The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Breaking: Supreme Court upholds Donald Duke as SDP presidential candidate

    The Supreme Court in Abuja on Friday upheld the Court of Appeal judgment declaring Donald Duke, as the Social Democratic Party’s (SDP) presidential candidate.

    The judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court presided over by Justices Ejembi Eko, Kudirat Kekere, Amiru Sanusi, Paul Galumje and Uwani Aji.

    The court also awarded N3 million in favour of Duke.

    The appellate court in January reinstated Duke as the SDP presidential flag bearer after overturning the ruling of the FCT High Court that disqualified him as the party’s flag bearer.

    Read Also: Appeal Court declares Donald Duke SDP presidential candidate

    During the party’s primary held on Oct. 6, 2018 Duke had polled 812 votes to defeat his rival, Prof, Jerry Gana who polled 611.

    However, Gana was dissatisfied with the result had approached an FCT High Court seeking to disqualify Duke as the party’s presidential candidate.

    An FCT High Court had on Dec.14, 2018 declared Gana the winner of the party’s presidential primary and Duke had appealed the ruling and won.

  • Jonathan’s wife loses another N2.4bn to FG

    Exactly eight days after the Supreme Court upheld Federal Government’s interim seizure of the $8.4 million believed to be owned by ex-First Lady, Mrs. Patience Jonathan, the apex court has again agreed to a similar forfeiture of another N2.4bn linked with Mrs. Jonathan.

    While men of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) said the $8.4 million were discovered in some accounts linked to the ex-First Lady, the N2,421,953,522.00 was said to be held in bank accounts owned by Lawari Furniture and Bath Limited, an entity in which Mrs. Jonathan allegedly has interest.

    In a judgment yesterday, a five-man panel of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal by Lawari Furniture on the grounds that it was without merit. The appeal was filed and argued for the appellant by Mike Ozekhome (SAN).

    In the lead judgment written by Justice Amiru Sanusi but read by Justice Sidi Bage, the court upheld the order of interim forfeiture made by a High Court in Lagos on April 26, 2017, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, Lagos in a judgment given on January 12, 2018.

    The court rejected the argument by the appellant who faulted the interim order of forfeiture obtained by the EFCC via an ex-parte motion, and prayed that it be set  aside.

    It also rejected the appellant’s prayer to void Section 17 of the Advanced Fee Fraud Act and other Fraud related offences Act, on which the High Court relied in issuing the order of interim forfeiture.

    The court, in the lead judgment, noted that it rarely interferes in the concurrent findings of the two lower courts, except where there are exceptional circumstances and the findings perverse.

    It noted that, in the instant case, no such exceptional circumstances existed.

    In his supporting judgment, a member of the panel, Justice Ejembi Eko, observed that the substance of this appeal was similar to the one decided by the court on March 8 this year (relating to the interim forfeiture of $8.4m).

    Justice Eko said both appeals ought not to be split and assigned to different panels to avoid the risk of issuing conflicting judgments.

    He found nothing wrong with the provision of Section 17 of the Money Laundering Act, which he noted was the same as the provision in Section 29 of EFCC Act.

    Other members of the panel, Justices Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, Mary Peter Odili and Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, agreed with the lead judgment.

  • Supreme Court upholds FG’s seizure of ex-First Lady Patience Jonathan’s  $8.4m

    The Supreme Court has upheld the order of temporary forfeiture made by a Federal High Court in Lagos in respect of the $8.4million traced by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to former First Lady, Mrs. Patience Jonathan.

    In a judgment yesterday, a five-man panel of the court unanimously held that the appeal filed by Mrs. Jonathan, challenging the interim forfeiture, was without merit.

    In the lead judgment authored by Justice Kumai Akaahs, but read yesterday by Justice Ejembi Eko, the court said the Federal High Court was right to have ordered the temporary forfeiture of the money in view of the motion ex-parte filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    The apex court upheld an earlied judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos, which equally upheld the temporary forfeiture.

