The Nation Newspaper

Tag: restrain

  • Court refuses to restrain Metuh in libel suit

    A Lagos State High Court has refused to grant an injunction restraining ýPeoples Democratic Party (PDP) National Publicity Secretary Olisa Metuh from defaming the Minister of Information, Alhaji Lai Mohammed.

    Mohammed is demanding N500 million damages from Metuh for authoring and issuing a “malicious” press statement, which he said was injurious to his reputation.

    The claimant, through his lawyer, Mr. Wahab Shittu, said the PDP spokesman wrote and widely circulated a press statement on September 20, which contained libelous materials, entitled: Assault on democracy: ‘Address issues’ – PDP replies APC… insists democracy sliding under Buhari.

    In the statement, Metuh was said to have described Mohammed as “being ethically challenged” and “embezzling funds meant for fencing an airport in an APC-led Southwest state and fraudulently refusing to supply ambulances after collecting money from another APC Southwest state.”

    Mohammed, a lawyer and former National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) member, served as Public Relations Officer (PRO) and later corporate secretary at the Nigeria Airport Authority between 1985 and 1988; and as Chief of Staff to former Lagos State Governor Asiwaju Ahmed Bola Tinubu from 1999 to 2002.

    The minister sought an order of interlocutory injunction restraining Metuh, whether by himself or his agents, from further publishing libelous materials against him pending the determination of his suit.

    Ruling on the application, Justice O. Atinuke-Ipaye held that the application lacked merit.

    “The application is without merit and is hereby dismissed,” she said. The judge said there was nothing before the court to show that Mohammed would suffer greater or more injury if the order of injunction is not granted.

    Besides, she said a court cannot restrain a completed act.

    “It is not in contention between parties that the alleged material complained of is the press statement of 20/09/15 and I so hold.

    “It is also settled that any future publication of allegedly libelous material is a new and fresh cause of action for which the injured party may have recourse to the law courts.

    “It is equally trite that a court of law will not determine the substantive issues at the interlocutory stage because evidence has not been presented, tried or tested.

    “This serves to insulate the merits of the matter from discussion at the interlocutory stage.

    “For all the reasons adumbrated above, I am persuaded that there is no basis for the exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant and an order of injunction is not appropriate in the circumstances,” Justice Atinuke-Ipaye said.

  • Minority Leader: Court refuses to restrain Saraki, others

    Minority Leader: Court refuses to restrain Saraki, others

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja, yesterday refused to restrain the Senate President Bukola Saraki and 17 others from bypassing the Senate’s standing rules in the appointment of the Minority Leader for the Eighth National Assembly.

    Two members of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) – Alaye Don Pedro (Ward 8 Akuku-Toru Local Government Area, Rivers State) and Okechukwu Ibeh of Umukegwu/Umuopia in Ide Ato Local Government Area, Imo State – had, in an ex-parte motion sought to restrain Saraki and 17 members of the PDP Southsouth Senate Caucus from choosing the Minority Leader outside the provision of Order 3(2) of the Senate Standing Order 2015 (as amended).

    The plaintiffs contended that the alleged plot by some individuals to make former Akwa Ibom State Governor Godwill Akpabio (a first term Senator) the Senate’s Minority Leader, was in violation of Order 3(2) of the Senate Standing Order 2015 (as amended).

    Named with Saraki as respondents are Akpabio, Nelson Effiong, Bassey Albert, Emmanuel Paulker, Ogola Foster, Ben Murray Bruce, John Owan Enoh, Gershom Bassey, Rose Oko, James Manager, Peter Nwaoboshi, Ighoyota Amori, Clifford Ordia, Matthew Urhoghide, George Thomson Sekibo, Olaka Nwogu and Osinachukwu Ideozu.

    Ruling yesterday, Justice Kolawole refused the plaintiffs’ prayer for “an order restraining the second to 18 respondents from selecting or appointing the Minority Leader by a procedure in breach of Order 3(2) of the Senate Standing Order 2015 (as amended) pending the determination of the substantive suit.”

