The Nation Newspaper

Tag: judgment

  • Tribunal to give judgment on Abaji polls

    The election petition tribunal for the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), has fixed June 25, this year for the judgment on the March 16, 2013 Abaji Area Council chairmanship elections. It will hold at the Senior Magistrate’s Court Abuja. Justice Binta Mohammed will deliver the judgment.

    The chairmanship candidate of the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), Alhaji Abdulrahman Ajiya, had earlier filed a petition challenging the victory of the incumbent chairman of the council, Alhaji Yahaya Garba of the Peoples Democratic (PDP).

    While adopting his final written address, counsel to Ajiya, Omar Musa, argued that the incumbent chairman was not qualified to contest the March 16, 2013 chairmanship election, having been dismissed from service.

    Musa alleged that the chairman of Abaji Area Council, who was a class teacher in Gurara Local Government Area of Niger State, was dismissed from service before contesting the election.

    He, therefore, prayed the tribunal to declare the ACN chairmanship candidate as winner of the March 16, 2013 chairmanship election held in Abaji.

    However, counsel to the PDP, Mahmud Magaji, urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition in its entirety, arguing that the documents tendered by the petitioner are not genuine.

    Abuja Review learnt that the tribunal had, at its pre-hearing season, struck out the petition following an application of the respondent early last year.

    Counsel to ACN, not satisfied with the decision, appealed the ruling, wherein the appeal tribunal headed by Justice Ahmed Muhammed, ordered the lower court to hear the case on its merit.

    It was also learnt that due to the circumstances, the case lasted up to this moment, after ACN chairmanship candidate in the area filed petition in April, 2013.

  • Bank appeals court’s order on N5 billion judgment sum

    Guarantee Trust Bank (GT Bank) has appealed against the judgment  of a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court , Abuja, which ordered it  to pay the sum of  N5,240,516,186.21 to an Abuja based lawyer,  Dr Ted Isegholi Edwards.

    Justice Valentine Ashi of the FCT high court gave the order after considering the submissions of counsels to the applicants and defendants in an application brought by Edwards against the bank.

    In the notice of appeal filed before the Abuja division of the Appeal Court, , the bank through its counsel, Chief Anthony Idigbe (SAN) stated that the first respondent has no locus standi to institute the suit as constituted and has not disclosed a reasonable course of action against the appellate (GT Bank)

    The appellate also argued that the lack of locus standi and/or reasonable course of action on the part of Dr. Edwards robbed the trial court the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and therefore all proceeding conducted without jurisdiction is a nullity.

    The bank  stated further  that the judge erred when he held that the appellate (GT Bank) has not disclosed a prima facie defence to the first respondent’s suit.

    The appellant is therefore seeking an order of court allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the lower court made on Monday, May 18, 2015.

    The bank is also seeking an order remitting  the matter suit N0 FCT /HC/CV/939/15 to the Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory for transfer  to another judge of the FCT, Abuja for retrial.

    Apart from the notice of appeal, the bank is also asking for an order of the Appellate court  staying execution of the judgment  of the lower court delivered on Monday May 18, pending the  determination of its  appeal filed  at the Court of Appeal against  judgment of the lower  court.

    The bank submitted  that  the trial judge erred when he held that he has jurisdiction to determine the suit filed by the first respondent ,  Dr Edwards.

    According to the bank  Order 21, Rule 3 of the Federal Capital Territory High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2004 stated that where the defendant discloses a defence on the merit to a suit filed under undefended list Procedure, leave should be granted to the defendant to file its defence..

    The appellate’s notice of intention to defend, the bank argued, discloses a defence on the merit to the first defendant’s suit.

    It therefore stressed that the court failed to properly evaluate the affidavit evidence placed before it before reaching the conclusion that the appellate’s notice of intention to defend discloses no defence on the merit of the first respondent’s suit.

    No date has been fixed for the hearing of the applications.

