The Nation Newspaper

Tag: judgment

  • Court delivers judgment tomorrow on Isara Remo stool

    Justice A.A. Babawale of a Sagamu High Court in Ogun State will tomorrow deliver judgment in a suit filed by Prince Adetayo Odunsi challenging the nomination of Albert Mayungbe to the stool of Odemo of Isara-Remo.

    Co-defendants in the suit are Chief Wasiu Ekundayo who replaced the deceased head of the family, Prince Obafemi Awoyade, Secretary, Remo North Local Government; Oliwo of Isara, Chief Ajibowu Ogunfowodu; Apena of Isara, Chief Jimoh Soyombo; Chief Ladipo Ogunyemi; Ogbeni Odi of Isara, Chief Olajubu Osibote; Ekeji Asipa Odi, Chief Tunde Kalejaiye and Asipa Odi of Isara, Chief Owuye Logba.

    Others are Ekeji Asipa Odi of Isara, Chief Efuwape Sotikare; Olori Emo of Isara, Chief Bashiru Awoniyi; Ekeji Olori Emo of Isara, Chief Korede Ogunwole; Asipa Emo of Isara, Chief Nosiru Sodipe; Ekeji Asipa Emo, Chief Adewole Sopitan; Governor of Ogun State; Executive Council of Ogun State; Commissioner for Chieftaincy and Local Government and Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice as second to 18th defendants respectively.

    At the last hearing, the parties adopted their final written addresses.

    The claimant was represented  by Mr Muyiwa Obanewa,  the first, sixth to tenth and fourteenth defendants were represented by Dr Victor Odunaiya while Principal State Counsel, Mrs O.O. Adejumo represented the fifteenth to eighteenth defendants.

    In the suit, Prince Odunsi , who claimed to be a direct descendant of the late Oba Oyemade Mayungbe and progenitor of Erinsiba-Ayoledoye Ruling House, averred that he is the one entitled to the stool of Odemo of Isara-Remo.

    Odunsi sought seven prayers and orders against the defendants including: “A declaration that the first defendant is not a member of the Erinsiba-Adyoledoye Ruling House and therefore, not qualified to contest for the stool;

    “That under native law and custom applicable in Isara and Remoland generally, an Odi (servant of the king) or any of his descendants is not qualified to contest for the stool of Odemo of Isara;

    “That the first defendant’s late grandfather and father, late Ogunsakin and Oyekunle Mayungbe were Odi to the late Oba Samuel Akinsanya and late Oba Adeboboye Osideinde, therefore, not qualified to aspire or to be considered for nomination to the stool”.

    He also sought an order of the court setting aside the February 21, 2011 nomination exercise of the Ruling House during which the first defendant emerged as one of the candidates for the Odemo of Isara chieftaincy, among others.

    The first defendant, Albert Mayungbe, insisted on being a “bonafide member and descendant of the Erinsiba/Ayoledoye Ruling House.

  • ­Sale of secured seal: Court fixes April 13 for judgment

    ­Sale of secured seal: Court fixes April 13 for judgment

    Justice Doris Okuwobi of an Ikeja High Court has fixed April 13 for judgment in a   suit filed                                 by an activist-lawyer, Tope Alabi, challenging the powers of the Chief Judge of Lagos State, Justice Opeyemi Oke, over the introduction and the sale of seals in the High Court and Magistrate Court registries.

    Justice Okuwobi fixed the date  after parties had argued their various application before the court.

    Other defendants in the matter are the Chief Registrar, the Lagos State Judicial Service Commission, Lagos State Judiciary and the  Attorney-General of Lagos.

    Arguing his appilication before the court, Alabi said there was no law establishing the seal.

    He argued that the Chief Judge’s letter to judicial staff to carry out sale of seal is of no effect.

    According to him, “the letter introduced tax in form of revenue”, contending that “any revenue or tax must be provided for in a written substantive law”.

    But counsel to the first, third and fourth respondents, Prof. Taiwo Osipitan (SAN) argued that the Chief Judge has powers to introduce the seal.

