The Nation Newspaper

Tag: suit

  • Court to hear nonagenarian’s suit on schools May 9

    The Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered that hearing notices in a suit by a 92-year-old widow, Mrs Roseling Ololo, be served on the government and Attorney-General of the Federation.

    The plaintiff is praying the court to order the return of the Metropolitan College and Isolo Secondary School to her as the founder.

    The Minister of Education, Lagos State Government, its Attorney-General and Commissioner for Education, who make up the defendants, will also get the hearing notice, Justice Hadiza Shagari said.

    The plaintiff’s lawyer, Chief Malcolm Omirhobo, said the defendants had been served with the suit.

    But, none of them was represented in court when the case came up last Friday. They are expected to file their responses to the suit before the next date.

    Mrs Ololo was in court in a wheel-chair, accompanied by her daughter, son and grand-daughter.

    She told newsmen that she wished the case would be heard and determined quickly.

    The plaintiff said she and her husband, the late Mr Akaihieobi Ololo–Ogwu established Metropolitan College in 1952.

    The plaintiff said in 1966, they acquired over 8.17 hectares of land at Ire-Akari in Isolo area of Lagos, where the school was relocated to for expansion in 1974. In 1976, the military government took over 48 private secondary schools from their owners, including Metropolitan College.

    She said Isolo Secondary School was carved out of Metropolitan College on its expanse of land. However, in 2001, the administration of Chief Ahmed Bola Tinubu repealed the law and returned the said 48 private schools to their owners,” she averred.

    Ololo said Metropolitan College was not returned to its owners, thereby violating her right to acquire and own properties.

    She is praying for an order restraining the respondents from further infringing on her fundamental right, as well as an order returning her properties to her.

    Justice Shagari adjourned till May 9.

  • Court orders stay of proceedings in Tarfa’s suit

    The Federal High Court in Lagos on Tuesday asked a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Rickey Tarfa to first defend the criminal charge against him before pursuing civil damages against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    Justice Mohammed Idris upheld EFCC’s preliminary objection to Tarfa’s N2.5billion suit. He ordered a stay of proceedings until Tarfa’s trial at the Lagos State High Court is concluded.

    According to him, a substantial part of the reliefs Tarfa sought have a direct bearing on the charge against him.

    He said Tarfa’s vehicle and phones, which the SAN prayed the court to order their release, had been listed as exhibits in the criminal case.

    “Also, it is clear that the information and data retrieved from the mobile handsets are to be used as evidence in the criminal charge pending before the Lagos High Court,” the Judge said.

    Justice Idris said although Tarfa has the guaranteed right to be heard fairly and expeditiously, his fundamental rights suit does not supersede the criminal charge.

    “It should be noted that this right does not stand above the country, the state or the people,” the Judge said.

    Justice added that it would not be fair to the prosecution should Tarfa’s suit be decided in his favour before the criminal case is determined.

  • Senate leadership suit: Ekweremadu to arrest judgment

    Senate leadership suit: Ekweremadu to arrest judgment

    The Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu, has taken steps to arrest the planned judgment by a Federal High Court in Abuja in a suit seeking to sack the leadership of the Upper Chamber.

    In his latest move, Ekweremadu has asked the judge handling the case, Justice Adeniyi Ademola, to disqualify himself from further presiding over the case, in which he (the judge) had taken arguments from parties and reserved judgment.

    Ekweremadu, in his fresh letter to the court, made sundry allegations against the judge and his wife, including accusing him among others, of being close to the ruling All progressives Congress (APC) and its leadership.

    The Deputy Senate President, The Nation learnt, had earlier written the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, seeking the immediate transfer of the suit from Justice Ademola, a request Justice Auta turned down on the ground that it was frivolous.

    Before now, the APC had similarly accused Justice Ademola of being sympathetic to the Peoples Democratic Party particularly when he in a judgment in April 2014 faulted the defection of 41 PDP lawmakers to the APC and ordered them to vacate their seats.