    Justice Ashi, had in a judgement delivered Monday May 18, 2015, in a suit filed by Dr. Ted Isegholi Edwards  against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr. Jonah Otunla, the Accountant  General of the  Federation,  Ambassador Bashir Yaguda, Minister of State for Finance, GT Bank,   Anaocha Local council in Anambra State and   Incorporated  Trustees of Association of Local Government of Nigeria (ALGON) ordered GT Bank  to pay the plaintiff the sum of  N5,240,516,186.21, for debiting the Plaintiff’s account without his consent.

    The judge  who struck out all the other defendants apart from GTB bank for lack of jurisdiction and ordered the bank to pay 21 per cent interest per annum on the judgment sum of at the prevailing interest rate whichever is higher calculated from December 12, 2014 up till date of judgment as well as  post judgment interest of ten per  cent  from date of judgment until the judgment sum is liquidated.

  • GTBank seeks NJC’s intervention in N5.2b judgment

    GTBank seeks NJC’s intervention in N5.2b judgment

    Guarranty Trust Bank (GT Bank) Plc has urged the Chief Justice and the Chairman of the National Judicial Commission (NJC), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, to order probe into the conduct of Justice Valentine Ashi of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Abuja over a N5.2 billion judgment against the bank.

    The suit was filed by Dr. Ted Isegholi Edwards against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and five others, including GT Bank.

    This was contained in a petition dated May 18, 2015, written by the bank through its counsel, Anthony Idigbe (SAN), and sent to the office of the CJN.

    The President of Court of Appeal and the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) were also copied.

    Justice Ashi had last Monday, ordered the bank to pay the plaintiff N5,240,516,186.21 for debiting the plaintiff’s account without his consent.

    Justice Ashi, who struck out all the other defendants apart from GT Bank for lack of jurisdiction, also ordered the bank to pay 21 per cent interest per annum on the judgment sum at the prevailing interest rate, whichever is higher calculated from December 12, 2014 up till date of judgment.

    It will also include post judgment interest of 10 per cent from the date of judgment until the judgment sum is liquidated.

    In its petition, the bank stated that the manner the  proceedings of the court were carried out engendered injustice, making it believed that the trial judge must have been compromised in the discharge of justice in the matter.

    It also asked that all culprits which the investigation may uncover be decisively brought to the books in accordance with the CJN’s established and renowned principles, which uphold natural justice, equity and good conscience.

    The bank expressed worry over undue speed with which it claimed the court handled the matter, arguing that the justice of the matter has been sacrificed at the altar of speed.

    It contended that the proceedings allegedly showed a clear determination by the judge to grant judgment against it.

    The bank hoped that the CJN should direct that appropriate steps be taken to ensure that the injustice meted to the bank as a result of the said judgment is not allowed to stand.

  • Firm asks court to set aside judgment on property

    Firm asks court to set aside judgment on property

    A Lagos based company, Johnson Products Nigeria Limited, has filed an application before a  Lagos High Court, sitting in Ikeja, to set aside the execution of a judgmnent which granted possession of a property located at Plot B, Ikosi Road, Oregun Industrial Estate, Ikeja to Jagal Nigeria Limited.

    In a Motion on Notice supported with an affidavit of urgency before Justice Olabisi Ogungbesan, the firm is praying the court to restore the status quo ante pending the hearing and determination of a pending application before the Court of  Appeal.

    Joined as second defendant in the suit was, Chief Samuel Agboola Akintan, who was said to have earlier leased the property to Wire Manufacturing (Nigeria) Limited for 20 years, having had a Deed of Conveyance dated 1971.

    Justice Ayotunde Phillips, (now a retired Chief Judge of Lagos State), had on July 11, 2008 delivered a judgment in suit no. ID/1466/98 in which judgment was given in favour of  Jagal Nigeria Limited concerning the Oregun Industrial Estate property.

    Jagal Nigeria Limited and Johnson Products claimed to have executed a Memorandum of Agreement on April 17, 1980, under which Jagal was said to have assigned its ‘unexpired interest in the said property to Johnson Products for a consideration of N1, 340, 000: 00 (One Million, Three Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira).