    Osipitan said the seals are designed to checkmate activities of non-lawyers and unscrupulous persons involved in the use of affidavits, which they passed off as having been sworn to at the registries  of Magistrates and High Courts.

    He told the court that the secured seal applies only to affidavits and do not apply to other court processes filed in the registries of the Lagos State High Court.

    He said contrary to the claimant’s position, receipts are issued for every  secure seal paid for by litigants and deponents respectively.

    Osipitan urged the court to discountenance the claimant’s submission, saying that he has not disclosed reasonable cause of action in the suit.

    Counsel to the Attorney-General, the fifth defendant, Adebayo Saliu, aligned with the submission of the learned silk.

    The Lagos State judicial Service Commission, which is the second defendant, was not represented.

    In his originating summons, Alabi is seeking a declaration that the introduction and sale of seals and non-acceptance of his processes for filing on the basis that there were no seals on them is illegal and unconstitutional.

    Alabi said the court officials’ insistence that he must buy the seal and attach it to his supporting affidavits amounts to denying him and his clients access to justice.

    He is praying for an order of perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants or their agents from compelling litigants to purchase the seal when filing cases, processes or deposing to affidavits.

    He also wants the court to perpetually restrain the defendants or their agents from further producing or supplying the seals.

    The lawyer urged the court to determine whether, based on its rules and the 1999 Constitution, its officials can validly force litigants to buy the seals for N250 before they can file documents in court.

    Alabi said in all the laws, statutes and rules governing the court’s affairs, there was no legal basis for imposing the sale of the seals on court users.

    “The defendants cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand,” he said in his written address.

    Alabi also files a motion ex-parte praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from compelling him and other litigants to purchase the seal.

    In a supporting affidavit, which he personally deposed to, Alabi said he was at the court’s Lagos division on October 31 to file a motion for change of counsel.

    In addition to the regular charges, he said he was charged additional N250 for a seal affixed to his affidavit in support of the motion.

    He said he complained to the Assistant Chief Registrar, who he claimed informed him that “the order was from above  and that it was beyond him. “I was also at the Lagos Judicial division of the High Court of Lagos State on the 6th day of November, 2017 for filing of affidavit of service. The court officials, precisely the cashiers, denied me filing on ground that I did not give them the sum of N250 for the seal,” he said.

    Alabi said having complied with the pre-action requirements, “it is in the interest of justice to restrain the defendants from compelling the claimant or any legal practitioner or litigant to purchase the seals”.

     

  • Nyame: Court to deliver judgment May 30

    Nyame: Court to deliver judgment May 30

    A High Court of the FCT, sitting in Gudu, Abuja, will deliver judgment in a suit by the Federal Government against former Taraba State Governor Jolly Nyame, on May 30.

    Nyame was tried for alleged misappropriation of N1.64 billion.

    At the resumed hearing yesterday, the defence counsel Hassan Fajimite told the court about the defendant’s written address, dated December 3, and filed same day.

    He held that the witness’s evidence was based on ‘hear-say’ and that no records show that money was given to the defendant.

    He said: “None of the prosecution witnesses produced any document of the alleged transfer of money by the defendant to any of them

    “I urge your lordship to discredit those evidences.”

    However, counsel to the EFCC Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), who replied on the written address on January 10 and filed same day, said the defendant was liable to be prosecuted.

    He added that all witnesses testified that Nyame gave them money to pay into an account owned by the defendant.

    “My lord, the defendant is trying to cover up and so I urge your lordship to discountenance this submission by my learned counsel and deliver judgment in favour of the prosecution.”

    After listening to both submissions, Justice Adebukola Banjoko adjourned till May 30.

  • Ita-Giwa hails judgment on Bakassi

    Former Presidential Adviser Senator Florence Ita-Giwa has hailed the Supreme Court’s judgment, urging the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to delineate constituencies for Bakassi in Cross River State.

    Speaking with The Nation in Calabar yesterday, the Bakassi leader said with the judgment, the Federal Government should speed the development of Dayspring 1, Dayspring 2 and Qua islands.