    The suit was initiated by the PDP against the House of Representatives, its principal officers and the defecting legislators. The party had sought primarily to frustrate the alleged move by the defecting lawmakers to initiate changes in the leadership of the House.

    But, in this case, five APC senators, led by Abu Ibrahim, sued the leadership of the Senate, contending that the Senate’s Standing Orders 2015, on which Saraki and Ekweremadu were elected, was forged because the previous Orders were never amended before the Clerk of the Senate allegedly surreptitiously introduced the 2015 Rules.

    The plaintiffs are, by the suit, challenging the election of Saraki and Ekweremadu as Senate President and Deputy Senate President. They want the court to set aside the election.

  • Court adjourns suit over oil blocks indefinitely

    The Supreme Court has adjourned indefinitely, the suit involving Chevron Nigeria, Britannia-U Nigeria Limited and Seplat Petroleum Development Company over the disputed sale of three oil blocks – Oil Mining Leases (OMLs) 52, 53 and 55.

    The hearing earlier scheduled for last Friday was stalled because of the absence of the presiding judge, Justice Suleiman Galadima, who was said to have been bereaved.

    Although lawyers to parties in the suit were in court early, they were notified later that the case would not be heard owing to the “unavoidable” absence of Galadima.

    The development informed the decision of court officials to adjourn indefinitely, promising to issue hearing notices on parties when a fresh date has been fixed for hearing.

    At the first hearing on May 18, the apex court restrained Chevron and Seplat from selling the disputed oil blocks.

    The Supreme Court particularly ordered Chevron not to take any step or action regarding the sale of the disputed OML 52, OML 53 and OML 55 to Seplat, pending the determination of the appeal by Britannia-U Nigeria Limited.

    A five-man panel led by Justice Tanko Muhammad issued the order, directing parties in the case to maintain the status quo. He said: “No party is allowed to take any step that will affect the res (subject matter) of the appeal.

    The court’s order was informed by the refusal of lawyers representing parties to give undertaking that their clients would not take steps that would affect the case.

    Appellant’s lawyer, Rickey Tarfa (SAN) caused the court to issue the order on realising that it may be difficult for him to argue his pending application for mandatory injunction seeking to reverse steps taken by Chevron to sell the disputed oil bloc to Seplat.

  • Court to hear suit on Ikoyi properties Oct 6

    Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Lagos will on October 6, 2015 hear a preliminary objection filed by Onikoyi of Ikoyi/Moba land, Oba Patrick Ibikunle Fafunwa challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear a suit filed against him by members of the Onikoyi Descendants’Family.

    The Onikoyi Descendants’Family had in the suit No: FHC/L/CS/451/15 filed against the Federal Government and the monarch, asked the court for an order directing the government to include them in future transfer of land and meeting pertaining to the return of properties to the Onikoyi Royal Family.

    Joined as defendants alongside Oba Fafunwa are the Attorney-General of the Federation (second defendant), the Minister of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (third defendant), the Implementation Committee of the White Paper on the Commission of Enquiry into the Alienation of Federal Government Property (fourth defendant) and Unknown Persons (fifth defendant).

    The plaintiffs include Fatai Ogunlana Onikoyi Chief Muritala Adedoyin Elegushi, Alhaji Waliu Dimeji Sulaiman, Onikoyi Animashaun Abdulfatai Kolawole, Mufutau Adeshegun Onikoyi, Oyebode Shadeko, Halim Akinyemi Eshinlokun, Adja Ganiat Onikoyi Carew, Alhaja Taibat Jenmi-Owo and Idris Owoyele.

    Others are Alhaji Bilikis Bombata, Lookman Adeshina, Alhaji Tinko Aderemi, Ganiyu Onikoyi, Bolanle Doherty, Alhaja Suliat Shodiya and Fatai Onikoyi Shina for themselves and on behalf of Fafunwa, Ojubiari, Kunayije, Ilumo, Idewu, Kugbamola, Aluko Ajose, Dosumu, Ajiwe and Adelo branches of Onikoyi Royal Family.