    However, Jagal claimed at the lower court that the Memorandum of Agreement entered into with Johnson Products in 1980 was ‘inchoate and transferred no interest in the property’ to Johnson Products; that the N1, 340, 000:00 paid by the Johnson Products to Jagal was in consideration of the sublease of 1982; and that Johnson Products holds the property only as tenant/sub-leasee and not as an assignee.

    It was this premise that Jagal claimed at the lower court.

    However, while Jagal claimed that its relationship with Johnson Products was that of a landlord and tenant, Johnson Products claimed that the relationship was that of an assignee and assignor.

    But Johnson Products averred at the lower court that the Memorandum of Agreement executed by the two parties on  April 17, 1980 “effectively transferred Jagal’s interest in the property” to it upon the payment of N1, 340, 000: 00; that Jagal issued a receipt No. 1351 dated 2 June 1982, which ‘clearly stated that the payment is for the assignment of the property in question.

    Johnson Products further averred that Jagal acknowledged its ownership of the property in a letter addressed to Ault and Wilborg (Nig) Limited.

    Delivering judgment on the matter at the lower court, Justice Ayotunde  Philips (as then was) of the Lagos High Court, held the claims of Jagal as the court affirmed that the Memorandum of Agreement ‘transferred no interest in the property to Johnson Products.’

    Not satisfied with the decision of the court, Johnson Products Limited, appealed against the judgment on  July 16, 2008 and claimed to have filed its Brief of Argument as at  December 8, 2010.

    The matter assumed a new dimension on December 8, 2010 when the matter slated for hearing  by the appellate court, was struck out for lack of legal  representation for the appellant, Johnson Products.

    Consequent upon the new development,  and alleged ‘misrepresentation’ of its position to the Court of Appeal, Johnson Products Limited  applied for a relisting of the suit at the Court of Appeal.

    However, while waiting for the relisting to be done,  Jagal Nigeria Limited,  obtained a Writ of Possession of the Lagos High Court, Ikeja to effect the 2008 judgment of Justice Philips against the first defendant (Johnson Products).

    In a letter to the Administrative Judge of Lagos State, dated May 4, 2015, counsel to Johnson Products, Dr. Wale Olawoyin (SAN)  claimed that Jagal’s action was “contrary to trite principle of law’, urging the court to set aside the claimant’s (Jagal Nigeria Limited)  execution order and further execution of the judgment.

    ”The staff of the first defendant (Johnson Products) no longer have any office space to work from and are now constrained to operate from the personal office of its Chairman in GRA, Ikeja.

    “We have now filed a Motion on Notice together with an Affidavit of Urgency to set aside the claimant’s execution and further execution of the judgment and restore the status quo ante pending the hearing and determination of the pending application before the Court of Appeal,” the letter read in part.

    At the fresh sitting on the new application last Friday, Justice Ogungbesan urged all parties in the suit, including an inter-pleader, Olayiwola Dada, to file their responses to Jagal’s application and other applications already filed before the court.

    Dada, who joined in the fresh suit, told the court through his counsel, Emmanuel Ogbitisen that although the previous judgment of the court did not affect him, but he urged the court for an order to “allow us to maintain the machines and have access to them so as to service them”.

    Counsel to the claimant (Jagal), Qudus Mumuneey, however, opposed any order of the court until he replied to all applications before the court. Mumuneey averred that as far as his client is concerned, “the case is technically dead”. He further told the court of his client’s intention to move a preliminary objection on the jurisdiction of court to hear the fresh application.

    But counsel to Johnson Products, represented by J.O. Omisade, his client was misrepresented before the Court of Appeal that his client ‘had not been diligent in prosecuting the appeal by its failure to file its Brief of Argument.

    “However, as shown in our Motion before the court and contrary to the misrepresentation of the claimant to the Court of Appeal, the 1st defendant (Appellant) had filed and served its Brief of Argument since 8 December 2010,” he said.

    Justice Ogungbesan has, however, adjourned the matter till tomorrow to address all the applications by the parties.

    Johnson Products Limited, in its brief of argument  before the Court of Appeal listed four main issues for determination in line with its ground of appeal and the facts and circumstance of the case.

