The Nation Newspaper

Tag: suit

  • Suit against bank chiefs adjourned

    A Shagamu High Court in Ogun State has adjourned a criminal charge against Access Bank, its Managing Director Herbert Wigwes and others till June 18.

    The court heard that parties have begun talks to settle out of court.

    Alawode Oluseye, Bayo Adesina and the bank are the other defendants.

    The Police charged them with 21 counts bordering on stealing, advance fee fraud and forgery of bill of lading.

    Justice N. I. Agbelu adjourned for argument on jurisdiction, which he raised, and for out of court settlement report.

    The judge ruled after listening to prosecuting counsel Daniel Apochi and defence counsel led by Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President Paul Usoro (SAN).

    One of the counts reads: “That you Hebert Wigwe, Bayo Adesina and Access Bank Plc on 22nd day of June, 2017, at the premises of Metal Africa Steel Products Limited, km 16, Ikordu/Sagamu Road, Ewe Jagun, Ohun State, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, conspired among yourselves to effect an unlawful purpose to wit: the unlawful and unauthorized sale of 23, 754, 413 metric tones of steel billets, property of BMCE Bank International Plc, without its permission or consent.”

    The defendants were also accused of obtaining money by false pretences contrary to Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences of Act Number 14 of 2006.

    A former petroleum minister Chief Don Etiebet is challenging the merger of Access Bank and Diamond Bank on the basis that Access Bank did not disclose pending cases against it to regulatory authorities.

    He contended that disclosing the cases would have resulted in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) withholding approval for the merger.

  • Court dismisses suit challenging Makinde’s candidacy

    AN Oyo State High court sitting in Ibadan yesterday dismissed the suit filed by Senator Ayoade Adeseun and Sunday Adeyanju, challenging the legality of the primary elections that produced  Seyi Makinde (governor-elect)  as the governorship candidate of the People’s Democratic Party(PDP) in last election.

    Adeseun, who was Makinde’s opponent in the PDP primaries held in October 2018 at the Liberty Stadium, Ibadan, had  claimed that the list of delegates that participated in the election was  imported and doctored.

    The complainant  in the suit had prayed the court to declare the primary elections of the party as undemocratic, null and void.

    During the court proceeding, which started in January, the claimant’s counsel, Michael Lana, presented 14 witnesses. The defendant’s counsel presented eight witnesses.

    Justice Ganiyu Sunmonu ruled yesterday in favour of PDP and dismissed all claims of the claimants.

    Ganiyu said Adeseun’s counsel could not prove with substantial evidence that the delegates’ list for the primary was doctored.

    The judge said: “He who asserts must prove. The claimants must provide the names that were removed to prove that the list was doctored.”

    One of the leading lawyers of the first defendant, PDP, Lateef Adedigba, who spoke after the ruling, said  his client would be happy with the outcome of the judgment.

    Adedigba said: “The claimant filed a case as far back as October last year, challenging the primary election conducted in respect of all elective posts by the PDP.

    “By the virtue of the judgment read today, the judge disagreed with them and agreed with us that the primaries conducted were in order and they were in accordance with the constitution of the first respondent, that is the PDP, as well as the Constitution, the Electoral Act, as well as all the other relevant laws.”

    “That is what the judgment is all about. The primary was in order, perfect. They can go to the Court of Appeal.”

     

  • Hearing begins tomorrow in suit against estate firm

    Hearing will commence tomorrow in a suit filed by property owners and residents of Diamond Estate, Sangotedo, Ajah area of Lagos, against management of the estate.

    Justice Ganiyu Safari fixed the date for hearing to enable the defence appear at the court sitting on the matter scheduled for mention.

    The court had, earlier at the last sitting, secured the commitment of the counsel to the claimants to inform the defence of the new dates for hearing.

    The suit was filed through a Writ of Summons by Mr. Faustinus Brai, on behalf of himself and other property owners and residents of Diamond Estate, Sangotedo, Lagos through their counsel,  Johnson Bryant.

