The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • FG, 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’s 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 trail at the CCT.

    Their position is contained in a notice of objection they filed against a suit marked: SC/45/2019 instituted at the Supreme Court by the government of Cross River State.

    The Cross River 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 subjected 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 Hon. 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,” they said.

    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.

    In a supporting affidavit sworn to by an official of the Cross River State Ministry of Justice, Ibi Mboto, the plaintiff stated that Onnoghen is an indigene of the state and the highest judicial officer from the state.

    It argued that Onnoghen’s suspension and trial before the CCT, without first, being subjected to the NJC’s process, as dedicated by the Constitution, was unlawful and unconstitutional.

    Read Also: Court of Appeal fails to hear Onnoghen’s suits

    At the Supreme Court on Thursday, 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 on Thursday.

    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 this year for the hearing of the defendants’ objection along with the substantive suit.

  • Supreme Court rejects ex-Delta lawmaker’s N490.5m debt claim

    THE Supreme Court has rejected the claim by an ex-member of the Delta State House of Assembly (DSHA), Jenkins Giane Duvie Gwede, that he is entitled to about N490,803,002.00 refund from the legislative house.

    In a unanimous judgment on February 15, this year, a five-man panel of the court, dismissed the appeal, marked: SC/595/2018, filed by Gwede against an earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal in Abuja, on a garnishee decision by the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Justice John Okoro, in the lead judgment, held that the appeal was without merit, because the Delta House of Assembly was not directly indebted to the appellant (Gwede).

    Justice Okoro noted that the House of Assembly, not being the judgment debtor, could only refund to Gwede what the actual judgment debtor, Edoja Rufus Akpodiete refunds to it (the DSHA) as ordered by the apex court in its earlier judgment.

    Other members of the court’s five-man panel – Justices Walter Onnoghen (who presided), Musa Datijo Muhammad, Kumai Bayang Akaahs and Dauda Sidi Bage – agreed with the lead judgment.

    The Supreme Court had, in an October 24, 2014 judgment, ordered Akpodiete, who was wrongly returned as winner of the election for Ughelli North Constituency II in the Delta State House of Assembly by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), to vacate the seat for Gwede.

    The apex court voided the certificate of return issued to Akpodiete and directed him to refund all his earnings while he illegally occupied the seat – from June 2011 to October 2014 – to the DSHA.

    Later, upon an application by Gwede, the Supreme Court varied its October 24, 2014 decision and ordered that “the sum of money so refunded by the 2nd respondent (Akpodiete) to the DSHA shall be paid to the appellant/applicant (Gwede).”

    Rather than seek ways of ensuring that Akpodiete made the refund, as ordered by the Supreme Court, Gwede went before the Federal High Court, Abuja to commence garnishee proceedings to compel the DSHA to pay him what Akpodiete ought to refund, which he (Gwede) unilaterally estimated at N490,803,002.

    On March 7, 2016, upon an ex-parte application by Gwede’s lawyer, Joe Agi (SAN), Justice Adeniyi Ademola, who was of the Federal High Court, Abuja, granted an order of garnishee nisi, attaching DSHA’s accounts in Guaranty Trust Bank Plc and ordered the bank and DSHA (named as garnishee and judgment debtor) to show cause why the order nisi should not be made absolute.

    When parties returned to court on June 6, 2016, Agi attempted to move the court to make absolute, the garnishee order nisi earlier made, a move DSHA’s lawyer, Prof Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN), accompanied by Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN) objected to on the grounds that the DSHA has filed various applications, before the Court of Appeal, against the trial court’s earlier order.

    Copies of the applications, hearing notices and record of appeal at the Court of Appeal and the processes filed by Agi, in opposition to the matter before the Court of Appeal, were exhibited before the trial court.

    Kehinde, who argued DSHA’s case, urged the court to restate its earlier order adjourning further proceedings in the case pending the conclusion of his client’s appeal before the Court of Appeal.

    He noted that the matter was now properly before the Court of Appeal in Abuja and that all the parties have made representations before the appellate court.

    Kehinde, who tendered a hearing notice from the appellate court, among other documents, said the Court of the Appeal has fixed March 7, 2019 for the hearing of the pending applications.

    He said one of the issues being contested by his client was that it is not the judgment debtor and that it was not a party to the suit that resulted in the judgement. He noted that the Supreme Court refused DSHA’s application to be made a party to the case when the legislative house applied.

