The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Justice Walter Onnoghen

  • I have nothing to hide – Onnoghen

    I have nothing to hide – Onnoghen

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, has said he has nothing to hide and was ready to submit himself for investigation on corruption related issues.

    Onnoghen, who assured he was committed to reforming the judiciary to enable it effectively aid the government’s anti-corruption efforts, declared that he was willing to pay any price to make the country better.

    The CJN spoke in a statement issued on Wednesday in reaction to a story published by The Punch newspaper that he was among those being investigated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    In the statement issued by his spokesman, Awassam Bassey, Justice Onnoghen said he has never been invited by any investigative agency and has not been told by anybody or agency that he was being investigated.

    The CJN said he was a committed judicial officer and ready to submit himself to investigation by any agency.

    Justice Onnoghen, who said he supported the government’s anti-corruption efforts, urged Nigerians to have faith in the government and support its anti-graft initiatives.

    The statement reads: “The reports in the media mentioned the reason for the investigation as ‘intelligence’ which for now, we take to be abstract.

    “However, the CJN wishes to use this medium to say that it is the first time he is being aware of any allegations or intelligence against him, neither has he been invited or called upon to offer any explanation on any impropriety.

    “However, the CJN wishes to assure the public that he has nothing to hide and is open to investigation.

    “As a committed patriot, who has spent all his adult life in the temple of justice, the CJN is ready to pay the required price to make the nation a better place.

    “The commitment of the CJN to the efforts of the current administration to rid the country of corrupt practices is unwavering and he will stop at nothing to see a new dawn in Nigeria’s Judiciary.

    “He will also not be distracted in his avowed reformative efforts to make the Nigerian judiciary a beacon of well-rounded justice which the entire citizenry will be proud of.

    “The public is encouraged to keep faith and trust in the present administration’s fight against corruption and be assured that the CJN is doing his best to reform the judiciary accordingly.”

  • ‘Magu’s rejection more of politics than legal’

    ‘Magu’s rejection more of politics than legal’

    •CJN’s ruling boosts confidence

    The row over the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Ibrahim Magu, assumed a new dimension yesterday, with the Presidency insisting that his nomination does not require the confirmation of the Senate.

    It based its decision on an advisory prepared by judicial and legal experts on Section 171 of the 1999 Constitution.

    The advisory unearthed a ruling of the Supreme Court on the matter where the Chief Justice of the Nigeria (CJN), before his elevation as CJN, had ruled in line with the view of the Presidency on the matter.

    The CJN, Justice Walter Onnoghen, had ruled that the Constitution overrides any provision of an Act /Statute.

    But the Presidency said it will await the judicial review of Section 171 for the final say on Magu.

    The details of the advisory were obtained last night by our correspondent.

    The legal advisory asked the Presidency to await a judicial pronouncement on Section 171.

    The source said: “In fact, the conclusion of the legal advisory on the matter is very clear that a judicial pronouncement preferably by the Supreme Court is what will settle the matter.”

    Some extracts from the legal advisory states: “The divergent positions being held by the Executive and the Legislature on the subject of confirmation …is one that requires timely and ultimate resolution.

    “Such resolution could only be reached through the judicial process…Such interpretation would lay to rest the lingering crises between the two arms.”

    Concerning the issue of the Acting EFCC Chairman, the legal advisory concluded that “the rumblings in the discourse on the confirmation of the EFCC Chairman have more to do with politics than with the law.

    “It is trite that, by the rule of ejusdem generis, any office to which Section 171 or other Sections of the Constitution do not confer on the Senate the power of confirmation of appointment to such office cannot be imported and accorded equal footing as the mentioned offices.”

    The advisory affirmed the powers of the President to appoint in acting capacity into positions such as the EFCC chairmanship.

    It also clarified that “in the recent past, the ministerial nomination of late Prof. Abraham Babalola Borishade (Ekiti State) by President Olusegun Obasanjo was rejected repeatedly by the Senate.”

    “In fact, it would be recalled that this particular nomination was presented four times in 18 months before it was eventually confirmed by the Senate.

