pt 336 pg 352and Order 5 Rule 1 of the HighCourt (Civil Procedure Rules) 1988 of the DefunctBendel State now applicable to Delta State.Counsel argued that it is the registrar or any otherofficer of the Court that marks the Writ “undefended”and Appellant’s position that it is after the Court Order is made that the Writ of Summons is enteredunder the undefended list procedure is deemedissued is fallacious.

    That the trial judge is notconcerned with the issuing of the Writ of Summonsbut with the placement of the Writ in the appropriatecause list for hearing. Counsel cited Order 23 R 1. Respondent’s counsel argued that even if the Writwas marked before the Order of Court was given; it does not invalidate the Writ.

    Counsel cited Abayomi&Anor v Attorney General Ondo State (2007)All F.W.L.R. (Pt. 391) Pg. 1683 at 1686 R.7 & 8,and said that even if the Writ in this case ought notto have been issued before the Order of the trialjudge placing the Writ on the undefended list, thefact that there is no appeal against the Order madeon the 26/05/09 in favour of the Respondent, theCourt should apply Order 2 R. 1(1) of the High Court(Civil Procedure) Rules of the defunct Bendel Stateas applicable to Delta State and treat the situation asan irregularity which will not nullify the proceedingsor any document, judgment or order given by thetrial Court and as such, the Appellant has waived hisright to complain. Counsel cited Ramadan Nigeria Limited &Anor vAfribank Plc. (2005) All F.W.L.R (Pt. 285) pg482 at 486 R. 8 and 9, Barr. EdwardEhimwenmaOsifo&Anor v Okogbo CommunityBank Ltd (2007) All FWLR (Pt 372) pg 1803 at1810 R. 9 and 10, Ezekiel Okoli v MorecabFinance (Nig) Ltd (2007) All F.W.L.R (Pt. 369)pg 1164 at 1170 R. 10 and 11; (2007) LPELR-2463(SC) and urged thisCourt to dismiss the appeal.

     

    Resolution

    The Court stated that the rules provide that a suit may be placed by thetrial Court on the undefended list where it is inrespect of a claim to recover a debt, liquidatedmoney demand or any other demand where the debt is clear and there is no defence against it after perusal of the affidavit filed by the defendant in support of the notice of his intention to defend the suit.

    The Court reviewed the facts on record and the sole ground of appeal and stated that the Appellant who was defendant at the trial Court is not disputing the amount of money or in any other way trying to negate the claim; his complaint is with the regularity of the process the Respondent used at the trial Court to activate judicial process to get the money back. The Court set out the following steps to be followed by the applicant as plaintiff to activate the undefended list procedure thus:

    1. An application must be made to the Court for the issuance of a Writ of Summons. (Ostensibly, the application was made hence the issuance of the writ by the Registrar filed on 18/05/09).
    2. The application must be to recover a debt, liquidated money demand or any other claim. (The endorsement on the writ showed a demand for the liquidated sum of N10,488,678.80).

    iii. The application must be supported by an affidavit setting forth the grounds upon which the claim is based. (The affidavit filed with the motion ex-parte set out the factual basis of the claim in support of the writ).

    1. The affidavit must state that the deponent believes the defendant has no defence. (Paragraph 12 of the affidavit declared that the defendant has nodefence to this suit).
    2. The Court should enter the suit for hearing on the undefended list if it believes there is indeed no defence. (In this case, after considering the motion ex-parte on 26/05/09, the trial Court declared that the suit be placed on the undefended list, marked undefended and all processes served on theAppellant who was the defendant).
    3. The Court shall mark the writ of summons accordingly. (In this case, the writ was marked “undefended”)

    vii. The Court shall set a suitable date for hearing. (The Court set a date- 11/06/09 for hearing as shown on the order). See Nkwo Market Community Bank (Nigeria) Ltd v Paul EjikemeUwaabuchi Obi (2010) LPELR-2051 SC; (2010)14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 169 S.C.