    It asked the court to determine “whether the trial judge was right in holding that the Memorandum of Agreement dated April 17, 1980 and admitted as exhibit 8, has not conveyed any interest recognisable in law to the appellant; whether the learned judge was right in holding that the appellant”s  payment to the first respondent was not payment under exhibit P8 when the payment receipt, exhibit D2, clearly states that the payment was for the assignment of the first respondent’s unexpired residue”.

    The company also asked the court to determine “whether the appellant failed to prove its allegation of fraud against the first respondent at the lower court considering that the whole evidence adduced by the appellant in proof of the fraud was wrongly rejected by the trial judge” and “whether from the totality of evidence presented before the lower court, the trial judge was right in holding that the relationship between the first respondent and the appellant was landlord and tenant’s and not that of assignor and assignee.

    On the first issue, the appellant, citing authorities to support its argument, submitted that on the basis of exhibit P8, obtained valid and subsisting equitable interest in the subject matter of the appeal and urged the court to so hold.

    It further submitted that the payment of N1,340,000 by the appellant to the first respondent evidenced in Exhibit D2 was validly made and stands as the consideration under exhibit P8.

    It argued that the trial judge was wrong in holding that the first respondent is entitled to possession of the res, arrears of rent and mesne of profit and urged the court to so hold.

    The appellant urged the court to sustain its appeal and reverse the judgment of the lower court on the ground that the memorandum of agreement conveyed equitable interest in the property, subject matter of the appeal, to the appellant contrary to the decision of the trial judge; that the sum of N1.340,000 paid to the first respondent and acknowledged by the first respondent, is a valid payment under exhibit P8 and was never converted to any other purpose.

    It further submitted that the evidence adduced by the appellant in proof of its allegation of fraud was improperly evaluated by the trial judge and that occasioned miscarriage of justice and emphasised that by the totality of evidence adduced before the trial judge, the relationship between the first respondent and the appellant is that  of assignor and assignee.

     

     

  • Appeal court reserves judgment in property suit

    Appeal court reserves judgment in property suit

    The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has reserved judgment in a dispute over the ownership of a piece of land in Asokoro, Abuja.

    A Nigerian in the Diaspora, Mr. Imokhuede Ohikhuare, built two duplexes on the land, but a former Nigerian Envoy to South Africa, Ambassador Shehu Malami, claimed ownership.

    He claimed to have transferred the property to a businessman, Sir Emeka Offor.

    A three-man panel of Justices W. Akomolafe, Tanin Yusuf and Moh’d Yusuf reserved the case for judgment after hearing the parties.

    It is expected that the Appeal Court would deliver judgment on the appeal within two weeks as is the practice of the appellate court whenever it reserves judgment in matters before it.

    At the hearing of the matter on April 1, 2015 the Appeal Court justices confirmed the written briefs submitted to it on the matter and listened to oral arguments by counsel to the appellant, Mr. Paul Erokoro (SAN) and Mr Femi Falana (SAN) as well as the lawyer representing Ambassador Malami and Sir Offor – Chief Udenwa Udechukwu (SAN).

    The case, numbered CA/A/370/2012, has been before the Court of Appeal since 2012.

    Ohikhuare, a businessman and appellant in the matter, said he bought the land in 2006 for N50 million, and built residential apartments valued at about N1billion on the land.

    He said for four years, Malami and Offor did not lay claims to Plot 1809 Asokoro. He was living with his family in the property until he was allegedly ejected from it, on the strength of a verdict by Judge A.S. Umar of an Abuja High Court.

    In March 2010, Ambassador Malami filed a suit at an Abuja High Court before Judge A.S. Umar against the minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the Federal Capital Development Agency (FCDA) and a former Minister of Transport, Alhaji Mohammed Habib Aliyu, who sold the land to Ohikhuare.

    Ohikhuare only learnt of this suit as he was not joined in the matter by Malami even when it was apparent that Ohikhuare was in legitimate possession of Plot 1809, Asokoro. Consequently, Ohikhuare sought to be joined in the matter.