    The second claimant in the suit  is Incorporated Trustees of Diamond Estate Property Owners and Residents Association.

    The first and second defendants in the suit are Femab Properties Limited and Diamond Estate Limited respectively.

    Counsel to the claimants, Paul Olaniyi had told the court that the claimants opted for trial, having concluded CMC and explored Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) with the defendants without success.

    Olaniyi had also drawn the attention of the court to the issue of the ‘res’ which he said has been tampered with by the defendants.

    “The defendants have tampered with the’res’ by leasing a part of the project to a network provider, which has installed a mast at the site provided in the residential area.

    In their 28-paragraph affidavit in support of the writ, the claimants are asking the court for a declaration that the first and second claimants are entitled  to all facilities represented by the first defendants and an order for the provision of all outstanding facilities detailed in the first defendant in its ‘offer prospectus’ and that the facilities shall comply with acceptable international standards.

    In the alternative, they asked the court for an order appointing a project manager, who shall be responsible for the appointment and supervision of contractors for the provision of the outstanding facilities in compliance with acceptable standards and for same to be at the full expense of the first defendant, Femab Properties Limited.

    In addition, they asked the court for a declaration that the second claimant, as a trustee to the beneficial property owners and residents of Diamond Estate, Sangotedo, Ajah, Lagos, are at liberty to decide who manages the joint facilities in the estate and that the unilateral appointment of the second defendant by the first defendant, without the authority of the first claimant and other property owners is ab initio, null and void.

    They asked the court for an order of perpetual injunction, restraining the second defendant  from providing estate management services for Diamond Estate and directing the company to vacate the facilities and the estate.

    However, the defendants, in their joint statement of defence and counter claims, while admitting the averments of the claimants  in some paragraphs, denied claims in most paragraphs .

    The defendants, challenged the claimants to produce the originals of the documents in their possession that are relevant to the suit in court.

    They expressed surprise at the suit and averred that it was to embarrass and sabotage their business and contended that the claimants are not entitled to any of the relief sought from the court.

    They contended that the action of the claimants “is frivolous, vexatious, embarrassing, unfounded, gold digging and should be dismissed with substantial cost.

    They argued that contrary to the claims of the claimants, the right to manage Diamond Estate was irrevocably vested in the first defendant in line with code of conduct duly executed by all the property owners.

  • Court strikes out suit against Saraki’s removal

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has struck out a suit seeking to stop any attempt to reopen the Senate without the authorisation of Senate President Bukola Saraki.

    Justice Nnamdi Dimgba yesterday struck the case off the court’s list, following an application by T. D. Agbe, the lawyer representing the Attorney- General of the Federation (AGF).

    When the case came up, no lawyer appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, following which Agbe urged the court to strike out the case for want of diligent prosecution.

    He noted that the plaintiffs, who were previously represented by a group of Senior Advocates of Nigeria, including Mahmud Magaji and Emeka Etiaba, were aware that the case was scheduled for September 13 for hearing.

    Agbe urged the court to award a cost of N10million against the plaintiffs, who he accused of filing a frivolous suit.

    “We apply for a substantial cost to be awarded against the plaintiffs to teach them a lesson. This court is not a playground, it is a place for serious business,” Agbe said.

    Lawyers to the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and the Department of State Service (DSS), Kola Oluwole and Shimana Azeh, agreed with Agbe and requested that the case be struck out.

    In a ruling, Justice Dimgba granted the defendants’ request and struck out the case for want of diligent prosecution.

    The plaintiffs – Senator Rafiu Adebayo (Kwara South) and Isa Misau (Bauchi Central), had claimed that there was an alleged plot by chieftains of the All Progressives Congress (APC) to use security agencies to force Saraki to vacate his position as the Senate President.

    The plaintiffs urged the court to among other things, determine whether: “In view of the combined reading of sections 50(1) (a), 53(1) (a) and 60 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Rules 12 (2) of the Senate Standing Orders 2015 (as amended), the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has the power to regulate its proceedings, including the power to adjourn its sitting to a date certain?