    From the above, the Court held that it is clear that the general position is that a Writ of Summons should be marked undefended by the Court before it be placed on the undefended list. See Bayero v Mainasara&Sons Ltd (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 982) Pg. 391; (2006) LPELR-75587 CA, Nwakanma v IkoLocal Government of Cross Rivers &Ors(Supra), Enye v Ogbu(2003) 10 NWLR (Pt.828) Pg. 403; (2003) LPELR-7152 CA, Obaro v Sale Hassan (2013) LPELR-20089 SC.

    Relying on the authority of Olubusola Stores v Standard Bank (1975)LPELR- 2610; (1975) 1 All NLR 125; (1975) 4SC 37,  the Court stated that it is clear that a plaintiff starts the processby applying for a Writ of Summons. The Writ must be filed with a motion on notice supported by affidavit. That it is that same Writ that would be markedundefended AFTER the Order of the Court and served on the Defendant along with other processes. That EveryWrit is issued by the Registrar of the Court.

    The Court agreed with Respondent’s counsel that the purport of Order 23 is not to mandate the judge to issue a Writ of Summons but the placement of the Writ in the appropriate cause list for hearing. In essence, what the trial judge did was not issuance of Writ of Summons on the undefended list by the Order made on the 26th May, 2009. See WaadeInvestment Nig. Limited &Anor v Trade BankPlc (Supra).

    It was held that there is a presumption of regularity in favour of the Writ of Summons that it was marked after the Order had been given by the trial judge and not before and that even if the Writ was indeed marked ‘undefended’ by the Registrar before the Order was given, the act hasbeen regularised by the Order of Court given on the26th May, 2009. That it is trite that the breach of practice and procedurecan only render a proceeding irregular and not a nullity. See Saliba v Lababedi (1972) 12 S.C.197; (1972) LPELR-2993(SC) Agbakoba v INEC (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 489 SC; (2008) LPELR-232 SC.

    In the circumstances, the sole issue for reasons stated above was resolved against the Appellant. The appeal was dismissed.

     

    Edited by LawPavilion. Citation: (2015) LPELR-25585(CA).

     

     

  • Police arrest kidnappers of Kogi judge

    Police arrest kidnappers of Kogi judge

    The Kogi State Police Command Thursday said that it has killed one Aliyu Isa, a.K.a Osama, the leader of a notorious criminal gang that kidnapped a state High Judge, Justice Samuel Obayomi recently and arrested other members of the gang.

    He said the late Osama was one of those that escaped from the Koto-Karfe Prison, during a jail break last year.

    The Commissioner of Police, Mr. Samuel Adeyemi Ogunjemilusi made this known while parading 13 suspected criminals at the Command Headquarters in Lokoja.

    He explained that Osama, who died during exchange of fire with the police, was out on a vengeance mission and recruited other gang members to carry out the elimination of his targets.

    He said some of Osama’s target included a petrol marketer, he worked with and the judge.

    He said that the deceased suspect and his gang members attacked the independent petrol marketer and his workers at a filling station, killed the manager and another staff, and died in the ensuing cross-fire between the police and members of the gang.

    The CP said that the Barretta pistol found on him belonged to the late orderly (Cpl. Usman Isah) of the Judge who was kidnapped.

    The police boss added that late Osama was one of those that escaped from jail, where he was serving 10 and 15 years respectively.

    He said, “The deceased manager of the filing station and the corporal, before he was assigned to the Judge were key witness and Investigation Police Officer respectively in the case that led to imprisonment of the late suspect”.

    He added that the Judge who was kidnapped on May 25 and released June 27, presided over the suspect’s case.

    Also paraded was one Bolaji Agbaje Williams, who claimed he was employed as security guard at the cave where the High Court Judge was kept for over three weeks.

    Williams who confessed that he joined the gang recently and was detailed to watch over the victim, claimed he hails from Ijebu Ode in Ogun State.

    Also paraded was a gang comprising of Fulani herdsmen who specialized in kidnapping of fellow herdsmen.

    The suspects, Idris Mohammed Jafaru, Shehu Haruna and Yunusa Ahmadu confessed to haven made over N1.5 million from criminal activities.

    The CP said that all the suspects would be charged to court immediately.

  • High Court orders status quo in Arco, Agip dispute

    The Federal High Court in Port Harcourt, the Rivers State capital, has ordered parties to maintain status quo in the suit filed by Arco Group Plc, against the Nigerian Agip Oil Company Limited and others.