    The judge also refused their request for an “order prohibiting the first respondent from accepting, recognising, announcing or giving effect to the appointment of a Minority Leader of the Senate, whose appointment is in breach of Order 3(2) of the Senate Standing Orders 2015 (as amended) pending the determination of the substantive suit.”

    Justice Kolawole, who noted that the plaintiffs were neither members of the Senate nor contestants for the position of Minority Leader, said he could not grant their prayers because they failed to establish the interest they sought to protect.

    He said being members of the PDP from Imo and Rivers states was not sufficient to warrant granting their prayers.

    The judge declined the plaintiffs’ request for the abridgement of time within which the respondents could file their responses to the substantive suit. He also declined to grant accelerated hearing of the main suit.

    Justice Kolawole, however, granted the plaintiffs’ prayer for substituted service of court documents (processes) in relation to the suit through substituted means by media publication. He directed that the processes be published with an enrolled copy of his orders.

    He adjourned to October 5 for mention, but said the case file would be returned to the court’s Chief Judge for reassignment when the court resumes from vacation.

  • PDP crisis: Court urged to restrain ex-chair

    PDP crisis: Court urged to restrain ex-chair

    Federal High Court in Abuja has been urged to restrain the former Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Anambra State, Ken Emeakayi, from further parading himself in that capacity, having allegedly resigned on January 9, 2012.

    The request formed part of the five prayers contained in a suit by the party’s Administrative Secretary, Casmir Ajulu, but filed by his lawyer, Kenneth Nkwocha. It has Emeakayi, the PDP and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as first, second and third defendants.

    It is the plaintiff’s contention that despite his resignation, and the pending expiration of the tenure of the party’s Executive Committee, which he headed, on October 24, Emeakayi has allegedly continued to claim that he will (as the party’s chairman) conduct the primaries for the national and state assembly elections next year in Anambra State.

    Ajulu said the case was informed by his realisation that the internal bickering in the leadership of the party would hamper its performance next year if not resolved.

    He averred in a supporting affidavit that by the three judgments delivered by the Ihiala and Nnewi divisions of the High Court of Anambra State, the first defendant was to serve out what was left of the tenure of the Executive Committee, led by Chief Emma Nweze, which was inaugurated on October 25, 2010.

    Ajulu said the first defendant’s tenure as the chairman of the Anambra PDP’s Executive Committee took effect from July 11, 2011 when Chief Nweze resigned and his resignation letter was received by him (the plaintiff) as the administrative secretary.

    The plaintiff also showed a letter, which he said was written by the first defendant’s lawyer, Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN), dated May 8 last year, asking INEC to note that the Executive Committee (which the first defendant became its head at the resignation of Nweze), was inaugurated on October 25, 2010 and had a tenure of four years.

    He said Emeakayi resigned as the chairman via a letter of January 9, 2012, following which he (the plaintiff) had been managing the affairs of the party and its secretariat.

    He argued that even with the first defendant’s resignation and following the expiration of his tenure as the chairman on October 24, he  allegedly continued to parade himself as the chairman, who will conduct the national and state assembly elections in February.

    Ajulu averred that unless restrained, Emeakayi “will continue to parade himself and hold himself out to the party’s stakeholders in order to deceive them that he is the substantive chairman of the party in Anambra State, and the second and third defendants are likely to accord the first defendant recognition, contrary to the provisions of the constitution, the subsisting judgments of the court and his resignation letter of January 9, 2012.”

    The plaintiff, who raised four questions for the court’s determination, seeks among others, a declaration that the tenure of office of the first defendant as the chairman of the PDP, Anambra State chapter and a member of the Executive Committee, having been inaugurated on October 25, 2010, lapses on October 24 by effluxion of tome and by virtue of the extant judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction.

    The plaintiff also prayed for an order that the first defendant can no longer parade himself, act or function as the  chairman of the Anambra State chapter of the PDP after his resignation on January 2012.

    He seeks an order declaring the acts, conduct, functions and decisions of the first defendant beyond January 2012 when he resigned as the chairman of Anambra State PDP as being illegal, null and void ab initio, and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from parading himself or holding out himself, in whatever manner or ways, as the chairman of the PDP in Anambra State beyond October 24.