    The Supreme Court ordered Mrs.Jonathan to go before the Federal High Court in Lagos to show cause, as earlier directed by the trial court, why the order for permanent forfeiture of the money to the Federal Government should not be made.

    Justices Musa Muhammad, John Okoro, Paul Galumje and Sidi Bage, who were members of the panel, agreed with the lead judgment.

    The EFCC had, in 2018 went before the Federal High Court in Lagos with an ex-parte motion, brought under Section 17 of the Advanced Fee Fraud Act (AFFA) and prayed for interim forfeiture of $8,435,788.84 and other sums in various bank accounts linked to Mrs. Jonathan which it claimed were suspected proceeds of unlawful activities.

    In a ruling on April 20, 2018, Justice Mojisola Olatoregun granted the ex-parte motion and ordered the EFCC to publish the court’s order in any major national newspaper to enable the respondents or anyone interested in the funds to appear before the court to show cause within 14 days why the final order of forfeiture of the said funds should not be made in favour of the Federal Government of Nigeria.

    Mrs. Jonathan subsequently went before the Court of Appeal, Lagos, to challenge the competence of the ex parte motion, the validity of the order made by the Federal High Court and the constitutionality of Section 17 of AFFA, under which the motion was filed.

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by Mrs. Jonathan for, among others, lacking in merit, a decision the ex-First Lady challenged at the Supreme Court.

    Lawyer to Mrs. Jonathan, Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN) had, while arguing the appeal, urged the Supreme Court to void Section 17 of AFFA, which he argued, violated the principles of fair hearing and presumption of innocence enshrined in the constitution.

    Adedipe equally argued that the ex parte motion, which the trial court granted, failed to disclose the alleged “unlawful activities,” the funds were said to have been derived from.

  • Supreme Court upholds N1b judgment against Okorocha, others

    The Supreme Court on yesterday put an end to the over 10-year old dispute between the Imo State Governor, Rochas Okorocha, three others and a firm – E. F. Network Nigeria Limited – over a contract debt of N1billion.

    A five-man panel of the Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment yesterday, ordered the Imo State Governor and three others to pay the firm and its promoter, Gideon Egbuchulam the N1billion, which was the outstanding amount left unpaid in a contract awarded E. F. Network sometime in 2008 under the administration of Ikedi Ohakim.

    The court, in its lead judgment prepared by Justice Kayode Ariwoola, but read by Justice Amina Augie, held that the appeal, marked: SC/1001/2016 filed by Okorocha and three others, was unmeritorious.

    The apex court proceeded to dismiss the appeal and awarded N500,000 cost against the appellants, and in favour of the respondents – E. F. Network and Egbuchulam. Other appellants include the Attorney General of Imo State, Environmental Transformation Committee (Imo Entraco) and The Ministry of Environment, Imo State.

    Okorocha and others had appealed the July 4, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Owerri, which upheld the February 11, 2014 judgment by Justice Ijeoma Agugua of the Imo State High Court, in which it was established that the defendants (the Imo State Governor and others) were indebted to E. F. Network to the tune of N1b, having breached terms of the contract agreement between them.

    In the trial court’s judgment, Justice Agugua noted that the Ohakim administration in Imo State, which Okorocha succeeded, had contracted E. F. Network in the implementation of the state government’s Clean and Green Initiative, in pursuit of which the firm was awarded a contract to supply 10 million refuse bags and 40,000 plastic rolling containers at N42 per bag and N20 per plastic container.

    She observed that by the contract, the Imo State Governor and others, listed as appellants in the appeal, guaranteed payment through an irrevocable mandate of the payment of N35million monthly to the contractor.

    The judge noted that after the execution of the contract, the Imo State Government kept to the agreed schedule of payment for 12 months and subsequently stopped, leaving an outstanding balance estimated at N800m.

    The judge further observed that E.F. Network resorted to the court action in an effort to recovered what the Imo State Government and its agencies owed it and gave judgment in favour of E. F. Network and, in the February 11, 2014 judgment, ordered the defendants to, among others, pay the firm N1b, a judgment the Imo State Governor and others appeal up to the Supreme Court and lost yesterday.