    Justice Lambo Akanbi said nobody should take any action that could foist a state of helplessness on the court while the case is pending.

    He had adjourned till October 26 when he will determine his jurisdiction over the case.

    The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Conoco Philips Petroleum Nigeria Limited and the Nigeria Petroleum Investment Management Services (NAPIMS) are the other defendants in the suit.

    The plaintiff wants the court to determine whether, in view of the provision of section 3 (2) and (3) of the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development Act, 2010, having demonstrated ownership of equipment, personnel and capacity to execute the task of performing the contract for the maintenance of equipment at Agip’s gas plants at OBOB, Ebocha and Kwale, it is entitled, being a Nigerian company, to the exclusive right to be considered and granted such contract, including any extension of its duration.

    Justice Akanbi had adjourned hearing on the application following a motion for extension of time by Agip’s lead counsel Chief Charles Ajuya (SAN), who is challenging court’s jurisdiction.

    Lead Counsel to Arco, former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) president Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), reminded the court that it gave two rulings on June 2, one of which was that the first defendant’s counsel had not filed a memorandum of appearance before the court.

    He argued that the issue of appearance was critical and should be resolved first.

    When Ajuya said he had filed a motion asking for extension of time to file the memorandum of appearance, Olanipekun, who led Beluolisa Nwofor (SAN) and  Albert Akpomuje for the plaintiff, insisted the condition must be fulfilled first.

    “There is a condition precedent that must be fulfilled before the issue of jurisdiction can be raised either by the court or the defendant. I am only saying the defendant can’t be heard. We have not been served his memorandum of appearance. I want an even ground. I am not saying they should be shut out,” he said.

    The judge had asked both parties to maintain status quo until the determination of the matter.

    Explaining the directive to journalists, Olanipekun said: “The implication is that we should respect the processes that are before the court in the sense that when a court of law is seized of a matter, no party is expected to make an effort or any attempt at all to do anything that will negate what order the court will eventually make, or nobody should do anything at removing the res (subject matter of the suit) or touching the res; the res should remain intact until the court finally decides.

    “The res relates to the Nigerian Content Act, an indigenous content act, an act that is made to protect Nigerians. It is about preserving Nigerians who are protected by that Act.”

    Olanipekun told the court that the Agip had not served his team a copy of the motion seeking an extension of time to enable them to file memorandum of appearance.

    The judge, however, described Ajuya’s application as safe, saying: “It is a harmless oral application from the bar that all parties should remain where they are. I don’t see why all parties should not concede to this harmless appeal.

    “Counsels in this matter are accordingly advised to advise their clients to maintain status quo. Since nobody is doing anything to frustrate the matter, parties are advised to maintain status quo while the case is adjourned till October 26, 2015.”

    Arco is challenging Agip’s authority not to carry out NNPC’s directives that a stop-gap contract should be awarded to Arco for the maintenance of the OBOB, Kwale and Ebocha gas plants.

    NNPC, the majority shareholder of the NNPC/NAOC joint venture, had directed that the contract to Arco should subsist pending the conclusion of the processes leading to an award of a replacement  “four plus one-year” contract  for the maintenance of the gas plants.

    The plaintiff, a leading indigenous engineering maintenance and services company, is challenging Agip’s decision to award the contract to a company with alleged Italian roots and antecedents.

    It said the company had no demonstrable technical capacity or track record to execute the task, and had not shown that it owned the requisite equipment and Nigerian personnel for the purpose, contrary to the provisions of the Nigerian Local Content law.

    Earlier on June 2, the judge had struck out a preliminary objection by Agip . The  Justice held: “It is true that from the record of the court, the first defendant did not file a Memorandum of Appearance before filing the notice of preliminary objection.  The consequence is that they took that step in violation of the provisions of order 29 rules (1) and (2) of the Court Rules.

    “That is a defect which, in my respective view, is fundamental to the defendant filing their notice of preliminary objection.  The end result is to strike out the preliminary objection for being incompetent.”

    Having struck out Agip’s objection, the judge invited the parties to address him on whether or not  the court had  jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He ordered written addresses and adjourned the case to June 30.