    “This position is because of the long established and entrenched principle of law that any legislation that is inconsistent with the provision of the Constitution is null and void and of no effect whatsoever to the extent of such inconsistency. (See the Supreme Court cases of DR. OLUBUKOLA ABUBAKAR SARAKI v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2016) LPELR-40013 (SC) and CHIEF ISAAC EGBUCHU v. CONTINENTAL MERCHANT BANK PLC & ORS (2016) LPELR-40053 (SC).”

  • CJN pegs lawyers’ court appearance

    CJN pegs lawyers’ court appearance

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, on Monday pegged the number of lawyers that could appear for a party in court at five, including the lead lawyer.

    Justice Onnoghen announced this shortly before the Supreme Court opened proceedings in the two appeals filed by former governorship candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in Edo State, Osagie Ize-Iyamu.

    He said the directive was meant to curb the practice when about 100 lawyers, in most political cases, announce appearance for a party in court.

    He said: “There was a matter we had here and 106 lawyers appeared. The whole space was taken up and some lawyers had to stand and others sit on the floor. I have issued a directive, which should extend to other courts, that lawyers appearing in the Supreme Court, should not be more than five for each party, including the lead lawyers.

    “This practice consumes space and it takes take time to announce appearance. Appearance in cases have to have utility value, such appearance has to serve a purpose. I have to repeat this directive today, because I believe it was not brought to the attention of the Bar.

    A former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who was in court for the Ize-Iyamu appeals, appealed to the CJN to allow 30 lawyers per party, a request another Justice of the apex court, Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour, rejected.

  • Supreme Court blames politicians for unsettled polity

    Supreme Court blames politicians for unsettled polity

    The Supreme Court has blamed politicians for the unsettled political climate in the country.

    It said politicians’ unwillingness to play by the rules and abide by the dictate of the law account for why the nation’s polity is riddled with crises.

    This forms part of the substance of two judgments delivered on Friday by a five-man panel of the apex court, led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    Justices Musa Dattijo Muhammad, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, Amina Adamu Augie and Ejembi Eko were also on the panel.

    Both judgments were in appeals marked: SC/ 583/2016 filed by Isah Shuaibu Lau (relating to Taraba North Senatorial District) and SC/733/2016 by Mrs. Dorothy Mato (relating to Vandeikya/Konshisha Federal Constituency, Benue State).

    The court found that both the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), in Lau’s case; and All Progressives Congress (APC), in Mato’s case, blatantly ignored the Electoral Act and parties’ guidelines, in the conduct of primaries, to impose unqualified candidates.

    The court noted that while the PDP in Taraba knew that former Acting Governor, Sani Abubakar Danladi was not qualified for its primary, it chose him over Lau, who was more qualified.

    In the Benue case, the court noted that the APC went further to breach its existing principle of rotation in Vandeikya and Konshisha Local Government Areas and handed both the Senate and House of Representatives seats to Barnabas Andyar Gemade and Iorwase Herman Hember (both from Konshisha Local Government Area).

    Justice Onnoghen, in the lead judgment in the Mrs. Mato appeal, wondered why politicians think of self alone.

    In deciding the appeal in favour of Mrs. Mato, Onnoghen said: “I am satisfied and hold that the plaintiff has proved that the 1st defendant/respondent (Hember) was not a member of the APC as at December 10, 2014 when the primary election was held. Accordingly, he was not qualified to contest the said primary election as he was still a member of the PDP.”

    Relying on a report dated December 16, 2014, issued by APC’s National Assembly Primaries Appeal Committee on the primary that produced Hember, and INEC’s report, dated December 11, also on the primary, Justice Onnoghen concluded that it was wrong for Hember to have been made APC’s candidate.

    He said: “From all I have endeavoured to say above, it is crystal clear that the primaries, which produced the 1st defendant/respondent (Hember) was frought with manifold irregularities aside the fact that he was not even qualified to contest same.

    “Thus, since only the plaintiff and the 1st defendant were the contestants, the 2nd defendant (APC) ought to have given effect to the recommendations of its Primary Election Appeal Panel, which recommended that appellant’s name be submitted to the 3rd respondent (INEC).