    “Having regards to sections 50(1) (a), 53(1) (a) and 60 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) read in conjunction with Rules 12 (2) of the Senate Standing Orders 2015 (as amended), whether any member of the Senate other than the President and Deputy President of the Senate can re-assemble the sitting of the Senate to an earlier or later date other than the adjourned date?

     

  • Suit against move to remove Saraki: Court urges restraints

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has asked parties in a suit seeking to prevent the forceful removal of Bukola Saraki as Senate president, to exercise restraints pending the determination of the suit.

    Justice Nnamdi Dimgba gave the advice yesterday after listening to an argument by counsel to the plaintiffs, Emeka Etiaba (SAN), who argued an ex-parte application for, among others, orders restraining the defendants from unlawfully impeaching Saraki.

    He queried the rationale behind the plaintiffs’ prayers for an order stopping Saraki’s unlawful removal, wondering how the court could be asked to restrain the defendants from unlawfully removing the Senate president.

    Justice Dimgba said: “If it is unlawful, it is unlawful.”

    Etiaba made effort to justify the prayers as contained in reliefs 1, 2 and 3 of the ex-parte motion.

    He also informed the court about an alternative prayer if it was not favourably disposed to granting reliefs 1, 2 and 3.

    Etiaba said: “Our alternative prayer is for the court to make preservatory orders in order to protect the res (subject) of the suit pending its determination.

    Ruling, Justice Dimgba said: “In respect of reliefs 1, 2, and 3, which are orders of interim injunction, I believe the proper order to make is an order of accelerated hearing of the suit so that the court can consider and determine the merits of the substantive case definitively and expeditiously.

    “Even though reliefs 1, 2, and 3 are not granted, needless to say that parties are enjoined to respect the authority of the court and the integrity of the judicial process, and should not take steps that will render nugatory the outcome of this litigation.

    “In the light of the order of accelerated hearing on the merit of the case, the matter is hereby adjourned till September 6 for hearing,” the judge said.

    The plaintiffs – Senators Rabiu Adebayo (Kwara South) and Isa Misau (Bauchi Central) are, in the suit seeking among others, to prevent Saraki’s removal through means other than that provided under Section 50(2)(c ) of the constitution.

    Listed as defendants in the suit are: The Senate, the Senate President, Deputy Senate President, Senator Ahmed Lawal  (Senate Leader), Senator Bala Ibn Nallah (Deputy Senate Leader), Senator Emma Buacha (Deputy Minority Leader), Clerk of the Senate, Deputy Clerk of the Senate, Attorney-General of the Federation, Inspector -General of Police and State Security Service (SSS).

  • Court dismisses lawyer’s N200m suit against Lekki residents

    A Lagos State High Court has dismissed a suit by a lawyer Mr Fredrick Chinedu Anaje, who claimed that he was denied access to a road on the Island.

    Justice Wasiu Animahun dismissed the suit on the ground that the applicant’s rights were not violated.

    Anaje sued residents of Peninsula Garden Estate in Lekki, Eti Osa Local Government Area, alleging that they erected a wall barricade on Ogombo Road without approval from the state government.

    He sought a declaration that preventing him from using the road by erecting the wall was unconstitutional and amounted to a violation of his right to freedom of movement guaranteed by Section 41 (1) of the 1999 Constitution.

    The applicant prayed the court to declare that the respondents’ act of “forcefully and maliciously” subjecting him to use an unsafe, bushy and impassable road was unlawful and amounted to “degrading and inhuman treatment”.

    He asked for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents or their agents from taking any step that would infringe on his rights to movement and personal dignity.

    Anaje sought N200million in general damages against the respondents for violating his rights, as well costs of the action “on a full indemnity basis”.