    Specifically, the plaintiffs asked the court for an order of injunction restraining Oba Fafunwa from usurping the rights of the ten branches of the Onikoyi Family, including sale of land and usage as his personal property.

    In addition, the plaintiffs asked the court for an order partitioning the 4.324 hectares of land, the subject matter of suit No: LD/769/12 into ten portions for the ten branches that make up the Onikoyi Royal Family.

    The  plaintiffs, in their statement of claim averred that the Onikoyi Royal Family  in 1977 had an executive committee comprising of  the late Professor A. B. Fafunwa, Chief C. B. Onikoyi, Alhaji A.G Onikoyi, Alhaji A.F. Onikoyi, Alhaji L. Kehinde Onikoyi and Prince R. Olatunji Onikoyi who were to handle the income of the family but due to their failure, a suit was instituted against them in suit No: LD/697/97 on sharing formulae and judgment on the matter was delivered by Justice A. Adeniyi on September 25, 2001.

    The plaintiffs also averred that the family instituted another suit No: LD/1172/93 against the Attorney-General of the Federation, NITEL, NIJA ROSE Properties Development Company Limited, Executive Government of Lagos State and Attorney General of Lagos State over a 43.143 hectares of land, the judgment of which was delivered by Justice Adetula Alabi in 2003 in favour of the family.

    They alleged that despite that the judgement was in favour of the family, the land was sold by the executive committee in connivance with the Oba who was crowned in 2007.

    Furthermore, the plaintiffs claimed that in 2007, a 4.342 hectares of land covered by water was allocated to the family by the Lagos State Government but that it was seized by the Federal Government and later settled out of court in suit No: LD/769/12 between the Federal Government and the Oba alone.

    However, because the family representatives were not involved in the out-of-court settlement, the Federal Government refused to release the land to any single individual adding that this made the Oba to file a suit, No: LD/8690/14, against the Federal Government and which is pending at the Lagos High Court.

    They further averred that two high chiefs, on behalf of Onikoyi Chieftaincy Family, Chief Adedotun Adeseye and Chief Abayomi Fafunwa, equally dragged Oba Onikoyi before a Lagos High Court in suit No:LD/7438/14, asking the court to declare that with the death of Prof Babatunde Fafunwa and the removal of Otunba A.G. Onikoyi, as signatories and accredited representatives of the Onikoyi Chieftaincy Family, Oba Onikoyi cannot validly and competently act as a sole signatory to the account and other land transfer documentations of the Onikoyi Royal Family without the reconstitution of the executive committee of the family.

    However, Oba Onikoyi in his statement of defence denied the Plaintiffs statement of claim, emphasising that the present action as constituted is incompetent, vexatious, scandalous and totally bereft of any jurisdictional power and authority.

    The monarch contended that the plaintiffs in this action (FHC/L/CS/451/15) who are not parties to the case in suit No: LD/769/12 and who are not also parties to the terms of settlement entered in the said suit, cannot competently seek a declarative relief of the court to enforce the terms of the consent judgment entered into between known and identifiable parties.

    In their statement of defence,  both the Minister of Lands Housing and Urban Development and the Implementation Committee of the White Paper on the Commission of Enquiry into the Alienation of Federal Government Property in their statement of defense stated that the terms of settlement was filed and adopted by parties in the court in suit No: LD/769/12 on February 18, 2014 in which the court presided over by Justice Kazeem Alogba entered as the consent judgment because the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants did not accept the validity of the certificate of occupancy dated January 31, 2007 and registered as No 20 at page 20 in volume 2007B of the Register of Deeds, Lands Registry, Lagos issued by the Lagos State Government over Federal Government Land at Ikoyi.

    Both defendants alleged the Oba has deliberately refused to demarcate the 4.342 hectares which was the subject matter of the term of settlement in suit No: LD/769/12 as the Oba has trespassed on far more hectares than was covered by the term of settlement in suit No: LD/769/12.