    “There is nothing on record to contradict the principle of rotation as contained in the said report.

    The principle of justice, equity and fair play demanded that, since Konshisha Local Government Area had taken the office of Senate, through Gemade, the other Local Government Area, that is, Vandeikya, where the plaintiff belongs, ought to produce a member of the House of Representatives.

    “I do not know how politicians think, but for me, it was unfair to give both the Senate and House of Representatives seats to Konshisha Local Government, while Vandeikya had nothing to show for it.”

    “In view of the above provision and the fact that only the plaintiff/appellant and Herman Hember were the candidates, who contested the primaries for Vandeikya/Konshisha Federal Constituency seat in the House of Representatives, I enter judgment for the plaintiff/appellant.

    Justice Augie, in the lead judgment in Lau’s appeal wondered why politicians and political parties find it impossible to play by the rules.

    She noted how Danlandi, who was not qualified, was imposed as candidate in disregard of due process.

    Justice Augie said: “The 3rd respondent (Garba Umar) basically admitted that he was screened and cleared as a gubernatorial candidate, but was allowed to participate in the primaries for National Assembly after he was removed by this court as Acting Governor of the state.

    “To make it very clear, the 3rd respondent admitted that he was not an aspirant for the said Senatorial seat; that as at the time he submitted his expression of interest form and nomination form for the gubernatorial office of Taraba State, the time for the submission of similar forms for the National Assembly had expired.

    “And that, although he did not obtain similar forms for the National Assembly election and was never screened nor cleared for the seat, the 1st respondent (PDP) declared him the winner of the primary election doe the Senatorial seat and sent his name to the 2nd respondent (INEC),” she said.

    Justice Augie noted that to drive its impunity home, the PDP, despite knowing that Lau was qualified to participate in the primary, preferred Danladi, who was not qualified.

    She said: “So, it (PDP) brings in the former Acting Governor of the state (Danladi), who did not do any such thing – satisfy conditions and fulfil all requirements. And after he had won the primaries, it submitted his name to INEC.

    “The appellant complained, then filed an action challenging the eligibility of the 3rd respondent (Umar) to participate at the said primaries.

    “While the matter is pending, the 3rd respondent withdrew his candidature, and the 1st respondent (PDP) did the same thing again.

    “This time, it brought the current Acting Governor (Danladi) to replace the 3rd respondent in total disregard for the action pending in court, that is, the action questioning the said primary that produced the 3rd respondent as its (PDP’s) candidate in the first place.

    “And it (PDP) thereby took it upon itself to determine the appellant”s right and obligations with regard to his complaint against the said primaries,” she said.

    Justice Augie, while ordering Danladi’s replacement with Lau, said “This is a hard and very better lesson for political parties to learn.

    “They may have chosen candidates or eminent personalities they want to present as candidates to INEC, but they have to play by the rules.

    “The chosen candidate must abide by the provisions of the Electoral Act, which creates a level playing field for all aspirants, who seek to contest elections. So, the political parties and their candidates must obey the rules,” Justice Augie said.

     

  • Osinbajo tasks Judiciary on prompt determination of cases

    Osinbajo tasks Judiciary on prompt determination of cases

    The Acting President, Professor Yemi Osibanjo (SAN) has challenged the Judiciary to evolve ways of ensuring prompt determination of cases by courts in the country.

    He regretted the current practice where it takes years to determine simple cases, a development, he said, accounts for the “crawling” judicial process in the country.

    Osibanjo spoke in Abuja Monday at the opening session of the 3rd annual judges workshop on petroleum, gas and power sectors, held the National Judicial Institute (NJI).

    Represented by the Minister of State, Petroleum Resources, Ibe Kachikwu, Osinbajo noted that the pace at which cases were determined in the nation’s courts was a disincentive to investors.

    He said: “We need to evolve measures that will speed up the judicial decisions. We also need these decisions not to be too complicated for investors to easily understand

    “We need to ensure sanctity of international arbitration. Also, judges should be trained in petroleum and energy sector so that they would to be fully equipped to handle the emerging trends in the sectors.