    Kehinde said his client’s contention was that, by the judgement of the Supreme Court, it is at best a facilitator and not a guarantor of the purported judgment debt and it is also not a judgment debtor.

    The DSHA’s lawyer, who gave the number of his client’s pending appeal at the Court of Appeal as: CA/A/204A/2016, faulted Agi’s contention that no valid appeal was pending.

    Kehinde argued that Agi’s intention was to mislead the court and bring it on a collision course with the Court of Appeal that is yet to decide on the various applications pending before it.

    In a counter-argument, Agi urged the court to ignore Kehinde’s arguments and proceed with the garnishee proceedings. He argued that DSHA has no valid appeal pending before the appellate court.

    In a ruling some weeks later, Justice Ademola overruled Kehinde and proceeded to grant the garnishee order absolute, as prayed by Agi, a decision that was later set aside by the Court of Appeal, Abuja, upon an appeal by the DSHA.

    Gwede subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, an appeal the apex court dismissed in its judgment delivered on February 15, 2019.

     

  • Dickson: Nigeria heading for constitutional crisis if…

    Bayelsa State Governor Seriake Dickson on Monday warned of a looming major constitutional crisis if the elections failed to hold as rescheduled by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    Dickson, who briefed journalists in Government House, Yenagoa, said there was a need for all stakeholders to work collectively to avert the crisis.

    To avert looming succession crisis, Dickson suggested President Muhammadu Buhari should immediately convened an expanded emergency meeting of the National Council of State.

    He said the meeting should have the service chiefs, INEC, political party leaders and their candidates and other major stakeholders in attendance.

    He said the stakeholders in the meeting should resolve on the new date for the postponed elections, adding that INEC was wrong to have unilaterally chosen next Saturday for the rescheduled poll.

    He cautioned leaders against name-calling, appealing to them to work in the interest of the country to avoid plunging Nigeria into avoidable succession crisis.

    He said it was unpatriotic for anyone to be calling for the removal of the INEC chairman, adding the country would be on a crossroad if two critical institutions of INEC and the Supreme Court were undergoing crisis at the same time.

    According to the governor: “This postponement belittled our country. It doesn’t show us as a serious country. Unless all stakeholders drop the habit of name-calling and claiming to be rights, we are moving close to a major constitutional crisis.

    “If anything should go wrong, we will have a full blown crisis; crisis of succession at a time the Supreme Court is also undergoing crisis.

    “We should not call for the removal of the INEC chairman. If INEC is in crisis and the Supreme Court is crisis I don’t know where we are headed.

    “I call on President Muhammadu Buhari as the leader of the country to convene an emergency meeting of the National Council of states to enable service chiefs and the INEC brief stakeholders on their preparations.

    “The meeting should involve the political party chairmen with the presidential candidates to examine the developing scenario which may plung our country into crisis. I believe that if we all sit down and know the circumstances, we should agree on a new date.

    “I disagree with INEC unilateral announcement of Saturday as a new date. I do not believe that all the challenges that INEC has can be resolved within six days.

    “A more sensible approach is needed. Our nation cannot afford another postponement”.

    The governor recalled that few hours to the postponed elections, Bayelsa did not have ballot papers for Presidential elections and stamps to authenticate votes.

    “Even now I am told there are issues of unserialised ballot papers”, he said adding that stakeholders expected customization of electoral materials.

    Read Also: Dickson: APC leaders don’t want me to receive Buhari

    The governor further commended Buhari for calling on security agencies to deal ruthlessly with troublemakers during the election.

    He said by such presidential directive, security agencies should no longer be encumbered from doing their jobs without fear or favour.

    He also disagreed with INEC on suspension of campaigns saying that his party would continue to engage the people in accordance with the established law of the land.

  • Supreme Court rules on 44-year -old Anambra land dispute

    The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal against the June 27, 2016 decision of the Court of Appeal, Enugu granting the people of Umuagama village (Ukwulu) and Oranto/Akpu village (Ukpo) in Anambra State the right of ownership over a disputed parcel of land that had pitched them against their neighbours in  Okpuloji Abba Town.

    A five-man panel of the court, headed by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, resolved all the four issues, identified for determination, in favour of the two sets of respondents – listed as representatives of Umuagama village (Ukwulu) and Oranto/Akpu village (Ukpo).