    Ajulu also prayed the court for an order restraining the second and third defendants and their agents from dealing with, liaising or according any recognition to the first defendant in respect of any party matter or business, howsoever described that relate to the office of the chairman of the PDP, Anambra State chapter beyond October 24.

    No date has been fixed for the case’s hearing, although Ajulu also  filed an affidavit of urgency, urging the court  to hear the case on the grounds that time was of the essence.

  • Court urged to restrain EFCC in land sale dispute involving ex-Minister

    Court urged to restrain EFCC in land sale dispute involving ex-Minister

    Can the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) validly reopen a case five years after a court held it lacked the powers to investigate civil transactions devoid of criminal elements? Can a party a completed transaction return to demand a refund having been adequately compensated?

    These form part of issues a Federal High Court in Abuja has been invited to determine as it opens hearing today in a suit seeking to, among others, restrain the EFCC from reopening investigation into a civil contractual dispute involving former Information Minister, Emeka Chikelu, a firm – Bedding Holdings Limited and a businessman, Alhaji Dahiru Barau Mangal.

    The applicant in the suit – a fundamental rights enforcement application – the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Bedding Holdings, Sylvester Odigie is contending that EFCC’s move to reinvestigate the transaction, which was completed in 2005 and over which a court had given judgment, amounted to flouting a subsisting court order restraining it (EFCC) from dabbling into a private contractual dispute.

    He contends that since there were no new developments in the case and the EFCC having failed to appeal the restraining order made against it in 2009 by Justice Ishaq Bello of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in suit: FCT/HC/M/4949 the commission could not validly reopen the case upon a b fresh petition by Alhaji Mangal and his company – D. B. Mangal Nigeria Limited.

    Odigie argued that it was unlawful for Alhaji Mangal and his company to prompt the EFCC to re-arrest and detain him about six years after a court had pronounced on the dispute between them, penalized the commission for its unlawful involvement in the case, and issued a perpetual restraining order against the EFCC and its agents, stopping them from further harassing or inviting him over the issue

    The applicant, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/534/2014, with EFCC, Alhaji Mangal and his company as respondents, is claiming N100million damages against the respondents for subjecting him to emotional, psychological and bodily trauma; social humiliation and embarrassment following the EFCC’s threat to re-arrest him.

    Odigie, who was earlier arrested and detained by the EFCC for 57 days in 2006 over the same issue, wants the court to declare as illegal and a violation of his rights plans by the EFCC to re-arrest and detain him the second time over his company’s sale of its land known as plot 527 within the Cadastral Zone A7, Wuse District, Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to Alhaji Mangal and his company.

    He equally seeks an order of perpetual injunction restraining the EFCC and its agents from further taking steps to re-arrest and detain him in respect of the transaction or inviting him on the instigation of Alhaji Mangal and his company as such actions amount to a violation of his fundamental rights and the subsisting restraining order issued against the commission in a January 15, 2009 judgment by Bello.

    The applicant stated that his company – Bedding Holdings – had in 2005 sold the plot of land to Alhaji Mangal and his company through their solicitors, Messrs Shehu Wada and Co at N125million. He added the buyers only made payment having been convinced by the outcome of the searches it conducted at the relevant government agencies including Department of Land Administration and Resettlement of the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA).

    He added that some months after the transaction was complete and when Alhaji Mangal and his company were about to commence development, they learnt that the FCDA has reallocated the plot to then Minister of Information, Emeka Chikelu and his company, Jimec Company Limited, prompting Alhaji Mangal and his company to demand refund from Bedding Holdings.

    Odigie averred that his company consequently sued the FCT Minister, FCDA, Alhaji Mangal and two companies owned by Chikelu – Jimec Company Limited and Matterson Properties Limited – in its bid to recover the land for Alhaji Mangal and his company.

    He added that despite the pendency of the suit marked: FCT/HC/CV/1074/2006 filed by his company before the High Court of the FCT, the EFCC, upon a petition by Alhaji Mangal and his company, arrested and detained him for 57 days (from May 22 to July 12, 2006) and was arraigned before Justice Abubakar Umar of the FCT High Court on allegation of obtaining money under false pretence.