    Mr Sulyman Bello, Olu Adewusi, Dr Maureen Igwe, Nicholas Adesina, Abiodun Ekeade, Funmilayo Ekeade and Femab Properties Ltd are the respondents.

    Anaje said he lives on a street in Ogombo town and that he uses the Ogombo Road, which he said was for the public, to access the Lekki-Epe Expressway.

    According to him, despite being issued with contravention notices by the state, the respondents restricted the residents’ access to the road by building the wall, thereby forcing them to use an unsafe, bushy and impassable road.

    But, the respondents, in a counter affidavit sworn to by Adesina, said Femab Properties bought the large expanse of land on which the estate and the road in dispute are.

    He said the government later confirmed that the two roads leading to the estate were private, and that it advised other residents in the neighborhood to take steps to make other access roads motorable.

    The respondents, through their lawyer Adebayo Adesola, argued that although contravention notices were issued, the wall was not demolished, which supports their claim that the government admitted that the wall was on a private road.

    Justice Animahun noted that Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution provides that every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person and shall not be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.

    To the judge, Anaje’s case is that the road’s blockage indirectly made him to commute through a road that was not motorable, which the lawyer felt constituted inhuman and degrading treatment.

    “What the case reveals is that the applicant would not have complained of infringement of Section 34 of the Constitution if the other access road is motorable. It follows that infringement of the applicant’s right arose from the deplorable state of the road.

    “It is my view that this head of claim is only maintainable against whoever made the road to be in deplorable condition,” the judge held.

    The judge, after discussing what fundamental human rights entail, said he could not hold that a citizen has a fundamental right to use good roads.

    “The conditions of roads vary. In some areas good roads are a necessity. In some, they are a luxury. In some other locations, motorable roads are not required. An example is the riverine areas.

    “In other words, the right to a good road may be recognised in law but it is certainly not an inalienable right. It does not qualify for litigation under Chapter IV of the Constitution.

    “It is a luxury in the class of economic, social and educational rights guaranteed in Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Constitution and yet rendered unenforceable.

    “I, therefore, hold that the claims anchored on Section 34 of the Constitution are not well founded and, therefore, fail,” Justice Animahun held.

    The judge also dismissed Anaje’s claim that his right to freedom of movement under Section 41 of the Constitution was violated.

    “This appears easy. Once there is no confinement and there is an alternative route, there cannot be an infringement of freedom of movement,” he said.

    Citing the case of Adeyemo vs Akintola (2004) 12 NWLR (PT 887) 390, Justice Animahun added: “The above implies that restriction of movement will not arise where the applicant is at liberty to use alternative routes.

    “The restriction envisaged under Section 41 of the Constitution must be total. This is not the case here.

    “In view of the above, I hold that the fundamental rights of the applicant were not infringed.

    “The amended originating motion on notice dated 19/06/2017 therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.”

  • Four architects lose suit to dissolve ARCON

    Four members of the Nigerian Institute of Architects (NIA) have failed to get court’s order to dissolve the Architects Registration Council of Nigeria (ARCON).

    The suit, instituted by Tonye Braide, Abimbola Ajayi, David Majekodunmi and Dike Emmanuel against ARCON, sought, among others, a legal pronouncement that ARCON had  been dissolved.

    The court, however, ruled otherwise, noting that the case lacked merit. The presiding judge, Justice Hadiza Shagari, of a Federal High Court, Lagos, consequently the dismissed case.

    The plaintiffs, Braide is NIA immediate past president; Ajayi (General Secretary); Majekodunmi, (Chairman, Students Affairs Committee) and Emmanuel, (Chairman, International Affairs Committee) in the last executive of the professional group.

    Trouble started when they challenged ARCON over the conduct of professional exams. While ARCON said it directed the NIA not to conduct professional exams, the NIA turned down the directive, and  held the exam. To assert its regulatory authority, ARCON, citing some ‘inadequacies’ in the process leading to the conduct of the examination, declined to register those adjudged to have passed the controversial examination.