    Furthermore, the duo stated that while Onikoyi Chieftaincy Family was represented by the Oba, the terms of settlement signed singly by him did not reflect the interest of the Onikoyi Chieftaincy Family as he has refused any other signatories on behalf of Onikoyi Chieftaincy Family, the term of settlement, neither has the Oba presented a juristic entity to whom title can be given.

    The third and fourth defendants said the Federal Government is willing and prepared to issue title and give possession to the Onikoyi Chieftaincy Family provided the Oba brings a legal entity or juristic person on which title will be vested.

     

  • Senate hails withdrawal of suit by Unity Forum

    The Senate praised yesterday its members who operate under the aegis of ‘The Unity Forum’ for withdrawing the suit they filed before the Federal High Court, Abuja, in which they sought to remove the Senate President, Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki and his Deputy, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, over allegation of forgery of the Senate Standing Orders 2015 used for the inauguration of the eighth Senate.

    Justice Ademola Adeniyi, of the Federal High Court, Abuja on Monday struck  out the case and terminated hearing on the matter after the plaintiffs withdrew their suit.

    The five members of the Unity Forum who instituted the suit are Senators Abu Ibrahim, Kabiru Marafa, Ajayi Borofice, Olugbenga Ashafa and Suleiman Hunkuyi.

    Chairman, Senate Adhoc Committee on Media and Publicity, Senator Dino Melaye, in a statement in Abuja, hailed members of both the Unity Forum loyal to Senator Ahmad Lawan and the Like Minds Senators loyal to Saraki for their maturity and sagacity.

    Melaye said that with the discontinuation of the suit, the plaintiffs and their supporters have demonstrated that national interest is superior to individual and group interest. He added that the development has put to shame divisive elements who wanted to ridicule the eighth Senate.

    Melaye said: “On behalf of the Senate, we want to commend the maturity of the Unity Forum Group and Like Minds Group. We appreciate that by withdrawing the suit, national interest has overcome individual and group interest.

    “I salute the sagacity of the Unity Forum for withdrawing the matter from the court. This is as a result of series of underground reconciliatory moves. I salute the sense of purpose of both groups.  By this very positive development, the divisive elements who wanted to bring the eighth Senate to ridicule have been completely shamed.”

    He stated that the eighth Senate will henceforth remain focused on issues that border only on the security and welfare of the people.

    “Our primary objectives shall continue to remain about the people, the people and the people. The Senate President has promised to carry all parties along and he  shall at all times place national interest above primordial sentiments”, Melaye said.

     

  • Senate hails withdrawal of suit

    The Senate yesterday hailed its members who operate under the aegis of ‘The Unity Forum’ for withdrawing the suit they filed before the Federal High Court, Abuja, in which they sought to remove the Senate President, Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki and his Deputy, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, from office over allegation of forgery of the Senate Standing Orders 2015 used for the inauguration of the 8th Senate.

    Justice Ademola Adeniyi, of the Federal High Court, Abuja had on Monday struck out the case and terminated further hearing on the matter after the plaintiffs who are members of the Senate Unity Forum withdrew their suit.

    The five members of the Unity Forum who instituted the suit are Senators Abu Ibrahim, Kabiru Marafa, Ajayi Borofice, Olugbenga Ashafa and Suleiman Hunkuyi.

    Chairman, Senate Adhoc Committee on Media and Publicity, Senator Dino Melaye, in a statement in Abuja, commended members of both the Unity Forum loyal to Senator Ahmad Lawan and the Like Minds Senators loyal to Saraki for their maturity and sagacity.

    Melaye said that with the discontinuation of the suit the plaintiffs and their supporters have demonstrated that national interest is superior to individual and group interest. He added that the development has put to shame divisive elements who wanted to ridicule the 8th Senate.

    Melaye said: “On behalf of the Senate, we want to commend the maturity of the Unity Group and Like Minds Group. We appreciate that by withdrawing the suit, national interest has overcome individual and group interest.”