    She called for three more wards to the existing 10, and two constituencies for Dayspring; Riverine and Mainland.

    She said: “With this judgment, I rest my case. I stand vindicated on this issue. I thank God it has ended. I will not relent until my people are fully resettled. While we wait for details of the judgment, the important thing for us is to sit down and cooperate with INEC to do the needful. We should stop politicising the issue.  Right now, there is need for relevant stakeholders to sit down and work with INEC.

    “We should set aside personal political ambitions and work together. The judgment is not about anyone losing or winning but to come together and work for the benefit of all. I stand by my petition in the Efiok Cobham Plight of the People of Bakassi report that three wards be added to the existing 10 in Dayspring.

    “Let us cooperate with INEC so the people would not be disenfranchised. My joy is that all elections conducted in Dayspring so far remain valid as per the judgment. The Bakassi people should be treated equally as all other Nigerians. If we have sincerity of purpose, we should all come together to do the needful for the sake of the people.

  • Ajimobi appeals judgment on Chieftaincy row

    Ajimobi appeals judgment on Chieftaincy row

    Oyo State Governor Abiola Ajimobi has appealed the judgment of an Oyo State High Court, which nullified the review of the 1957 Olubadan Chieftaincy Declaration and Other Related Chieftaincy Laws in Ibadan.

    The appeal, filed on Monday at the Court of Appeal‘s Ibadan Judicial Division, gave 11 grounds as basis of the request.

    The governor described the judgment as clustered and a miscarriage of justice.

    He insisted that the judge erred in law in several instances in the judgment.

    In the appeal, Ajimobi is seeking an order setting aside the ruling and judgment, an order upholding the preliminary objections he raised against the first respondent (Senator Rashidi Ladoja) and an order dismissing the case.

    An Oyo State High Court, on January 19, declared the review by the government as unconstitutional, illegal, null, void, and of no effect.

    The review resulted in the installation of 21 obas by the government on August 27, at the Mapo Hall, Ibadan.

    The court, headed by Justice Olajumoke Aiki, delivered judgment in the case filed by Ladoja,  a former governor and the Osi Olubadan of Ibadan.

    Ladoja listed Ajimobi and the chairman of the judicial commission that reviewed the declaration, Justice Akintunde Boade, as respondents.

    Explaining the grounds for the appeal, Ajimobi said the “trial judge erred in law by overruling all the heads of the preliminary objections raised to the competence of the Senator Ladoja case in the process failed and refused to follow decided authorities of Appellate Courts cited before him and thereby embarked on clustered justice, which led to a miscarriage of justice against the appellant”.

    He added: “The learned trial judge erred in law and totally misapprehended the facts of the matter in overruling the objection of the appellant on the inappropriateness of the originating summons proceeding in the determination of the first respondent’s case.

    “The learned trial judge erred in law and gravely misdirected himself in holding that the case of the first respondent, as constituted, is not academic, hypothetical and will serve no useful purpose.

    “The learned trial judge erred in law by holding, in spite of paucity of facts making any positive allegation against the appellant, that the suit discloses a reasonable or any cause of action at all.

    “The learned trial judge erred in law and totally misinterpreted sections 10, 12 and 25 of the Oyo State Chiefs Law in purporting to interpret these sections he introduced extraneous provisions, which are not contained in the law, thereby excluding the general scheme and the general provisions of the law.”

    Faulting the ground for the earlier judgment, which nullified the review of the 1957 chieftaincy laws, Ajimobi noted that “in the interpretation of a law, the court cannot interpret the section in isolation of each other but must interpret them holistically, while the court, in the interpreting the provisions of a statute, has no right to read into it words that are not in the statute with a view to arriving at its conclusion”.

    He said: “The learned trial judge erred in law and totally misapprehended and misinterpreted the provisions of the Chiefs Law of Oyo State in coming to the conclusion and agreeing with the first respondent that only indigenes of Ibadan could be made members of the commission of enquiry set up by the governor to look into Ibadan chieftaincy stool.