    “if the country is not positioned to supply the necessary power supply, which is essential for driving the economy, the country will not make much progress,” Osinbajo said.

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, who declared the event opened, urged judges not to allow technicalities to stand in the way of justice.

    He said the workshop was to enhance judges’ knowledge on issues relating power and petroleum sectors.

    He urged judges to desist from taking cases arising from contract breach where parties to the contract failed to first explore the arbitration clause enshrined in such contract.

    He said: “It has come to my notice that some courts assume jurisdiction in matters of breach of contract arising from contracts with arbitration cases.

    “It goes without saying that no investor, whether domestic or international would want his investment tied down in seemingly endless litigation, especially where there is an arbitration clause in the contract.

    “In such cases the use of arbitration must be employed. The courts must insist on enforcement of the arbitration clause by declining jurisdiction and award substantial costs against parties engaged in the practice.

    “May I draw the attention of heads of courts that the time saving nature of an arbitration proceeding encourages heightened commercial and economic activities as well as foreign investment and therefore needs the support and encouragement of the judiciary,” Onnoghen said.

    He argued that incidents of conflicting judgments by trial courts cannot be eliminated.

    Onnoghen said: “Conflicting decisions unfortunately, are necessary, because when you approach a court in Lagos, your facts are stated and the facts of that case are also different in a court in Port Harcourt.

    “So, the judge takes a decision based on the facts before him and the law, and that is why we have the Court of Appeal who will look at the law and decide,” the CJN said.

     

  • PDP crisis: Supreme Court reserves judgment 

    PDP crisis: Supreme Court reserves judgment 

    …To communicate date to parties

     

    The Supreme Court reserved judgment Monday in the appeal filed the sacked National Caretaker Committee of the party led by Ahmed Makarfi.

    The Makarfi Committee is by the appeal, challenging the February 17 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt division declaring among others, that the Makarfi-led Committee is illegal.

    Monday, a five-man panel of the Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen took arguments from parties and informed that that judgment has been reserved, and that a date will be communicated to them.

    At the commencement of argument Monday, the court invited lawyer to the Ali Modu Sheriff faction of the PDP to move his application, with which he sought the striking out of the appeal.

    Fagbemi argued that the judgment of the Court of Appeal having not be set aside, Sheriff and members of the executive committee remained the alter ego of the party and that only them could validly file any court process in the name of the party.

    “In urging your Lordships to grant the application, I will say that the point here is not about the locus of counsel but about the competence of the appeal, whether it was filed with authority or not and whether or not the party in whose name the appeal was filed has a right to withdraw the appeal.

    “PDP is a corporate body, therefore the corporate personality is defined in terms of the (party’s) constitution, which gives power, and the decision of the lower court that has not been set aside or suspended.

    “If the party, through its directing minds, led by Ali Modu Sheriff and backed by the constitution of the party and the judgment of the Court of Appeal, have withdrawn the appeal, there is evidence that they exercised their rights and their powers rightly.

    “Whoever is interested in the appeal can only come as an interested party and not to file an appeal in the name of the party,” Fagbemi said.

    Lawyer to the Makarfi-led Committee, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) urged the court to grant his client’s appeal, set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and also dismiss the application seeking the striking of the appeal.

    “I urge your lordships not only to dismiss this application but to do so with heavy cost.

    “Apart from Rule 29 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 27(1) and (4) of the rules also demonstrate that the application is incompetent and the Supreme Court does not even have the vires to countenance it.”

    Olanipekun noted that Niyi Akintola (SAN), who represented Sheriff and Oladipo against the PDP at the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal and who still represented the same clients at the Supreme Court could not decide who should represent the PDP at the apex court.

    He said: “Appeal is a continuation of hearing. The initiator of this application has shot themselves in both legs. Are they saying they were respondents to a a non-competent respondent (the PDP) at the lower court? It is short of words to say it is abuse of process.”

