The Nation Newspaper

Tag: refuses

  • Court refuses to stop Gombe poll tomorrow

    A Gombe State High Court has thrown out the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) suit against the Gombe State Independent Electoral Commission (GOSIEC) seeking an interlocutory injunction against the conduct of tomorrow’s local government election in the state.

    It, however, adjourned till February 27, hearing in the substantive case seeking to quash the N500,000, N250,000 and N150,000 fees imposed by the electoral body on the contestants.

    Justice Abdulhameed Mohammed Yakub said since the suit was filed too late, interlocutory injunctions could not be granted.

    He said the CPC waited for 22 days from the day they were issued the electoral guidelines before filing the case, which was to take place 15 days later.

    Yakub said the process was convenient for other parties and the public whose collective interest far outweighed the applicant’s.

    The judge held that N200,000 had been set aside for the conduct of the election and preparations had gone too far at the time the plaintiff filed its case.

    He said leaving the Caretaker Committee to continue in office is an illegality and that “restraining the conduct of the poll amounts to favouring illegality at the expense of legality.”

    He declared the suit null and void, but said the substantive case challenging the legality and otherwise of the amount charged by GOSIEC as contest fee would continue.

    After the ruling, counsel to the defendants, Musa Saidu, expressed satisfaction on the ruling and said the House of Assembly allowed GOSIEC the leeway to operate within the confines of the law and that there is no argument about what the law says.

    Adamu Kuna, who stood for the CPC, said the court had the power to repeal any law tantamount to “a bad policy.”

  • Court refuses FAAN’s prayer to restrain AIC

    A Federal High Court in Lagos has refused a prayer by the Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) for an order restraining AIC Limited from tampering with a disputed land at the Murtala Muhammed International Airport, Lagos.

    FAAN and AIC have been locked in a dispute over the piece of land, which AIC claimed was concessioned to it for 50 years by the Federal Government by virtue of an agreement signed by FAAN and AIC on February 17, 1998.

    FAAN seeks to reclaim possession of the land, citing security reasons.

    On Tuesday, at the resumed hearing of a suit filed by FAAN against AIC, Mr. Justice Mohammed Idris refused an oral application by FAAN’s lawyer, Oluwole Awe, for an interim order against AIC.

    The judge held that it would be tidy to hear both parties on a pending application for interlocutory injunction filed by FAAN.

    Earlier, Awe told the court about his pending application for an interlocutory injunction, which he said had been served on the defendant, and sought to move it.

    AIC’s lawyer Prof Alfred Kasumu (SAN) objected, arguing that his client was served last Friday. He sought time to file his response and other necessary processes.

    It was at that point that Awe urged the court to make an order of interim injunction against AIC. A request the judge refused.

    Justice Idris adjourned till February 18 when parties are to argue the application for an injunction brought by FAAN.

  • Court refuses bail for Capital Oil boss, four others

    Court refuses bail for Capital Oil boss, four others

    The Managing Director, Capital Oil and Gas Limited, Ifeanyi Ubah, and four others being held by the police lost their bid for freedom yesterday.

    Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Lagos, refused their motion for bail.

    Ubah, Nsikan Usoro (Head of Trading), Godfrey Okorie (Depot Manager), Chibuzor Ogbuokiri (General Manager, Operations) and Orji Joseph Anayo (Executive Director, Operations) were arrested on October 9 by the Special Fraud Unit (SFU), Ikoyi, Lagos for allegedly defrauding the Federal Government of N43.291billion in the fuel subsidy fund.

    Justice Abang held that the motion filed under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules by their lawyer, Joseph Nwobike (SAN), was incompetent, defective and so, incurable by amendment.

    The judge also held that Nwobike failed to inform the court that his clients were being held on a subsisting order of remand by Magistrate Martins Owunmi.

    He held that the fact of a subsisting remand order was not contained in the affidavit of urgency filed by the applicants before the court.

    The judge also noted that they did not inform the court that they had a pending bail application before the same magistrate’s court.

    “I have gone through the affidavit filed by the applicant counsel, and I find no place where it is stated that there was a subsisting order for remand by the magistrate’s court.

    “I cannot possibly comprehend why the learned SAN has chosen to hide this fact from the court,” the judge held.

    Justice Abang further held that although the applicants could bring an application for bail before the court, they could not do so under the Fundamental Human Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules.

    “Where bail is refused an applicant at the magistrate’s court, he has the right to bring his application before a higher court, but he has to do so within the confines of the law.

    “I cannot make findings on the bail application of the applicants, brought pursuant to the Fundamental Human Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules.

    “The applicants cannot use this rule to challenge a subsisting order of court. Whether the magistrate had or exceeded its jurisdiction, is entirely a different issue.

    “The learned SAN should have employed either of three modes in bringing his bail application before this court.

    “The applicant could have appealed against the order for remand made by the magistrate, before the High Court, pending their arraignment, or, apply to the high court for a fresh summons for bail pursuant to Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA).

    “I cannot consider counsel’s application for the applicants to be released on bail under the fundamental rights enforcement procedure, this relief cannot be sought under that law.

    “This is not a sentimental or emotional issue, it is an issue of law, because a subsisting order of court exist.

    “The police possess the constitutional right to arrest any person accused of committing an offence, even if it is based on suspicion.

    “In the final analysis, the preliminary objection of the respondent subsists in part and the application of the applicants struck out, with no order as to cost. I so hold,” the judge held.