    “The learned trial judge erred in law and came to a wrong conclusion by holding that, the governor has no power to set up a commission of enquiry on the issues of beaded crown-wearing obas and coronet-wearing obas, contrary to the provisions of the Chiefs Laws of Oyo State, which donates such powers and authority to the governor.”

  • Death: Appeal Court reserves judgment on ex-policeman’s appeal

    Death: Appeal Court reserves judgment on ex-policeman’s appeal

    The Court of Appeal, Abuja yesterday reserved judgment on a criminal appeal filed by an ex-police officer, Julius Obanla to challenging the death penalty passed on him.

    Justice Abubakar Yahaya led two other justices of the court to reserve the judgment after counsel to parties had adopted their addresses.

    Mr Max Ogar, Counsel to the applicant argued that the trial at the lower court was shrouded in error.

    Ogar alleged that the trial judge had depended on circumstantial evidence not pleaded to arrive at the judgment.

    He said: “Without wasting the precious time of this court, there is no need for any appraisal of the testimony of the only prosecution witness, Sergeant James Danbwan, having failed to return to court for cross examination. The truth is that it is as though Danbwan never appeared before the court in the first place.

    “The learned trial judge was absolutely right for holding in his judgment of February14, 2011 that the evidence of PWI cannot be relied upon hence he was not cross examined.

    “The trial judge missed the point by a mile when he held in the same judgment that the court could rely on the statement of the accused applicant which was tendered through him without objection.

    “It is common sensical that having rejected the package from Danbwan, it was absolutely inappropriate to pick and or accept any item from rejected package.”

    He further said that the law was unequivocally clear on the legal status of expunged evidence, adding that once that happened, it no longer formed the part of the records of the court.

    “The trial judge, by his own judgment expunged the testimony of Principal Witness I (Danbwan) from his records by holding that it cannot be relied upon”, Ogar argued.

    He therefore, urged the appellate court to set aside the judgment of the trial court by discharging the accused applicant.

    According to him, the Federal Government has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and should not have secured the death conviction.

    Ogar also went ahead to raise a number of questions which included whether the trial court could rely on confessional statement not properly admitted to convict.

    He further asked whether doubt in the testimony against an accused should be ignored by trial court.

    The Counsel to the appellant further sought the consideration of the court to ascertain whether the respondent herein discharged its obligation of proof beyond reasonable doubt in the trial court.

    Mr Mohammed Labaran, Counsel to the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) said the submissions advanced by Ogar were misplaced.

    He argued that the decision of the trial was based on the accused persons’ confessional statement.

    “Where confessional statement is admitted by the court without any challenge or objection as in this case, it would amount to an after-thought for a defendant to deny the making is such statement.

    “Once admitted, the court can rely upon a confessional statement (Judicial and extra-judicial) to convict an accused even without corroborative evidence provided such confession is direct, positive and unequivocal as to the guilt of the accused”, he argued.

    He therefore urged the court to affirm the sentence and conviction of the accused applicant, adding that the trial court showed rare industry in arriving at the decision.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the applicant was arraigned at the FCT High Court on May 23, 2002 on allegation of culpable homicide punishable with death.

    The accused, a 35-years-old policeman of old No. 180, FHA, Kubwa, Abuja within FCT did shoot and kill Shagari Haruna with his official rifle No. 47 No-KO-358303.

    According to the Prosecution, the ex-police man committed an offence contrary to Section 220 of the Penal Code and Punishable under Section 221 of the same law.

    In the proof of evidence filed by the prosecution,  CSP Musa. M.Omika, Sgt. Sali Ndotti and Mohammed Sulyman were listed as the supposed witnesses

    However, when the trial commenced on February 27, 2006, the prosecution was only able to call Danbwan as it witness.

  • Nganjiwa: Implications of Court of Appeal judgment, by Falana

    Nganjiwa: Implications of Court of Appeal judgment, by Falana

    Activist lawyer Mr Femi Falana (SAN) writes that the Court of Appeal judgment in the appeal filed by Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa could have “far-reaching implications”, if allowed to stand.