    Olanipekun prayed the court to grant his appeal and set aside the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

    Lawyer to Sheriff and Prof Wole Oladipo, Akin Olujinmi (SAN), aligned with Fagbemi’s submission in relation to his application.

    Olujinmi added that he had in his preliminary objection raised a similar issue of lack of authority on the part of the Makarfi committee to file the appeal.

    He said: “In urging your lordships to grant the application filed by Lateef Fagbemi, we rely on all these processes and my own application filed on March 16, 2017. I rely on all the processes that I have identified.

    “The issue we have raised in the application relates to the lack of authority of the people who brought the appeal. It is fundamental.

    “The issue is very narrow and your lordships will have to consider whether the appeal is filed in the name of the PDP without authority is competent.

    “The issue of counsel who represented the various parties at the lower court is irrelevant. Apart from lack of authority to file the appeal, there are no grounds to sustain the appeal.

    “I urge your lordship to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit and for being incompetent.”

    On point of law, Fagbemi contended that Rule 29 of Rules of Professional Conduct referred to by Olanipekun “does not apply to the competence of the application seeking the striking out of the appeal.”

    Earlier court reelected the objection by Sheriff’s lawyer to the motion by the Makarfi committee seeking leave to appeal on grounds of mixed law and filed.

    The court proceeded to grant the application after dismissing objection and deemed the appeal as properly filed.

    Other members of the court’s panel Justices Tanko Muhammad, Bode Rhodes-Vivour, Kayode Ariwoola and Dattiji Muhammad.

    Prominent members of the party, representing both sides of the dispute were in court to witness proceedings.

    Sheriff and Makarfi were in court in person. They sat on opposing sides of the large courtroom.

    Some of those who accompanied Sheriff were the Deputy National Chairman of the faction, Cairo Ojugo, and Oladipo (Secretrary).

    Those who came with Makarfi included a former Vice Chairman of the party (South West), Chief Bode George, the present occupant of the position in the faction, Chief Eddy Olafeso, former Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Emeka Ihedioha, Dayo Adeyeye and Tom Ikimi.

     

  • Supreme Court Verdict:  Abia PDP set to go on fence mending mission 

    Supreme Court Verdict:  Abia PDP set to go on fence mending mission 

    The Supreme Court judgement which affirmed the validity of Governor Okezie Ikpeazu’s nomination for the governorship election he won two years ago has made the Abia state chapter of the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to set machinery in motion to bring back estranged members.

    Speaking in Umuahia on the outcome of the judgement the chairman of the party Chief Johnson Onuigbo said that with the court case over that the party has commenced moves to bring back some those who left the party.

    Onuigbo said that it is obvious that some of their members who felt aggrieved with the result of the party’s governorship primary left the party and that now the court case is over, “The next thing to be done is to bring them back”.

    He said, “We’ve lost friends and associates during the legal tussle, now that the apex court has finally laid to rest any doubt concerning Governor Ikpeazu’s victory at the polls all those that had left the party should come back and join hands with the governor to build Abia”.

    Onuigbo said that it was a thing of joy Uche Ogah, who was one of the litigants that dragged the Abia governor all the way to the Supreme Court, has congratulated Governor Ikpeazu after the Supreme Court judgment.

    He said, “I learnt that Ogah had called to congratulate the governor which is welcome development which means that the war is over, the next thing is for others like him to do the same and also come forward to help build the state”.

    The Abia PDP chairman acknowledged that the long drawn legal tussle had taken its toll on the governor because “for two years now this governor had been under pressure from left, right and centre.”

    Onuigbo said that notwithstanding the distractions Governor Ikpeazu has been performing very well in driving development across Abia, adding that having finally overcome his traducers he would redouble his efforts to do more for Abia people.

    He said, “The CJN wondered how four people would want to be governor of a state at the same time which is not possible, I advise politicians to put their house in order and stop putting undue pressure on the judiciary”.

    “The judgement of the Supreme Court shows that there are still good people in Nigeria as their judgement on the Abia governorship issue has shown that there is future for the common man which the judiciary represents”.