  • Breaking: Supreme Court upholds FG’s seizure of Patience Jonathan’s $8.4m

    The Supreme Court has upheld the order of temporary forfeiture made by a Federal High Court in Lagos in respect of the $8.4million traced by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to former First Lady, Mrs. Patience Jonathan.

    In a judgment on Friday, a five-man panel of the court unanimously held that the appeal filed by Mrs. Jonathan, challenging the interim forfeiture, was without merit.

    The court ordered Mrs. Jonathan to go before the Federal High Court to justify her ownership of the money to prevent its permanent forfeiture to the Federal Government.

     

    Details shortly…

  • We’ve not removed Onnoghen, Fed Govt, AGF tell Supreme Court

    •Court to decide suspended CJN’s fate May 17

    The suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, has not been illegally removed from office, the Federal Government and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) said yesterday.

    Faulting claims by the Cross River State Government that the embattled CJN has been eased out of office, the government and the AGF explained that Justice Onnghen was suspended to enable him stand trial for the charge of breach of code of conduct, before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    Solicitor-General of the Federation (SGF) Dayo Apata spoke for the government and the Office of the AGF at the hearing of a suit by Cross Rivers State, in which it challenged Onnoghen’s suspension and asked that the decision be set aside.

    Apata contended: “There is a clear distinction between suspension and removal.  There is no evidence before the court to show that the CJN was removed or dismissed from office.”

    He argued that Justice Onnoghen’s suspension was not arbitrary, and that President Muhammadu Buhari acted on a valid order made by a competent court, the suspended CJN has now appealed.

    The solicitor-general was reacting to an argument by plaintiff’s lawyer, Lucius Nwosu (SAN), to the effect that Onnoghen’s removal from office by the executive was a violation of the Constitution, attack on the Judiciary and a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers.

    Apata argued the defendants’ notice of preliminary objection and counter affidavit, filed in response to the plantiff’s originating summons.

    He urged the court to uphold his objection and dismiss this suit, marked: SC/45/2019, for lack of locus standi,on the grounds that the subject matter does not qualify as a dispute between

    He said: “Our submission is that there is no dispute between Cross River State and the Federal Government of Nigeria on the subject matter of this case or the charge pending before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    “In the absence of any dispute, the original jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked by the plaintiff. The office in question is the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, not the Chief Judge of Cross River State.”

    On the competence of the suit, Apata faulted Nwosu’s argument that it was intended to protect the Constitution and current its violation by the Executive in the manner Onnoghen was removed from office.

    Apata argued that as against the plaintiff’s position, the suit seeks to obstruct the efforts of the defendants to protect the interest of justice as provided in Section 174 of the Constitution, where the AGF is enjoined to ensure that every prosecution should be done in the interest of justice.

    “The interest of justice is being done with the decision by the Federal Government to prosecute the CJN before the CCT. By this suit, the plaintiff is seeking to frustrate that effort, so the case of Fawehinmi and Akilun cited by the plaintiff’s lawyer, does not support their case,” Apata said.

    He also faulted Nwosu’s reference to the oath he took, on being conferred with the rank of SAN, to protect the Constitution and defend the country’s interest.

    Apata argued that Nwosu was not the plaintiff, but a lawyer to the plaintiff. He noted that if Nwosu was interested in keeping faith with the oath he swore to, he should have instituted the suit himself.

    He added: “The lawyer is not the plaintiff here, but the Cross River State Government.  And since the subject is not a dispute between the Cross River State and Federal Republic of Nigeria, the objection should be sustained.”

    Apata urged the court to resist the attempt by the plaintiff to make it determine a criminal proceedings that is still pending at the Court of Appeal, which has not been determined.

    He said that as at yesterday (Wednesday), the Court of Appeal reserved judgments on appeals on the same subject matter as this case. “This is a case of abuse of court process and forum shopping,” he said.

    When asked if the parties at the Court of Appeal were the same as those in the case before the Supreme Court, Apata said no, but that the subject matter is the same.