    Olanipekun had expressed surprised that that  Agip’s counsel was yet to file the Memorandum of Appearance despite the ruling.

    He stated that one month had elapsed since the ruling, but no memorandum of appearance had been filed and served on Arco.

    The senior advocate said one month was enough to file a memorandum of appearance, adding that it would be an irregular procedure to allow Ajuya to address the court.

    Ajuya had informed the court that the business of the day was argument on the issue of jurisdiction and he was prepared to commence the proceedings.

    But Olanipekun insisted that entry of appearance was a fundamental issue which was not to be trivialised, and was a foundation of Agip case.

    After listening to both counsel, the judge ruled that compliance with the requirements of the court’s rules for filling a memorandum of appearance was a condition precedent for entertaining the address on the issue of jurisdiction, or indeed any other steps Agip’s counsel intended to take in the matter.

    Olanipekun then prayed the court to impress it on the parties that the status quo must be maintained.

    Ajuya urged the court to reject the prayer on the grounds that it amounted to a motion that had not been properly brought before the court and the fact that Olanipekun had also not brought any complaints against his client before the court on the issue.

    It was then the judge warned that he would not allow a situation in which any of the parties to the suit would take any steps, or carry out any acts capable of undermining the status of the case whilst a determination of the issue of jurisdiction was still pending.

    He, therefore, ruled that all the parties to suit must maintain status quo.

     

  • Bank manager, court officials held for alleged theft

    Bank manager, court officials held for alleged theft

    Officials of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja and Keystone Bank Plc have been arrested by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for their alleged involvement in fraud, resulting in the theft of about N30million belonging to an ex-Senator, the late Amasike Iwuagwu.

    The deceased, who died in 2005, represented Owerri Senatorial Zone at the Senate having been elected on April 12, 2003.

    He was  former Policy Adviser to former Head of State, General Abdulsalami Abubakar (1998-1999), Economist at the World Bank (1985-1987) and Chief Policy Analyst for the Nigerian Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project in the Office of the Adviser to the President on Petroleum and Energy 1982-1984.

    Those arrested include a manager with Keystone Bank, Wuse 2, Abuja,  Mrs Edna Akpan, a lawyer and Senior Registrar attached to the Probate Unit of the FCT High Court, Luke Oko and an official of the court’s Process Unit, Mathew Ekele. A former staff of Keystone Bank, who later moved to First Bank Plc, Onyekachi Guy Ochiagha is said to be at large.

    Court documents, accessed by The Nation, revealed how they allegedly manipulated the probate procedure of the court, with Mrs Akpan and Ochiagha posing as wife and son of the late Senator Amasike Iwuagwu, to claim N27,240,870.13, which was the outstanding balance in the Senator’s account  with Keystone Bank before his death. Oko was said to have later destroyed all court documents relating to the transactions, including the probate file.

    Their arrest, it was learnt, resulted from a February 14, 2014 letter written by one of the court’s judges, Justice Olasumbo Goodlcuk, urging the court’s Chief Judge to look into the matter. Justice Goodluck’s letter was said to have been informed by a complaint from the late Senator’s actual wife, Mrs Ngozi Mildred Iwuagwu.

  • Fire guts Rivers High Court

    Barely 72 hours after the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN), Rivers State branch, called off its eight -month old strike, several explosions rocked the premises of the state’s high court complex in Port Harcourt and two others outside the state capital.

    The Nation gathered that about five explosions were heard around the Port Harcourt High Court premises which is just few meters away from the Rivers State Government House.

    Similar explosions were heard at Degema and Isiokpo courts which are outside the state capital.

    Because of these explosions, the JUSUN did not resume work on Monday.

    Reacting to the development, the Rivers State Police Command in a statement said that coordinated attacks were launched on the state court premises at Degema, Isiokpo and Port Harcourt by unidentified and “unpatriotic assailants” at the early hours of Monday..

    The statement issued by the state’s Public Relations Officer, Ahmad Mohammad, explained that minimal damages were recorded at Port Harcourt and Isiokpo scenes without affecting the court buildings and documents while the one in Degema court razed down the building and burnt documents.