     

  • Tribunal fixes Sept 18 for verdict in Lagos West suit

    The Lagos State Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Ikeja, Lagos has fixed September 18 for judgment in the case brought before it by the Lagos West Senatorial candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Segun Adewale.

    He is challenging the election of the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Solomon Olamilekan Adeola (aka Yayi).

    The three-man tribunal headed by Justice Sylvanus Oriji fixed the judgment date after listening to the submissions of both parties in their final written address.

    Adewale, known as Aeroland, is challenging the declaration of Adeola by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), as the winner of the April 28 election.

    He had in his petition prayed the tribunal to nullify the declaration of Adeola as winner of the election.

    Adewale insisted that he won.

    Counsel to Adewale, Dr. Yemi Oke, said his client is challenging Adeola’s victory on three grounds.

    He argued that the nomination of Adeola is invalid, that election did not hold in some wards, and that there were irregularities, which include falsification of results in some wards.

    But counsel to Adeola, APC and INEC, Mr. A. Adegoke and Dr. Muiz Banire, urged the court to dismiss Adewale’s petition on the ground that he failed to prove the allegations against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt.

    They submitted that most of the allegations by the petitioner were criminal in nature and they would need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Alleged forgery: Suit ‘meant to shield Ekweremadu, others’

    Alleged forgery: Suit ‘meant to shield Ekweremadu, others’

    THE suit seeking to stop investigation of the alleged forgery of the Senate Standing Orders 2015 by the police is intended to shield Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu and other officials of the Senate from probe, the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) said at the weekend.

    Ekweremadu and some senior officials of the Senate have been at the centre of police investigation into the secret alteration of some provisions of the 2011 Senate Standing Orders used by senators on their first sitting on June 9 as the Senate Standing Orders 2015 (amended).

    Some of them have been invited by the police, interrogated and made to write statements.

    It was in a bid to restrain the police and the office of the AGF from taking further steps in relation to the case that Gilbert Nnaji (representing Enugu East Senatorial District), on July 23, filed a suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/646/2015 before the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Senator Nnaji alleged that police investigation of the case “is inspired by a devious petition by the Secretary of the Unity Forum Senators, solely aimed at unjustly incriminating the office of the Deputy  President of the Senate” being occupied by Ekweremadu, representing Enugu West Senatorial district.

    In its objection to the competence of the suit, the AGF Office queried Nnaji’s locus standi to institute the suit for being neither a principal officer of the Senate, elected under the controversial 2015 Orders, nor being investigated by the police.

    It noted that by his averments, Nnaji has betrayed his true intention, which is to protect Ekweremadu.

    It contended that it was only Ekweremadu and others, who feel their interests or rights would be affected by police investigation of the forgery allegation that could validly sue.

    The AGF Office said in its written address to its objection: “In the light of the foregoing, we submit that it will be in the interest of justice for this matter to be struck out in its entirety as the plaintiff’s suit has not disclosed or shown that he has any personal remedy arising from the disclosed cause of action that exceeds that of Senator Ike Ekweremadu or the Senate as an entity.

    “We submit that the plaintiff can only seek declarations in court if he can establish that he has suffered or is going to suffer any injury  on account of the investigation.

    “This is a suit that should rightly be instituted by the Senate as an entity or better still by Senator Ike Ekweremadu, whom, by the plaintiff’s affidavit, at paragraph 27, is identified as the ultimate target of the petition.”

    On the plaintiff’s argument that no other arm of government could pry into the activities of the Legislature under Section 30 of the Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act, the AGF argued that the 8th Senate was inaugurated after the alleged forgery had taken place, which informed why all the senators saw the 2015 Orders at their inaugural sitting on June 9.

    “My Lord, by paragraphs 16 and 24, most especially paragraph 24 of the plaintiff’s affidavit, the said Standing Orders, the subject of the investigation, came into the hands of the plaintiff (Nnaji) for the first time when the house was inaugurated.