    However, the plaintiffs claimed that trouble started between the former NIA executive members and the regulators in 2015, following the latter’s decision to conduct exams on professional practice for architects who wanted to register with ARCON – a position NIA frowned at, maintaining that such action ran contrary to the Act establishing ARCON.

    The four, armed with an alleged circular dated July 16, 2015, from the Office of the Secretary to the Federal Government, which purportedly dissolved ARCON, went to court challenging the position of the regulator.

    Justice Shagari, after reviewing the submissions of counsel, held that the plaintiffs did not show or present to the court sufficient evidence that the contested circular of the Federal Government affected ARCON in its statutory functions in any way.

    “A careful examination of the said circular does not capture ARCON and therefore, it is without doubt to say that the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in this application did not succeed on the grounds that the defendants according to part C of Companies and Allied Matter Act 2004 (CAMA) are professionals, which regulate the affairs of all its registered members,” the judge ruled, adding that if the circular of July 16, 2015, did not affect the defendants, then, any action taken by ARCON couldn’t be seen as ultra vires or void.

    “I, therefore, uphold the submission of the defendants’ counsel and hold that the Federal Government of Nigeria circular dated 16th July 2015 did not dissolve the defendants, as they are not appointed by the government of Nigeria. This originating summons is dismissed for lack of merit,” Justice Shagari ruled.

    NIA President, Adibe Njoku, said  the plaintiffs in the case went to court in their capacity and not on behalf of the NIA.

    This, Njoku explained, meant that the NIA had nothing to do with the suit, as there was no time the Council of the NIA okayed the siut against ARCON.

  • Court to hear suit against Shema, others on April 10

    Court to hear suit against Shema, others on April 10

    A Katsina State High Court has fixed April 10, 11 and 12 to hear the suit against former Katsina State Governor Ibrahim Shema, and three others, for alleged financial impropriety.

    Other defendants in the case are former Commissioner for Local Government Affairs Sani Makana; former Permanent Secretary Lawal Rufai and a former ALGON Chairman Lawal Dankaba.

    The suit, instituted by the Katsina State government and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), accused Shema and the others of misappropriating N11 billion state funds.

    Shema, however, approached the Supreme Court to challenge the High Court’s jurisdiction to try him. But the apex court directed that he should return to the court and answer charges against him.

    The prosecution counsel, Sam Ologunorisa (SAN), told the court it fixed today (yesterday) for the parties to report back on the judgment of the Supreme Court.

    Ologunorisa drew the attention of the court to the March 24, 2017 motion, seeking certain reliefs from the High Court. He prayed the court to grant the reliefs, explaining that all parties have been served with the motion.

    The defence counsel, Joseph Daudu (SAN), however, drew the court’s attention to what he referred to as “fundamental errors” in the said motion.

    According to him, the seal on the motion does not belong to the person who signed it, saying it is improper for the motion to be served in that manner.

    Although Ologunorisa insisted that the Supreme Court had once settled the issue of seal and signature on a motion, Daudu argued that the apex court’s decision was on “where there is no seal at all on a motion”.

    He equally drew the attention of the court to the Supreme Court directive that document pertaining the hearing of the case be made available to the defendants.

    Justice Ibrahim Maikaita Bako stood down the court for 10 minutes to allow proper correction to be effected on the said motion before adjourning the case till April 10, 11 and 12, for hearing.

  • Ruling on suit against bank, titles registrar for Dec 14

    Justice Beatrice Oke-Lawal of the Ikeja High Court, has fixed December 14 for ruling on a suit filed by the Administrators of the Estate of the late Samuel Iyiola Omotoso.

    The executors sued Ecobank Nigeria Ltd  and Lagos State Registrar of Titles over a property at 5, Oduduwa Street, GRA Ikeja, Lagos.

    They filed the suit through their counsel, Rotimi Aladesanmi.

    They are Mrs. Oluwafunmilayo Nwafor, Mrs. Omowumni Olugunja, Mr. Elijah Omotoso and Mr. Emmanuel Omotoso, who are the children of the deceased.