    Malami had claimed that the land was originally allotted to him in 1984, but was unlawfully revoked in October 2005 by the FCDA, which, thereafter, assigned Plot 1809 to Alhaji Aliyu, who eventually sold the land to Mr. Ohikhuare.

  • APC candidate wants judgment ousting him from state assembly election set aside

    A member of the Lagos State House of Assembly, representing Lagos Island Constituency 1,  Hon. Hakeem Masha has filed a Notice of Appeal against the judgment of Justice Ibrahim Buba of a Federal High Court, Lagos, which declared Wasiu Sanni-Eshilokun as the All Progressive Congress(APC) candidate for Lagos Island Constituency 1 in the April 11, House of Assembly elections.

    Justice Buba had also ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC)  to recognise and substitute Hon. Masha’s name with that of Sanni-Eshinlokun’s for the  April 11, House of Assembly elections.

    Hon. Mash is urging the court to set aside its judgment delivered last week  by   Justice Ibrahim Buba, which declared his opponent in the All Progressive Congress (APC), Wasiu Sanni-Eshinlokun the lawful candidate of the party, representing the Lagos Island Constituency 1 for the April 11 election into the Lagos State House of Assembly.

    In the notice of appeal filed by his lawyer, Mr. Bonojo Badejo (SAN), Hon. Masha based his appeal on five grounds.

    The appellant is seeking for a stay of execution of the judgment delivered by Justice Buba pending determination of his appeal.

    He stated that  Justice Ibrahim Buba erred by declaring Wasiu Sanni-Eshilokun as the lawful candidate.

    He claimed that the judge also ignored all fundamental issues raised by Hon. Hakeem Masha while adjudicating on the matter.

    Other ground of  his appeal was that the judge erred in law when he assumed jurisdiction to hear originating summons when the first respondent failed to explore or exhaust the internal dispute remedy enshrined in the APC constitution before proceeding to court.

    The appellant also faulted  the judge on the issue of waiver as the APC National Working Committee or its National Executive Committee had at no time, granted waiver to Wasiu Sanni-Eshilokun to participate in the primaries.

    He said Sanni-Eshilokun, who was declared winner by the court did not resign from his position within the stipulated time by the party’s constitution.

    It said the APC’s National Working Committee (NWC) had, in a response to the petition filed by Hon. Masha,  ruled that Sanni-Eshilokun did not resign within the mandatory 30 –day period as required by the party’s Constitution and was not qualified to contest in the primaries elections.

    The NWC of the party, it further stated, had then upheld the prayers of the petitioner, Hon. Masha and forwarded his name as the Party’s candidate for Lagos Island Constituency 1 to INEC.,

    •The application for stay of execution of judgment was served on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) at its National Headquarters in Abuja on Friday, March 6,

    •The effect of the application  was to ensure that INEC does not carry out the order of the court until the application/appeal has been determined by the court.,

    During trial at the court, the plaintiff, through his lawyer, Mr. Wahab Shittu, sought a declaration of the court that the substitution of his name in the list forwarded to INEC with that of Masha, ran contrary of the provisions of Sections 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the Electoral Act, 2010.

    In a 37-paragraph affidavit deposed to in support of the originating suit, Sanni-Eshinlokun had averred that he has  not, at any time withdrew his candidacy in the race for the Lagos House of Assembly on the platform of the APC.

    He insisted that he  remains the substantive and the lawfully nominated candidate of the APC.

    “I state that I am alive, fully fit and in good condition of health.”

    But the APC and Masha, through their own lawyers, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) and Mr.  Bonojo Badejo (SAN), had raised objection to the plaintiff’s prayers.

    Falana and Badejo  described the suit as “frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of court processes” and urged the court to dismiss same for want of jurisdiction.

    They had also contended that the suit was “not initiated by the due process of law.”

     

  • Court confirms transfer of Nyako’s suit before judgment

    Court confirms transfer of Nyako’s suit before judgment

    •Judge fixes fresh hearing date

    The Federal High Court has confirmed the transfer of a suit filed by former Adamawa State Governor Murtala Nyako at the Yola division of the court to a new judge in Bauchi division.