    Court documents revealed that the people of Okpuloji Abba town, Umugama Village Ukwulu and Oranto/Akpu Village (Ukpo) have been locked in dispute over the parcel of land in the area since early 1970. They went before the High Court of Anambra in 1975. In a judgment by then Chief Judge of the court, Justice Obiora Nwazota, delivered on November 12, 1999, the court declared the title of the disputed land in favour of the people of Umuagama Village (Ukwulu) and Oranto/Akpu Village (Ukpo).

    Okpuloji Abba town appealed the decision at the Court of Appeal, Enugu. The Court, in its final decision on June 27, 2016 dismissed the substantive appeal on the grounds that the appellants failed to compile and transmit record of appeal within the stipulated period, as provided in Order 8 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011. Also dismissed was the appellants’ motion seeking to direct the Chief Judge of the High Court of Anambra State to re-assign the consolidated suit for hearing afresh.

    Okpuloji Abba town, subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, in SC: 589/2016. Justice Paul Adamu Galumje, who read the lead judgment of the Supreme Court’s decision, held that the appellants failed to sustain their allegation of denial of fair hearing and  miscarriage of justice. Galumje said it was the fault of the appellants that they failed to ensure the compilation and transmission of record of appeal within time, as required under Order 8 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011.

    In upholding the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the appellants’ motion, Justice Galumje held that the appellants were wrong to have filed their motion, for retrial, at the Court of Appeal. He said the motion ought to be filed at the trial court, since the appellants’ appeal was not yet properly before the Court of Appeal, and because they were yet to compile and transmit the record of appeal then. He however advised parties to the dispute to return to the trial court to have the case re-heard because it may be difficult to enforce  a judgment, which record is said to be missing from the trial court.

    “In the instant case there is in place what I may call “force major,” an unexpected occurrence, which has the capacity to defeat even the enforcement of the judgment obtained at the trial court in the two consolidated suits. It follows therefore that,  if nothing is done, there will be a total failure of justice. The loss of the record of the appeal is a factor that has in my view vitiated and rendered the judgment invalid. Is there a way of enforcing the judgment in the absence of the record of the case? This is what may unfold later. I think it is in the best interest of the parties to go back to the trial court and sort out this mess,” the judge said.

    The judge noted that the appellants were not diligent in their handling of the appeal at the Court of Appeal, Enugu On the argument whether the motion for retrial was properly filed, Justice Galumje said: “An appellate court can order as a last resort, for a retrial of a case if part or portion of the record transmitted to it is lost and all effort to trace it failed. Where the parties agree that the portion of the record that is missing is inconsequential, and that the hearing of the appeal cannot result in miscarriage of justice, the court can hear the appeal on incomplete record.

    “However where no record is transmitted at all, as in this case, all applications including application for the case to be heard de novo must be made to the trial court where the appeal is domiciled. An appellate court will have no materials upon which it will assume jurisdiction in the appeal. I therefore find nothing wrong with the decision of the lower court in refusing the application for an order of trial de novo and for dismissing the pending appeal before it for failure to compile and transmit the records of appeal after fourteen years of filing the appeal,” he aded.

     

  • Breaking: APC loses bid to reverse judgment on Rivers election

    …as Supreme Court strikes out three remaining appeals

     

    The Supreme Court has ended the quest by the All Progressives Congress ( APC ) in Rivers State to reverse the October 10, 2018 judgment of the High Court of Rivers State, which barred it from holding primaries for the production of candidates for the next general elections.

    A five-man panel of the court, headed by Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour struck out the three remaining appeals filed by the APC, Ojukaye Flag Amachree and Tonye Patrick Cole, on the grounds that they were statute barred, the appeals having been filed outside the time allowed under Section 285(9) and (12) of the Constitution as amended by the 4th Alteration Act.

    Justice Amina Augie, who read the lead ruling, which terminated the appeals, said the appellants, who were not parties to the original suit were not allowed by the Appeal Court in Port-Harcourt, the opportunity to appeal the October 10, 2018 judgment because they filed their appeal out of time.

    Justice Augie said the appeals, which were, this morning, consolidated by the court – SC/81/2019 (another appeal filed by APC), SC/1332/2018 (by Ojukaye Flag-Amchree) and SC/1334/2018 (by Tonye Patrick Cole and others) – are statute barred.

    The judge said the appellants have no leg to stand on, since the main appeal filed by the APC -SC/1333/2018, against the October 10 judgment, had earlier been struck out by the court in the judgment delivered on Tuesday morning by Justice Amiru Sanusi.