    I am unable to persuade myself to share the views of some learned colleagues who have argued that the judgment delivered on Tuesday, December 12, 2017 by the Lagos Judicial Division of the Court of Appeal in the case of the Honourable Justice Hyeldzira Ajiya Ngangiwa v Federal Republic of Nigeria (Appeal No CA/L/969c/2017) has clothed Nigerian judges with immunity. It is indisputable that the sole legal issue decided by the Court is that a serving judicial officer cannot be charged with a criminal offence in any court by any prosecution agency unless and until he/she has been subjected to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the National Judicial Council.

    The Hon Justice Abimbola Obaseki-Adejumo who read the leading judgment of the Court and her learned brothers who concurred with her Ladyship are not unaware of the case of Fawehinmi v Inspector-General of Police (2002) NWLR (PT 767) 606 wherein the Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the immunity conferred on the President and state governors they can be investigated even though they cannot be charged with any criminal offence until the expiration of their term of office.

    The Court of Appeal has not said that judges cannot be investigated by the anti graft agencies. On the contrary, the Court conceded that judges can be investigated but that the report of any criminal investigation indicting them should be turned over to the National Judicial Council which will deal with it as a complaint of misconduct and possibly recommend the removal and prosecution of such judges to the appointing authorities before they can be arraigned in court. Realising that the judgment might be misunderstood or misinterpreted the Court made it abundantly clear that “no judicial officers is covered by immunity from prosecution under the Constitution as the Constitution only grants the powers to discipline judicial officers for official misconduct to the NJC.”

    Having read and digested the landmark judgment which has generated an interesting debate in legal circles I have come to the irresistible conclusion that it was a protest judicial decision against the special treatment being accorded to certain personalities and criminal suspects by the Buhari administration in the prosecution of the war against corruption. Hence the Court did not cite any decided case in Nigeria or any other common law country.

    In fact, their Ladyship and Lordships said, ex abundanti cautela, that the judgment had taken judicial notice of the decision of the President of the Republic to set up a panel of inquiry to probe a former Secretary to the Government of the Federation and a former Director-General of the National Intelligence Agency. As far as the Court is concerned, indicted judges deserve to be treated, in like manner, before they can be properly prosecuted in a court of law.

    It is however doubtful if the Court of Appeal was aware of the fact that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had reported the judges on trial to the National Judicial Council which had endorsed the prosecution and placed the judges on suspension pending the conclusion of their trial. The position of the NJC cannot be faulted in the circumstance because the Supreme Court has ruled in the cases of Garba v University of Maiduguri 1986) 2 NWLR (Pt 18) 559 and Federal Civil Service Commission v Laoye (1989) All N.L.R 350, that administrative bodies lack the vires to determine the civil rights and obligations of any person accused of committing a criminal offence in Nigeria.

    Regrettably, our colleagues who have been celebrating the landmark judgment have not considered the fact that it has exposed our judges to greater danger. For instance, the criminal case filed against of one of the judges arrested by the Department of State Security (DSS) last year was dismissed by the trial court in his favour. Consequently, the judge was reinstated and was allowed to resume duty in his court.

    He has just been recommended for compulsory retirement by the NJC following another case of misconduct. But assuming that the President had dismissed the judge based on the recommendation of the NJC which might have found him guilty of the allegation of corrupt practices levelled against him by the DSS he would not have been reinstated since the dismissal would have been premised on the civil offence of misconduct. It is common knowledge that the age long practice of interdicting public officers on trial pending the conclusion of criminal cases pending against them is to prevent a situation whereby they are removed from the public service on account of criminal allegations that have not gone through the crucible of cross examination. But once they are discharged and acquitted they are reinstated with all the rights and privileges.

    Therefore, by asking that judges be disciplined by the NJC before they are prosecuted the Court of Appeal has made it impossible to reinstate such judicial officers even if they are eventually discharged and acquitted. With respect, such unintended consequence of the judgment has made a mockery of judicial independence and further exposed our judges to danger.