    The transfer, now being queried by Nyako, is coming few weeks after the case file was retrieved by the court’s Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim Auta, from the earlier trial judge, Justice Bilikisu Aliyu, who had scheduled judgment in the case for February 12.

    The Nation had reported last week that the case was transferred out of the Yola division, where Justice Aliyu had planned to deliver judgment before Justice Auta called for the file.

    Although no official of the court, including the Chief Registrar, Mrs. Rosemary Dugbo-Oghoghorie, was willing to comment on the new development in the case, it was learnt from a fresh hearing notice sent to parties that the case has actually been moved to Bauchi.

    The new judge to whom the case is assigned at the Bauchi division, Justice M.G Umar, has scheduled hearing for March 17.

    It is, however, not clear what direction the proceedings will take before the new judge. It is equally not known whether the new judge will commence hearing afresh, after the judgment earlier fixed for February 12 was aborted, or he will proceed to deliver the judgment prepared by the earlier trial judge.

    Nyako had initiated the suit to challenge the process leading to his impeachment last year.

    The suit, a fundamental rights enforcement case, with the Adamawa State House of Assembly & others as defendants, was one of two suits filed by the governor shortly after he was impeached.

    Nyako had, in the fundamental rights enforcement suit, filed in November 2014, alleged that he was denied fair hearing by the impeachment panel, which recommended to the House of Assembly that he should be removed from office.

    The trial judge in Yola concluded hearing in the fundamental rights enforcement suit and adjourned to February 12, 2015. Before the date scheduled for judgment, the court’ chief judge called for the file on the ground that a petition was written against the trial judge by the Chief Judge of Adamawa State, Justice Ishaya Banu, through his lawyer, Festus Keyamo.

    Nyako protested Justice Auta’s action in a February 2015 petition to the National Judicial Council (NJC), accusing him of seizing the case file and “thereby forestalling the delivery of the court judgment slated for February 12, 2015.”

    The Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court, on February 18, denied Nyako’s allegation.

    She said the court’s chief judge called for the case file to enable him address a petition dated February 3, 2014 written to his office by Keyamo on behalf of the Chief Judge of Adamawa State.

    Keyamo was also the lawyer to the current Adamawa State Governor, Bala Ngilari (who was the deputy governor under Nyako), when he fought his way back to power via a suit at the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Nyako’s lawyer and media aide Olukoya Ogungbeje and Ahmad Sajoh said in the petition to the NJC that “on the day the judgment was to be delivered, the judge was not around.  No prior information that the court would not sit and no new date was fixed.  We got information that it was the CJ that called for the file.

    “As we speak to you, the file remains with the CJ. Whose interest is he protecting? We want Justice Auta to tell the whole world why he has not sent the file back to Federal High Court, Yola.”

    Ogungbeje said the former governor also sought the probe of the Chief Judge of the Adamawa State, for showing questionable interest in the case.

    “The Chief Judge of Adamawa State, Justice Ishaya Banu, is hearing a different case filed by Admiral Murtala Nyako to challenge his impeachment procedure. Justice Banu has refused to hear the suit.

    “What is the interest of a chief judge in a suit involving politicians?  He filed an application to join the suit before Justice Bilikisu Aliyu and the judge dismissed the application. As if that was not enough, Justice Banu promptly appealed the judgment. The chief judge has decided to join the foray of litigation.”

    Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal, Abuja will on March 10 rule on the application by the Adamawa State Chief Judge for the abridgement of time within which to compile records at the trial court and  to also stay proceedings at the lower court pending the determination of his appeal.

    The Adamawa Chief Judge is appealing the ruling by Justice Aliyu, refusing his application to be joined as a party in Nyako’s fundamental rights enforcement suit, now transferred to Bauchi.

  • Appeal Court reserves judgment in suit challenging President’s re-election

    Appeal Court reserves judgment in suit challenging President’s re-election

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja yesterday reserved judgment in the case challenging President Goodluck Jonathan’s eligibility to stand for re-election.