    Onuigbo commended the governor for the rapid development in the state despite all forms of distractions which have come his way in the last two years he has been in office and urged him to continue the good work he has been doing.

    He lauded the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen for exposing the antics of politicians and chiding for interfering with the judicial process by trying to influence judicial officers with inducements.

    He said that the advice the CJN gave to politicians was in order, adding that the disposition of justice Onnoghen was a strong indication that “good men are still around and that the judiciary remained the last hope of the common man”.

    The CJN had while delivering judgment on the Abia governorship advised that politicians “should allow the judiciary to be independent because without an independent judiciary, there will not be a just society”.

    He had noted that there were several security breaches, where desperate politicians made frantic efforts to compromise the court officials in the course of doing their job.

    The CJN therefore warned that attempts to bribe judicial officers to pervert justice constituted serious offences and they would be thoroughly investigated to unmask the politicians and make them face the wrath of the law.

     

  • CJN faults acceptance of gratifications by judges

    CJN faults acceptance of gratifications by judges

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, has faulted the practice where judges accept gratification in whatever form.

    He said the practice where judicial officers, handling financial and banking related matters, accept gratification, was harmful and threatens the nation’s economy.

    Onnoghen spoke during the opening ceremony of the 2017 sensitisation seminar for the judges of the states’ High Courts and that of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) on Wednesday.

    The theme of the event, held at the National Judicial Institute (NJI), was: “Challenges to deposit insurance law and practice in Nigeria.”

    Onnoghen said: “Although judges are subject to the same human frailty as all other members of the society, while at the same time maintaining judicial independence, you must expect your conduct to be the subject of constant public scrutiny.

    “Various aspects of misconduct including acceptance of gratification, in such delicate matters touching on deposits and investors’ funds, that are before your Lordships must be avoided.

    “Where judges indulge in such acts, the repercussion would be that of placing the wealth of the nation out of reach from regulation and inviting financial collapse of the entire economy.”

    He urged judges to shun all forms of misconduct and advised them to always be mindful of the need to sustain the nation’s financial stability.

     

  • Supreme Court sends pension case to CJ for ‘re-hearing’

    The Supreme Court on Friday listed the alleged N1.68 billion pension entitlement case involving the Kwara Government and 9,030 state accredited pensioners to the Chief Judge for re-hearing.

    The Attorney-General of Kwara and the Governor are the applicants in the appeal.

    NAN reports that Alhaji Ishola Lawal, Prince Ayobamidele Ajibola, Usman Kasimu, Joseph Kolawole, Imman Gbagba and Mrs Mariam Akande are the listed respondents.

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen led four other justices of the court to unanimously agree on the decision.

    Justice Ejembi Eko, had delivered the lead judgment while Justice Musa Huhammad, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun and Justice Sidi Bage served on the panel.

    “The law is settled that at interlocutory stage no court, whether trial or appellate, is allowed to delve into the substantive matter in the pending mater and decide it.

    “The court below had done that which is prohibited in our jurisprudence.

    “its decision and all the orders made touching the merits of the originating summons, being null and void, are hereby set aside.

    “The case is hereby remitted to the Chief Judge of Kwara to be heard `de novo’ by a judge of the court other than Justice E.B. Mohammed’’ Eko held.

    Justice Eko, however, ordered the parties to bear their costs.

    The respondents being the claimants had approached the Kwara High Court with an exparte motion seeking an order to bring this action in a representative capacity for themselves and on behalf of 9,024 pensioners.

    They had also asked for an order to deem the originating processes filed in representative capacity as properly filed and served.

    Justice Mohammed who presided finding that the application had merit, granted it as prayed on Oct.20, 2008.

    In view of that decision, leave was granted to the claimants, now (respondents) to bring the action against the defendants, now (appellants) in a representative capacity.

    The originating summons filed on Sept.20, 2008 in terms of the motion exparte was deemed properly filed.

    In the circumstance, on Oct. 30, 2008, the appellants, as defendants, entered a condictional appearance to the suit pursuant to Order 16 Rule 1(1) of the Kwara High Court Rules.