    However, since the judgment has seriously questioned the inconsistency of the federal government in the prosecution of the war on corruption the Court of Appeal has equally challenged our judges to apply the law to all citizens without fear or favour. Out of ingenuity some lawyers are going to invoke the constitutional right of equality of all citizens before the law to challenge the validity of the criminal cases pending against some civil servants on the grounds that the administrative jurisdiction of the Federal Public Service Commission has not been invoked against them. More so, that the NJC, the Federal Civil Service Commission and other executive bodies have been created by section 158 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.

    Even professionals in the private sector who are standing trial for corruption will rely on the judgment of the Court of Appeal and insist on going through administrative procedure before they can be prosecuted in any court. For instance, a medical doctor who is charged with murder in a state high court for killing a patient in a hospital due to criminal negligence may challenge the case on the grounds that the Medical and Dental Practitioners Tribunal has not been given the opportunity to try the allegation of professional misconduct which informed the criminal prosecution. If such preliminary objections are filed the trial courts may have no choice than to uphold them as they are bound to follow the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of the Honourable Justice Hyeldzira Ajiya Ngangiwa v Federal Republic of Nigeria (supra).

    Finally, in view of the foregoing, it is indubitably clear that the judgment has far reaching implications for the judiciary, the anti graft agencies and other law enforcement agencies as well as the Buhari administration which has loudly proclaimed to be fighting a war against corruption and impunity in the country. It is therefore hoped that the EFCC will not hesitate to challenge the controversial judgment of the Court of Appeal at the Supreme Court.

  • Anambra Central: candidates urge INEC to respect judgment

    Candidates in the March 2015 senatorial election in Anambra Central have urged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to respect the court judgment and issue a certificate of return to Dr. Obiora Okonkwo of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    According to the candidates, the judgment of Justice John Tsoho of an Abuja High Court is a welcome development as “it signalled the resolution of a battle that had denied the people of Anambra Central quality representation at the Senate”.

    The candidates, who spoke under the aegis of Coalition of Candidates in the Anambra Senatorial Zone Election Rerun, said the zone had suffered deprivation due to the pre-election dispute which, according to them “by the grace of God, has now been resolved.”

    Leaders of the Coalition Chief Akudo Chikwendu and Comrade Peter Okala, in a statement said: “It is time we allowed the law to rule our dealings irrespective of how emotionally attached we are to issues. The judgment of the Federal High Court was straight and unambiguous; we welcome it and call on INEC not to delay the process of actualising the judgment.

    “We believe the judgment will begin a healing process that will enable the people to rebuild and plan for 2019. We are just a few months away from electioneering for 2019, and so we believe that swearing Dr. Okonkwo in will enable us to refocus and plan early for 2019.”

    The coalition also said it was wrong and misleading for anyone to insinuate that the Court of Appeal nullified PDP’s victory at the March 2015 polls.

    It added: “We have read insinuations and suggestions that the Court of Appeal in Enugu nullified PDP’s victory at the March 2015 senatorial election; this is false and misleading.

    “We believe those spreading this false information do not mean well for Anambra Central and its people; we have no doubt that such persons are enemies of the peace, who may be profiting from the legal quagmire that had kept the zone without senatorial representation since 2015.

    “It is wrong to put words into the mouth of the justices of the Court of Appeal; we are certain they are courageous enough to make any pronouncement they deem necessary. Since nothing of such was pronounced, it will amount to criminality to put words into their mouths and see to use same to deceive the public.

    “While we call on INEC to issue Dr. Okonkwo his certificate of return, we also urge the leadership of the National Assembly to swear him in. We are all interested in moving forward into 2019. 2015 is in the past and must be closed, and we thank the Federal High Court for helping us close it.”

  • Court reserves judgment in appeal against Saraki’s acquittal

    Court reserves judgment in appeal against Saraki’s acquittal

    THE Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved judgment in the appeal by the Federal Government asking it to set aside the acquittal of Senate President Bukola Saraki on charges of false assets declaration.

    A three-man panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Tinuade Akomolafe Wilson, told parties after they adopted their briefs of argument yesterday that the court would inform them when judgment was ready.