    In his argument, Nwosu urged the court to dismiss the defendants’ objection and grant all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.

    Nwosu argued that, by their objection, the defendants sought to treat the Office of the CJN as personal to Justice Onnoghen, being an office created by the Constitution, with responsibilities.

    He added: “The seat of the CJN is an institution specifically established by the Constitution of Nigeria, which also makes it tenured, to the effect that the occupant should stay there until his/her retirement age.

    “And the only way he/she can be removed before his/her retirement age, has also been stated in the Constitution. This dictates that even if there is any transgression, this procedure must be followed.”

    Nwosu described the Supreme Court as the proper forum for the case to be decided. He said, since the case was brought by a state, the Constitution says, where there is a dispute between a state and the Federal Government on any constitutional issue/question, the Supreme Court shall be the proper venue.

    Nwosu distinguished both cases and argued that the one before the Supreme Court was not personal to Onnoghen, but meant to cure a violation to the Constitution and the prevent such violation in future.

    He added: “My Lord, there is a siege on the court. They have broken into your (judges’) houses at night, now they have come for your necks.

    “We do not know who will be next. If we do not act now, you may not be sitting here in the next few weeks. You shall be remembered for what you have done. This is an opportunity for you now to stop this violation of the Constitution.”

    The plaintiff’s lawyer argued that it was outrageous and shameful that Apata claimed that Onnoghen was suspended based on an order of court and proceeded to exhibit a copy of the said order.

    H said: “It is a shame that the Solicitor General of the Federation exhibited the laughable order made by a lay magistrate. Can this court also just order the President to vacate office? If they say an order is an order, maybe you here, should order the removal of the President.”

    Nwosu cited Legal Practitioners Privileges Act, where every Senior Advocate pledges to uphold the provisions of the Constitution, and argued that it will be a gross dereliction of his oath to watch the CJN removed from office in a manner alien to the procedure created by the Constitution.

    After listening to the lawyers, a seven-man panel of the court, led by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour adjourned to May 17 thus year for judgment.

     

  • Breaking: Supreme Court to decide Onnoghen’s fate May 17

    The Supreme Court has fixed judgment for May 17 this year in a suit by Cross River State Government seeking to set aside the suspension of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    A seven-man panel of the court, led by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour fixed the date on Thursday after taking arguments from lawyer to parties.

    Lucius Nwosu (SAN) argued on behalf of the plaintiff (Cross River State), while Dayo Apata, Solicitor General of the Federation (argued for the defendants – the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Attorney General of the Federation).

    Read Also: Supreme Court affirms N2.5m verdict against Emirates

    It is the plaintiff’s contention that Onnoghen’s suspension or removal from office by President Muhammadu Buhari, based on an ex-parte order by a lay magistrate (the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal) violates the Constition, particularly Section 292(1).

    In a counter-argument, the defendants are of the view that the plaintiff lacks the locus standi to approach the Supreme Court on the issue, because Onnoghen’s suspension was personal to him and cannot be interpreted to amount to a dispute between the Federal Government and the Cross River State Government.

     

    Details shortly….

  • Gana to Supreme Court: declare me SDP’s presidential candidate

    •Ex-minister’s appeal for March 11

    Despite the conclusion of this year’s presidential election, former Information Minister Jerry Gana has insisted on continuation of proceedings in his appeal in which he prays the Supreme Court to declare him the Social Democratic Party (SDP) candidate for the poll.

    Gana’s appeal is against the January 24, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which named a former Cross River State Governor Donald Duke as the SDP’s validly nominated presidential candidate for the election, which held on February 23.

    A three-man panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Abdul Aboki had, in its unanimous judgment of January 24, set aside the December 14, 2018 judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), which declared Gana the party’s candidate.

    In his appeal, the ex-Information Minister wants the Supreme Court to, among others, name him the presidential candidate in view of the zoning formula contained in SDP’s constitution.

    Gana is contending that, though he came second in the party’s primary election for the nomination of its presidential candidate, he was qualified to become the candidate because, by the party’s zoning formula, its chairman and presidential candidate cannot come from the same part of the country.