    Presiding Judge Datijo Yahaya, after entertaining arguments from lawyers representing parties, said they would be informed of the judgment date. Other Justices on the five-man panel that heard the appeal include Mrs. Akomolafe Wilson, T.Y. Hassan, J. E. Ekannem and M. Mustapha.

    The appeal was filed on April 16, 2013 by Cyriacus Njoku, who is challenging the judgment of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court delivered by Mudashiru Oniyangi (now of the Court of Appeal) who had earlier ruled that Jonathan was eligible to contest.

    Yesterday, appellant’s lawyer, Okon Obon-Obla urged the court to allow his client’s appeal and grant his prayer to reverse the decision of the lower court.

    He equally urged the court to hold that it was wrong for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to declare President Jonathan as its presidential candidate and proceeded to adopt him in the capacity while the appeal was not yet decided.

    Obono-Obla also urged the court to hold that, as against the respondents’ contention, Njoku has the locus standi (right to sue) to file the case.

    President Jonathan and the PDP, represented by the party’s National Legal Adviser, Victor Yusufu Kwon, urged the court to dismiss the appeal.

    Kwon said Jonathan, by presenting himself for election, was acting within the provision of the law.  He said the PDP’s adoption of Jonathan as its presidential candidate was supported by the existing judgment of Justice Oniyangi.

    “The party nominated Dr. Goodluck Jonathan as its Presidential candidate and in doing that it was in line with the extant judgment, so it is wrong for anybody to suggest that the PDP acted lawlessly in adopting the President”, Kwon said.

    Njoku had, in 2012 filed the suit before the FCT High Court and sought among others, a declaration that Jonathan’s tenure of office as President began on May 6, 2010 when his first term began and his second term shall end on May 29, 2015 after taking his second oath on May 29, 2011.

    He had argued that by virtue of Section 136 (1) (b) of the Constitution, no person (including the Jonathan) could take the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Office prescribed to in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution more than twice.

    Njoku sought an order of injunction restraining Jonathan from further contesting or attempting to vie for the office of the President of Nigeria after May 29, 2015 when his tenure ends.

    He also asked for an order restraining the PDP (2nd Defendant) from sponsoring or attempting to sponsor Jonathan as candidate for election to the office of the President in the 2015 presidential election after the expiration of his two terms on May 29, 2015.

    In his judgment on the March 13, 2013, Justice Oniyangi dismissed the case and held that President Jonathan was free to contest the 2015 presidential election on the platform of the PDP.

  • Nyako seeks NJC’s probe of alleged judgment arrest

    Nyako seeks NJC’s probe of alleged judgment arrest

    Former Adamawa State Governor Murtala Nyako has urged the National Judicial Council (NJC) to investigate the alleged arrest of a judgment in his suit challenging his impeachment.

    Nyako, in two separate petitions to the commission dated February 13, said verdict in the case was ready only for it to be suspended.

    Justice Bilikisu Aliyu of the Federal High Court, Yola, had fixed February 12 for judgment after parties argued and adopted their briefs.

    But the verdict was not delivered as scheduled as the court’s Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim allegedly withdrew the case-file following a petition.

    Urging the NJC to urgently investigate the matter, Nyako through his lawyer, Olukoya Ogungbeje, said his client believes there is a bid to frustrate the case.

    Nyako was impeached last year shortly after defecting from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to All Progressives Congress (APC).

    His deputy, Bala Ngilari, who remained in PDP, was said to have resigned moments before the House impeached Nyako, while the Speaker, Abubakar Fintiri was sworn-in as acting governor.

    However, Federal High Court in Abuja declared Ngilari’s purported resignation as unlawful and ordered Fintiri to vacate office as acting governor, following which Ngilari was sworn in as governor.

    Nyako had filed a fundamental rights enforcement suit before Justice Aliyu in Yola to contest the propriety of his impeachment after a similar suit in Lagos was struck out.

    “Why would Justice Auta not want the reserved judgment delivered contrary to his recent admonition to judges of the court at a workshop that political cases should be dispensed with before elections?” Ogungbeje wrote.

    According to Nyako, NJC should unravel why a judgment should be withdrawn based on a petition, wondering what allegations could be so weighty as to suspend a judgment for.