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), in a ruling on June 14 this year, discharged and acquitted Saraki on the 18-count charge of false assets declaration, among others, brought against him by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).

    In his lead ruling on June 14, CCT’s Chairman, Danladi Umar, upheld Saraki’s no-case submission and held that the prosecution was unable to prove its allegations against the defendant.

    Dissatisfied with the CCT’s decision, the Federal Government, through the CCB, approached the Court of Appeal and sought among others the voiding of the tribunal’s ruling.

    Adopting the appellant’s brief yesterday, lawyer to the CCB, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), urged the court to uphold the appeal, reverse the CCT’s decision and order Saraki to enter his defence in the case.

    Jacobs contended that the CCT was in error when it adjudged as hearsay, the oral evidence by the prosecution’s third witness, who is the Head, Intelligence Unit at the CCB,  Samuel  Madojemu,

    He added: “It is our position that the lower tribunal did not consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The empahsis I will like to make is on the evidence of PW3.

    “We argue that there is nothing like hearsay evidence in the oral evidence of PW3, who is the investigative officer.

    “There are authorities of the Supreme Court that say once the evidence of a witness is supported by documentary evidence, his oral testimony merely the hanger that holds the evidence.”

    Jacobs urged the Court of Appeal to hold that the Code of Conduct Tribunal was wrong in “upholding a no-case submission raised by the respondent at the close of prosecution‘s case”.

    He equally urged the court to hold that the learned members of the tribunal were wrong “in holding that the respondent was not invited by the EFCC (the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission) in the course of its investigation”.

    Jacobs argued that the tribunal was wrong “in holding that the investigation conducted by a team of investigators from the EFCC and the CCB was illegal and unknown to law.”

    He faulted the tribunal’s conclusion that “failure to produce the original asset declaration forms and the written statement of the respondent, is fatal to the case of the prosecution when the prosecution tendered the certified true copies (CTC) of the documents.”

    Jacobs also argued that the tribunal was wrong “in upholding the no-case submission in the instant case.

    Jacobs urged the court to hold that the CCT ruling was perverse.

    Saraki’s lawyer and former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) Kanu Agabi (SAN)  urged the court to dismiss the Federal Government’s appeal on the grounds that it was without merit.

    The former AGF said: “They contended that because PW3’s evidence supported by documents it was not hearsay, but there are no documents in support of the evidence.

    “The witness said he derived his evidence from what he was told by somebody he did not name.

    “The contention of the appellant (prosecution) at the tribunal was that the onus was on the respondent (Saraki) to prove his innocence. It is not surprising that they did not call witnesses.

    “May I urge your lordship to dismiss this appeal, it has merit.”

    He urged the court to answer in the affirmative the questions he raised for determination.

     

    They include:

    “Whether the tribunal was right when it held, contrary to the submission of the prosecution, that the burden of proof was upon the prosecution and not the defendant and that the prosecution failed to discharge that burden.

    “Whether the tribunal was right when it held that the prosecution had not made out a case warranting an answer from the defendant and in consequence made an order discharging and acquitting the defendant.

    “Whether the tribunal was right when it held that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was hearsay, which afflicted and bedevilled the entirety of the prosecution’s case in violation of sections 37, 38 and 126 of the Evidence Act; and

    “Whether the tribunal was right when it held that the hearsay evidence of the prosecution coupled with the general reference to a team the membership of which was not specified could not establish a prima facie case against the defendant.”

    “Whether the tribunal was right when it held that the failure of the prosecution to respond to seven of the issues raised by the defendant constituted an admission of those issues leaving the tribunal with no alternative than to rule that no case had been made out against the defendant warranting an answer from him.”

     

  • Firm seeks judgment in N31.2m suit against bank

    An estate agent, Jetland Proper-ties Limited, has prayed the Lagos State High Court in Igbosere to enter judgment in its favour in a suit against Ecobank Nigeria Limited for alleged breach of contract.

    It is praying for an order entering final judgment for it against the defendant for N21million, being four per cent agency fee due it.