    Respondents to the appeal are the SDP; its National Chairman, the National Secretary; the party’s Presidential Screening Panel/ Deputy National Chairman, South, Duke and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    When the appeal was called yesterday, Gana’s lawyer, Pius Akubo (SAN), moved his client’s application for leave to appeal on grounds of mixed law and facts.

    Respondents’ lawyers, including Mhir Mson (for INEC), did not oppose the application, following which a five-man panel of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, granted it.

    The court asked the respondents to promptly file their briefs and adjourned to March 11 for hearing.

    Gana, who was dressed in blue agbada, was in court yesterday, accompanied by a handful of supporters.

     

  • Supreme Court affirms N2.5m verdict against Emirates

    The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Federal High Court in Lagos which awarded a N2.5 million against Emirates Airline for not allowing a US based Nigerian student Promise Mekwunye to fly.

    Miss Mekwunye, who was a student of North Texas University, Denton, Texas USA, sued the airline in 2008 for not allowing her to board with her two-way flight ticket from Dallas to Nigeria for no reason.

    She claimed she bought another ticket from American Airline to be able to travel, and that Emirates refused to fully refund the cost of the  ticket.

    Mekunye claimed that she had bought the airline’s return ticket for $2,067 on May 2007 but upon presentation for issuance of boarding pass in December, 2007 she was denied boarding.

    She further claimed that the airline offered no reason for its action, leaving her stranded for days at the airport until she was able to secure a more expensive flight ticket on a longer route to Lagos.

    She prayed the court to order the airline to refund the full cost of her American Airline ticket and to pay for damages she suffered as a result of the ordeal.

    In its judgment delivered on November 15, 2010, the Federal High Court held that the refusal of Emirates Airline to carry Mekwunye amounted to a breach of contract of carriage.

    Consequently, the court ordered full refund of ticket without any deduction or charge, and further granted N2.5 million in general damages and N250,000 in legal costs against the airline.

    Dissatisfied, Emirates Airline appealed the judgment.

    The airline contended that the trial judge erred in law when he awarded N250,000.00 in legal fees when the plaintiff claimed 1,000,000.00 but led no evidence.

    The airline contended that the award of general damages was contrary to the Montreal Convention which not only limits the damages recoverable but placed obligation to prove wilful misconduct /gross negligence against the airline before the airline can be liable for damages.

    The airline also contended that the award of additional N2.5m damages is double compensation since the trial court had awarded the plaintiff the refund of the amount used in purchasing her ticket.

    In its judgment of April 11, 2014, the Court of Appeal upheld the airline’s appeal and upturned the award of N250,000 and N2.5 million earlier awarded to Mekwunye by the lower court.

    But in a lead judgement delivered by Justice Ejembi Eko in an appeal filed by Mekwunye, the Apex Court overruled unanimously, the decision of the Court of Appeal and upheld the earlier judgment of Federal High Court.

    The apex court held that the trial court was right in ordering Emirates airline to pay in the circumstances N2.5m as general damages in addition to ticket refund as the airline cannot rely on the Montreal Convention for limitation of liability when it was guilty of fundamental breach of the contract as argued by the appellant’s lawyer and father, Dr.  Charles Mekwunye.

    The Supreme Court further held that the Court of Appeal was wrong to have heard and upturned the decision of the lower court when Emirates Airline never obtain leave of court to file the appeal as to costs.

    The judgment reads in part: “In the instant case, the appellant paid for flight ticket.

    “She was denied boarding even after confirming the flight three times.

    “In consequence therefore, she was stranded for two days without explanation, apologies and alternative arrangement and was constrained to pay for a longer route on a more expensive ticket.

    “It would, therefore, in my view be unfair and unjust for the respondent as the carrier to merely refund the flight ticket without compensation or generally damage for the lost of time, stress, embarrassment and inconvenient she suffer in consequence of breach of contract by the respondent.”