  • Osun Tribunal Reserves Judgment

    Osun Tribunal Reserves Judgment

    The State of Osun Governorship Election Petition  Tribunal hearing the petition of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its governorship candidate, Iyiola Omisore, against the re-election of Governor Rauf Aregbesola has reserved judgement in the matter.

    The tribunal reserved judgement on Friday after counsel to the petitioners and respondents; Aregbesola, All Progressives Congress (APC) and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), adopted their final addresses before the court.

    Adopting his final address, counsel to Aregbesola, Chief Akin Olujinmi (SAN), submitted that the petition was not competent in the first place because it was filed out of the time stipulated by law.

    He also argued that the petitioners did not adduce any reasonable evidence to justify their allegations of irregularities at the election, saying, the duplicate copies of Form EC8A (result forms) tendered by one of the witnesses of the petitioners were inadmissible because the witness was neither the maker nor signatory to the documents.

    The counsel also argued that “the purported CTC of form EC8A were not properly certified. Also, the ballot papers they brought before the court were just dumped and up till now, nobody knows what they want to use it for.

    “The Supreme Court in the case of Buhari vs Obasanjo has said the document tendered by the petitioner are inadmissible and the Court of Appeal said even if they are admitted, they have no weight.

    “Apart from that, there are total of 3,010 polling units in Osun, the petitioners are challenging 939 polling units in 142 wards, and they did not call any evidence in 709 units in 116 wards, even when the Supreme Court has said you must call evidence in all the units you are challening. It means they have abandoned their case in those wards and units.

    “Assuming without conceding that evidence were called in all the polling units being challenged and results of those units were deducted, the petitioners would still lose and the first respondents would still win convincingly.

    “The so-called expert witnesses of the petitioners admitted that there are errors in his report and none of the witnesses of the petition advanced the cause of the petition,” he argued.

    He said the petitioners have no evidence to rely on before the tribunal and “the petition must fail and I urged your lordships to dismiss it.”

    In his argument, counsel to the APC, Mr Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN), adopted the argument of the first respondent’s counsel, and added that the failure of the petitioners to link their evidence to the case was fatal to the petition.

    “The evidence of their witnesses are of no value. They listed over 1,000 witnesses, they reduced it to 500 and they ended up calling 43 witnesses.

    “Their allegation was that voters were induced, but none of the petitioners’ witnesses told the court that he was induced. Also their so-called expert did not give any expert evidence.

    “If there has been any petition that has been a waste of judicial time, it is this petition,” urging the tribunal to dismiss it.

    Also, the INEC counsel, Mr Ayotunde Ogunleye, said the petition was incompetent because it was filed out of time, urging the court to dismiss same.

    He also said the petitioners failed to shift the burden of proof place on them by law, saying, in all the Forms EC8A tendered by the petitioners, none of their witnesses established discrepancies in them as alleged by the petitioners.

    The counsel added that part of the case of the petitioners was that people were disenfranchised, saying, none of the witnesses of the petitioner said he was not allowed to vote.

    Urging the court to dismiss the petition, he said the Osun election was an election that INEC should be commended for its credibility.

    While adopting his own address, the petitioners’ counsel, Dr Alex Izinyon (SAN) said the evidence before the court has shown that his client had majority of lawful votes and he should be declared the winner of the election.

    In looking at preponderance of evidence before the tribunal, he said his client has more evidence on the scale, while the respondents have none.

    Meanwhile, the tribunal conduct its sitting for the day amidst tight security.

    Reacting to the rumour that Aregbesola’s counsel admitted that he was allocated votes more than what he won, Olujinmi said it was part of the antics of the petitioner to confuse the people when it failed to convince the tribunal.

    “What we are saying is that assuming without conceding that those votes being chellenged were deducted, the petitioners will still lose the case. I am surprised that the counsel for the petitioner is claiming not to know what he knows it is elementary.

    “Our position is that the petition is hopeless, but they are now coming up with another theory of election litigation of random proof, which is strange. So, the petition has failed and we are confident of victory,” he said.