    Justice Umar struck out the case on January 27, 2009 for want of diligent prosecution by the EFCC. Justice Ishaq Bello (also of the FCT High Court) upheld Odigie’s fundamental rights enforcement suit, with which he challenged his detention by the EFCC for 57 days.

    The judged, in the January 15, 2009 judgment, declared EFCC’s conduct illegal, awarded N3million damages in the applicant’s favour, and ordered the commission to tender public apology to him and restrained the EFCC from further harassing, inviting or arresting him over the land sale issue.

    Justice Bello, in the judgment, a copy of which is included in the bundle of documents filed in the fresh fundamental rights enforcement suit, deprecated the conduct of the EFCC and held that “it is regrettable to observe that it is now fashionable to dress civil cause with criminal regalia in order to satisfy the yarning of some powerful beings.

    “It is outrageous and indeed, a demonstration of abuse of power. The powers of the EFCC operative are circumscribed by law and do not in my view possess the power to enforce private contract between the applicant’s company and Alhaji Mangal. The EFCC is a creation of law and must be seen to operate within and under the laws. It is not a matter of choice.”

    The applicant stated that while he was in custody, the FCT Minister, upon the intervention of the Information Minister (Chikelu), reallocated another land at plot 1405 Zambezi Crescent, Off Aguiyi Ironsi, Zone A05, Maitama to Alhaji Mangal and his company as compensation for the plot his (Odigie’s) company sold to them and which was wrongly revoked.

    He averred that Chikelu, who claimed to have expended about N300 million in the development of the Wuse 2l and, approached him last year and appealed to him to withdraw the suit filed by his (Odigie’s) company challenging the purported revocation of its right over the Wuse 2 land.

    Odigie stated that on realising that Alhaji Mangal and his company had been compensated with “a bigger” land, Bedding Holdings acceded to Chikelu’s request and withdrew its case in April this year after Chikelu paid it (his company) N150m to cover the cost of the suit, lawyers’ fees among others in line with the agreement signed by parties signed an agreement as condition for to discontinue the suit.

    The applicant said he was however taken aback when, in June this year, he got a letter from the EFCC, written by Head, Economic Governance, Olufunke Adetayo-Ogunbode, directing him to report to Usman Imam for questioning on the same 2005 land transaction between his company and Alhaji  Mangal and his company.

    He stated that the fresh invitation by EFCC is based on a fresh petition by Alhaji Magal’s lawyers, who are again seeking the refund of the N125m he paid for the 2005 transaction even when Alhaji Mangal and his company have fully developed the new plot with which they were compensated for the wrongly revoked Wuse 2 land.

    The applicant, who has also filed a fresh suit to among others, compel Alhaji Mangal and his company to accept the N125 million, which Bedding Holdings was willing to refund on the condition that they (Alhaji Mangal and his company) give up ownership of the plot on Zambezi Crescent, Maitama, which was reallocated to them as compensation for the Wuse 2 plot, which was wrongly revoked.

    Alhaji Mangal, in the fresh petition by his solicitors and, on which basis the EFCC seeks to reinvestigate the transaction, is seeking the refund of what he paid for the Wuse 2 plot on the ground that, Bedding Holdings having allegedly been paid Chikelu’s companies – Jimec Company Limited and Matterson Properties Limited – to withdraw its suit, he (Mangal) was entitled to a refund.

    In a letter written by his lawyers dated May 26, this year, Alhaji Mangal said he was aware that Odigie and his company had been paid by   Chikelu’s companies to discontinue the suit against the purported revocation of the their right over the Wuse 2 land and requested that the N125 million he paid in 2005 be refunded.

    In their response to the suit by Bedding Holdings, Chikelu’s companies, sued as fourth and fifth defendants, denied any wrong doing. They argued that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi and urged the court to dismiss the suit.

    They claimed to have been duly allocated the land and argued that, even if the plaintiff had any interest in the Wuse 2 land, it could no longer sustain the suit because the party to which it sold the land (Alhaji Mangal) had been duly compensated with the land on Zambezi Crescent, Maitama.

    Respondents in the suit were yet to file their response as at last Friday. When the case came up last Thursday, Justice Adeniyi Ademola ordered the applicant to serve the motion on notice on the respondents and fixed hearing for today.