    Jetland said it sold a property for the bank at Plot 7, Block 10, Lekki Peninsular Phase 1, Lagos, and was entitled to the commission.

    The claimant also prayed for an order awarding interest on the N21million at the rate of 35 per cent per annum from August 1 until judgment is delivered, and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum until final liquidation.

    Jetland asked for N10million as legal fees paid, and N250,000 as cost of the action.

    The claimant, in a supporting affidavit to the motion for judgment, sworn to by its Managing Director Mr Jude Azekwoh, said the respondent, Ecobank, engaged it to find a buyer for the property.

    Jetland Properties said it deployed all efforts and resources in search of a buyer, and that the bank rejected the first offer of N500million from a prospective buyer.

    The claimant said it found another buyer, Punuka Investment Ltd, through another real estate firm, Messrs Barin Epega & Co, with an offer of N525million, following which it informed the bank about the new offer as well as its agency fee of five per cent of the purchase price.

    Jetland Properties said the bank responded via a November 28, 2016 letter stating its intention not to pay the agency fee.

    The firm said it wrote the bank on November 29, 2016 explaining that the eventual purchaser had engaged Messrs Barin Epega & Co, and affirming its entitlement to the agency fee, which it subsequently reduced to four per cent.

    Jetland Properties said the bank did not reject the four percent commission, adding that it was actively involved in getting documentations for Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) approval of the sale, among other services.

    It further claimed that upon consummation of the transaction at the sum of N525million between Ecobank and the purchaser, it made several demands for the payment of its four per cent agency fee.

    “The respondent remained recalcitrant and continued to deny it of its fruits of labour,” the claimant said.

    Jetland Properties said its lawyer, Messrs Dipo Okpeseyi (SAN) & Co, wrote several demand letters, yet the bank refused to comply.

    The applicant said “the respondent has no defence whatsoever to this action,” nor does it intend to pay the fees, which it said ought to have been paid since July.

    “The respondent has been paid its N525million purchase price. The respondent is deliberately denying the applicant its fees for no justifiable reason. The respondent took full benefit of applicant’s services,” Jetland Properties said.

    In a written address in support of the motion for judgment, the applicant’s lawyer Oladipo Opeseyi (SAN) said: “It is our humble submission that the respondent cannot set up a defence to the applicant’s claim.

    “By the totality of the exhibits attached, it is unambiguous and unequivocal that the respondent is indebted to the applicant and has not paid the 4% agency fee due to the applicant for carrying out the respondent’s instructions.”

    Citing several authorities, the claimant’s counsel said it would amount to a travesty of justice if the respondent is allowed to defend the action without a good defence, thereby wasting the court’s time and denying the applicant the summary judgment it deserves.

    The SAN said due to non-payment of the commission, his client was put under hardship, unnecessary embarrassment, and was on he verge of being blacklisted by other real estate firms it worked with and whose contacts and resources it used to get the buyer.

    “It is our contention that the respondent has no defence whatsoever to the applicant’s claim. We respectfully urge this Honourable Court to enter judgment against the respondent and for the applicant and prevent the respondent from further delay in meeting its obligation and indebtedness,” Opeseyi added.

    However, Ecobank, in its letters to the applicant’s counsel, dated July 21 and 31, insisted that the Jetland Properties was acting on behalf of Punuka Investment and therefore it does not owe the firm.

    One of the letters reads in part: “We have reviewed the contents of your letter and do not understand the basis of your demand for agency fee as the bank did not at any time engage your client as its agent for the sale of the above referenced property.

    “Our interpretation of your client’s communications with the bank pertaining to the property was that your client (in conjunction with Messrs Barin Epega & Co) was acting on behalf of the then proposed purchaser.

    “Accordingly, we were quite perplexed by the request for agency fee and immediately responded… clearly stating that the bank will not pay any fees or commission upon consummation of the sale.

    “Therefore, our unwavering position remains succinctly enumerated above and in our letter of  November 28 2016. The bank does not owe your client any obligation to pay any purported commission and/or agency fee.”