    “How then can the plaintiff be justified in challenging the investigation into an allegation that occurred prior to his inauguration and how has it affected his interest?” The AGF said in urging the court to dismiss the suit.

    The alleged forgery of the Senate Orders 2011 relates to the alterations carried out, particularly in relation to Rules 3(3)(e) and (k), which were said not to have been amended in accordance with the provisions of Rule 110(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) of the 2011 Orders.

    While in the 2011 Order Rule 3(3) (e) talks about manual voting and open ballot, the 2015 Orders allows electronic and secret ballot voting in the election of the President and Deputy.

    Also, while Rule 3(3)(k) of the 2011 Order makes it mandatory for all members to participate in the process of electing the President and Deputy, the reverse is the case under the 2015 Orders.

    In the 2011 Orders, Rule 3(3)(k) provides that: “All Senators-elect shall participate in the nomination and voting for President and Deputy President of the Senate,” similar provision in Rule 3(3)(i) in the 2015 Orders reads: “All Senator-elect are entitled to participate in the voting for Senate President and Deputy Senate President.”

    Nnaji’s case has been adjourned to September 8 by Justice Gabriel Kolawole, who served as the court’s vacation judge until August 7.

    He had, at the last hearing before him suggested that the forgery case be left for the Senate to resolve, using its internal disciplinary mechanisms.

    The judge threatened to void all steps taking by the defendants (the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and the AGF) should he find that they (the defendants) take further steps on the issue while the case was pending.

  • Court rejects Saraki’s protest against Senate forgery suit

    Court rejects Saraki’s protest against Senate forgery suit

    A Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday rejected a complaint by Senate President Bukola Saraki against a suit seeking to sack him and other principal officers of the Senate elected under the controversial Senate Standing Orders 2015.

    His counsel Sikiru Oke told the court yesterday that he appeared for the Senate President “in protest” and has not filed “memorandum of appearance” which must be filed before a lawyer could enter appearance for a party in a case.

    The proceedings were in relation to a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/651/2015 filed by senators who are opposed to the emergence of Dr. Saraki as the Senate President.

    They are: Senators Abu Ibrahim; Kabir Marafa; Ajayi  Boroffice; Olugbenga Ashafa and Suleiman Hunkuni. Defendants to the suit are Saraki, Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu; the National Assembly, the Clerks of the National Assembly and the Senate.

    The plaintiffs seek among other prayers  an order nullifying the Senate Standing Orders 2015 as well as the election of Saraki as the Senate President and that of Ike Ekweremadu as the Deputy Senate President, for being products of the alleged illegal rules.

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole had at the last hearing in the case on July 28, adjourned the case to yesterday for the hearing of the plaintiffs’ motion on notice seeking an order restraining Saraki and other defendants from going ahead to constitute the standing committees of the Senate, pending the determination of their suit challenging the validity of the Senate Standing Orders 2015.

    Oke contended that court processes in the case were served on his office instead of being served personally on his client, as prescribed by the Federal High Court Rules 2009.

    Plaintiffs’ counsel Dele Adesina (SAN) in a counter argument, contended that there are obligatory provisions of the same court rules which envisages and validates service on Saraki through his office.

    Adesina also argued that Oke could not be heard since he had yet to file memorandum of appearance to appear for the first defendant (Saraki).

    Ruling, Justice Kolawole upheld Adesina’s position and disqualified Oke from appearing for Saraki during the proceedings.

    He directed that the case be transferred to another judge, Justice Adeniyi Ademola, who will take over as the vacation judge of the Federal High Court in Abuja onAugust 10.

    He adjourned to August 13.

    Justice Kolawole had, in a ruling on July 28, dismissed an exparte application by the plaintiffs in which they had earlier sought a restraining order against the constitution of the senate standing committees.

    In the ruling, Justice Kolawole said the disputes arising from the alleged forgery of the Senate Standing Orders constituted internal legislative affair of the Senate which the court would not want to intervene in.