    The State Counsel, Mrs F.I Lawal had filed the process on behalf of the state, but the defendants, according to the apex court did nothing further to articulate their defense.

    Eko said, the claimants had through their counsel; Mr T.O.S. Gbadeyan filed a motion for judgment in terms of their claim as contained in the originating summons.

    The claimants’ action, however, prompted the appellants’ application filed on Jan.23, 2009 praying for extension of time within which to file their counter-affidavit in defense of the originating summons.

    The motion for extension of time file by the appellants was moved and granted on Jan.26, 2009.

    The appellants, as the defendants in the trial court were then given up to Feb.2, 2009 to file their counter-affidavit and Notice of preliminary objection.

    The appellants in compliance with the said order of court filed the two vital processes on Feb.2, 2009.

    Meanwhile, on Feb.19, 2009 when the court re-convened, the appellants withdrew the notice of preliminary objection file on Feb.2, 2009.

    To the dismay of the court, the appellants file yet another notice of preliminary objection on Feb. 23, 2009.

    The trial court had gone ahead to entertain and decide the preliminary objection filed on Feb.23, 2009.

    The court held that the claimants’ action was statute barred and that they lacked locus standing to bring the action in representative capacity.

    It was against this decision that the claimants on June 9, 2009 lodged their appeal to the Court of Appeal in Ilorin.

    The Court of Appeal had heard the appeal on April 19, 2010 and in its unanimous decision delivered on June 30, 2010 allowed the appeal.

    The claimants as appellants in that court had invited the appellate court to invoke Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act and decide the originating summons on its merit.

    Dissatisfied with the judgment of the court of appeal, the appellants, who were respondents at the lower court, filed notice of appeal with six grounds to the apex court.

    They had urged the court to decide whether Order 14 Rules 2, 12 and 13 of the Kwara State High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2005 was applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

    According to them, the court should decide if  the rules give the court power to order substitution or addition of parties s`suo moto’ and the respondents to amend their originating summons without formal application.

    They also asked the court to decide whether the appeal court was empowered under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004, to determine the merit of a case which was wrongly instituted by originating summons.

    The further asked that apex court to decide whether there was sufficient evidence for the court of appeal to have granted the reliefs claimed by the respondents (Claimants) on a proper interpretation of Section 210 of the Constitution.

    They further asked the court to decide if the court of appeal did comply with Section 10 of the Kwara State Pension and Gratuities Law of 1994 as amended while making it decision on the case.

     

  • Buhari’s anti-graft battle on course – CJN

    Buhari’s anti-graft battle on course – CJN

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, on Tuesday said the anti-corruption battle of President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration has not lost steam.

    He spoke with State House correspondents after meeting with President Buhari at the Presidential Villa, Abuja.

    According to the CJN, the President is fully committed to the fight against corruption.

    Asked if the battle was not losing steam with the government now losing many cases in court, he said: “You take that as losing steam? If there was steam, then it wouldn’t have been without the participation of the judiciary. Good, so, if there is losing of steam, you should not equally relate it only to the judiciary.

    “The fight against corruption has lost no steam. It is not correct. Now, you should know one thing: two people will always have a quarrel. They may three or four or one hundred. All the parties to that quarrel will always have different stories to tell.

    “By the way our system is fashioned and designed and operated, when you go to a court of law, you cannot have a drawn game. There must be a winner and there must be a loser. In our system, a loser has the chance of appealing to the highest court eventually. So, you cannot say because the government or any agency has lost a case in the high court, you have lost a case and the fight is losing steam.

    “You should realize that there is a constitution in place and under the constitution, there is a rule of law. So every system under a constitutional arrangement operated under the rule of law and must have these things as checks and balances to protect everyone. It is for everyone.”

    Justice Onnoghen said he was not going to comment on the allegation of judicial gang up against the executive arm of government.

    He added: “I am Lawyer and judicial officer. I operate on facts and the law. So I can’t answer that question because I am not on everybody’s mind. You are free to think whatever you want to think but I think you should be guided by facts and the law when it comes to judicial performance or discharge of judicial responsibilities.”