    The administrators are contending that the propriety of a Mortgage Deed dated August 24, 2001 and registered as No 14 at page 14 in volume 2044 at the Lagos State Land Registry in respect of the property, upon which a credit facility of N155 million was extended to JNC Limited by Ecobank could not have been signed by a dead person, two years after his demise as claimed by the respondent.

    The claimant also contended that there was no loan advanced to JNC Ltd by Ecobank pursuant to, or consequent upon the deed, adding that the company was not registered.

    Aladesanmi further told the court that the person who prepared and signed a document, which was attached to a counter-affidavit, meant to have been written by the morgaggor, Samuel Omotoso, an engineer,  was wrongly spelt , with the error occurring on the masthead.

    “We revealed in the document that the first defendant never sent any letter to demand any sum of money to the address of the purported mortgagor on the property at 5, Oduduwa Street, GRA Ikeja, Lagos.

    “The mortgagor, Iyiola Omotosho, had died before the first defendant allegedly forged a letter in 2009, a year the loan was purportedly approved.

    “We submit that,  a fundamental ingredient of a mortgage is the time by which the loan is to be refunded or become due,” he said.

    The claimants also stated that no amount was stated on the deed of tripartite legal mortgage as loan covered by the mortgage, and that neither is there any date for ‘repayment’ of any loan stated.

    The respondents, through their counsels, urged the court to strike out the claimants case on the basis that the court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the matter.

    “My Lord, we have taken time to go through the claimants case and we want to state before your lordship that they lack merit and we have replied them appropriately.

    “In a preliminary objection before the court, we seek that the matter of the claimant be quashed because this court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the matter.

    “On another ground, we also urge the court to strike out the matter because it is contentional,” the respondents lawyer…said.

    Justice Oke-Lawal adjourned till December 14 for ruling.

     

     

  • Firm’s N2b suit against bank for Nov. 16

    A Lagos State High Court, Igbosere, has adjourned till November 16, a suit by Infinity Snacks and Beverages Ltd, seeking N2,076,801,430.42 from Stanbic IBTC Bank as damages for alleged breach of contract.

    In the suit filed by its counsel Olumide Sofowora (SAN) before Justice A. M. Lawal of a Lagos State High Court, Igbosere, the firm said it suffered economic misfortune from the bank’s conduct.

    According to its December 23, 2016 statement of claim, it said it received approval for a N934,029,835 loan for factory expansion from the Bank of Industry (BOI) Ltd on August 19, 2014.

    BOI required a bank guarantee as one of the conditions for the loan and the firm sought this from Stanbic IBTC Bank, “which was not issued until December 22, 2015, about four months after the approval of the loan by BOI.”

    BOI disbursed N864,420,000 into the bank’s account in the firm’s name on May 9, 2016, but, according to the firm,  Stanbic IBTC did not inform it until May 17, 2016.”

    The firm said it immediately mandated the bank to bid for foreign exchange for the purchase of the needed machinery for its expansion.”

    It claimed that the bank put “stumbling blocks” along the way by tying the BOI loan to its own loan portfolio granted to the firm.

    However, the defendant, in its statement of defence filed through its counsel, Mr Paul Usoro SAN, rejected the plaintiff’s claims.

    It said: “The defendant denies that there was an initial approval from BOI and states that rather what the claimant received was an indicative offer from BOI of its intention to grant the claimant’s loan request of the sum of N934,029,8350 subject to the claimant fulfilling the conditions for the grant of same.

    “…the defendant states that it did not hold back but swung into action almost immediately the claimant notified it of BOI’s indicative offer, request for a Bank Guarantee (BG) and a letter of intent on behalf of the claimant from a reputable financial institution, amongst other conditions precedent to granting the claimant the BOI facility.

    “The defendant avers that on the contrary it is the claimant who failed to meet up the defendant’s pre-conditions for issuing a bank guarantee in its favour.”