    The apex court also held that the airline’s denial of boarding  was a repudiation of its contract with Mekwunye and a breach of the fundamental term of the contract which does not entitle it to rely on the Montreal Convention that sets limit  of claims in an action between an airline and its passenger.

  • Fed Govt, AGF ask Supreme Court to stay off Onnoghen’s case

    •Cross River seeks court’s intervention

    THE Federal Government and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) have asked the Supreme Court to decline jurisdiction over a suit seeking its intervention in the trial of suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    The FG and the AGF contended that Onnoghen’ trial was personal to him and could only involve the  Supreme Court, where an appeal arises from the Court of Appeal on a decision reached either during or after the trial at the CCT.

    Their position is contained in a notice of objection they filed against a suit instituted at the Supreme Court by Cross River State.

    The state government, in their originating summons, queried the propriety of Onnoghen’s trial before the CCT and urged the Supreme Court to declare it illegal on the grounds that it was only the National Judicial Council (NJC) that could exercise disciplinary powers over a serving judge.

    In their objection, the FG and AGF (listed as defendants in the suit), argued that the subject of the case did not qualify as a dispute between the Cross River State and the Federal Government, as envisaged under Section 232(1) of the Constitution.

    They added: “The subject matter of this suit is personal to Hon. Justice Onnoghen Nkanu Walter Samuel and does not, in any way, affects the Cross River State Government as to confer it with the locus to institute this suit.

    “The reliefs and claims made herein by the plaintiff are not for the benefit of Cross River State, but personal to Justice Onnoghen Nkanu Walter Samuel.

    “The alleged cause of action in the subject matter of this suit is not one that creates the existence or extent of a legal right between the Cross River State Government, in its capacity as a state and the defendants in this suit as stated under Section 232(1) of the Constitution.

    “The Honourable Justice Onnoghen Nkanu Walter Samuel, being an indigene of Cross River State and the highest judicial officer from the state does not confer on the plaintiff the locus to institute this suit.

    “The fact that the suit partly relates to the interpretation of the Constitution does not confer on the plaintiff the locus to invoke the original jurisdiction of this honourable court.”

    The plaintiff, in their originating summons, want the court to among others, declare that, by the provisions of sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Constitution, there a clear recognition of the doctrine of separation of powers and checks and balances in relation to the operations of the three arms of government.

    The Cross River State wants the court to declare that, by virtue of the provisions of sections 153(1), 158(1(, Paragraph 21(b) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to Constitution, it is the NJC that is exclusively empowered to recommend to the President or Governor the appointment/removal of any judicial officer.

    It also seeks a declaration that the CCT, not being the NJC, is not vested with the jurisdiction over any judicial officer for an alleged official misconduct on the part of a judicial officer, without a formal complaint of such official misconduct being first made to and investigated by the NJC.

    The plaintiff equally wants the Supreme Court to declare that the filing of the charge, before the CCT, against Onnoghen, being a judicial officer, without any formal complaint having been made against him to the NJC, robbed the CCT of jurisdiction to try the charge and all the proceedings relating thereto, amount to a nullity.

    It, therefore, urged the court to grant an order of injunction, restraining the defendants and their agents from further initiating or proceedings with any similar charge or charges against Onnoghen or any judicial officer of the superior court created by the Constitution, until a formal report of misconduct is first, made to and investigated by the NJC.

    At the Supreme Court yesterday, lawyer to the defendants, Dayo Apata (who is the Solicitor General of the Federation), told the court that his clients have just filed some processes, including a memorandum of appearance, notice of preliminary objection and a counter affidavit to the originating summons.

    Apata said he was able to serve the processes on the plaintiff’s lawyer shortly before the court began sitting yesterday.

    Lawyer to the plaintiff, Lucius Nwosu (SAN), acknowledged the service of the defendants’ processes on him.

    Nwosu said, in view of the importance of the case, he would urge the court to grant a short adjournment to enable him respond to the defendant’s processes.

    Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, who presided over a seven-man panel of the court, adjourned to February 28 for the hearing of the defendants’ objection along with the substantive suit.