    Details shortly….

  • Breaking: Supreme Court dismisses APC’s appeal on Rivers election

    The Supreme Court Tuesday dismissed the appeal filed by the Rivers state chapter of the All Progressives Congress ( APC ) on the 2019 elections.

    The Apex Court on Tuesday struck out an appeal filed by the party challenging the judgment of a High Court in Rivers State which barred it from conducting any primaries in the state to nominate candidates for 2019 elections.

    Read Also: Supreme Court rejects PDP’s appeal on Ogun crisis

    The Supreme Court judgement comes barely one week after the same court stopped the APC from fielding candidates in all elections in the state.

    The ruling APC was in support Mr Tonye Cole’s candidature for the governorship election which the Magnus Abe group rejected.

     

    Details Shortly….

  • Tonye Cole: God has put our aggressors to shame

    The governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Rivers State Tonye Cole has declared all his aggressors, within and outside the party, who celebrated last weekend over a trivial decision at the Supreme Court, have been put to shame by God.

    Cole, a pastor of the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), stated this on Monday through spokesman of his campaign organisation, Ogbonna Nwuke, a former member of the House of Representatives.

    The co-founder of Sahara Group said: “We have received a formal brief from our lawyers who were at the Supreme Court this on Monday morning to press the arguments of the APC and its candidates in some cases that are currently pending before the superior court.

    “We have learnt that no less than three different matters were entertained today by the apex court.

    “The first was an application by Senator Magnus Abe’s lawyer against the stay of execution granted Pastor Tonye Cole and candidates of the APC by the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt.

    “The second matter was based on jurisdiction, while the third matter witnessed the commencement of initial legal arguments in a substantive matter.

    Read Also; Tonye Cole: we’ll overcome temporary setback

    “We are happy with the pace that is being adopted by the Supreme Court. We are particularly pleased that the attempt to frustrate the stay of execution granted by the Court of Appeal at the Supreme Court was on Monday refused.

    “Senator Magnus Abe and his associates have been ordered by the Supreme Court to descend to the court below for the eventual determination of the substantive suit.”

    He welcomed the verdict of the apex court while maintaining his faith in the judiciary remained unassailable, praying that persons with penchant for twisting reports from the judiciary would refrain from engaging in such acts.

    He said: “From what transpired today, hearing in some cases which were argued, would continue tomorrow at the Supreme Court.

    “Against this background, we urge Rivers people and our teeming party supporters to kindly remain focused and law abiding.

    “We have confidence in our lawyers and enormous faith in our God. They (the unnamed aggressors) had lied to an unsuspecting public that ongoing litigation at the Supreme Court had been settled.

    “We are wondering what they are still trying to do in court, if there are no issues before the Supreme Court.

    “For us, it is not over, until it is over. We shall continue to push for equity, fairness and justice. It does not matter whatever our opponents do, we know that justice will eventually prevail.”

    Cole, his running mate, Chief Victor Giadom and other candidates of APC in Rivers state are urging the apex court to allow their names to be relisted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to enable them to vie in the February 16 and March 2 elections.

  • Supreme Court rejects PDP’s appeal on Ogun crisis

    ….Strikes out appeals against Dayo’s EXCO

     

    The Supreme Court on Monday declined jurisdiction over two appeals by the national leadership of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) against the Senator Buruji Kashamu backed leadership of the party in Ogun State.

    The appeals marked: SC/968/2018 (PDP v. Eng Adebayo Dayo & 4 others) and SC/1203/2018 (PDP v. Pegba Otemolu and 3 others, were struck out by a five-man panel of the court led by Musa Datijo Muhammad.

    The court said the appeals, being pre-election related were incompetent because they were not filed within the 14 days allowed under Section 285(9) of the Constitution, others referred to as the 4th Alteration Act.

    Justice Muhammad said the court no longer possessed the necessary jurisdiction to hear the appeal because it has become statute barred, lifeless and worthless, having been caught by the 4th Alteration to the 1999 Constitution.

    PDP in the appeal had challenged the judgment of Justice Buba Ibrahim of the Federal High Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal which conferred recognition on the Dayo Adebayo led Executive Committee of the party in Ogun State as the authentic leadership.

    Read Also; Supreme Court decides Rivers APC’s fate Tuesday

    At the resumed hearing in the first appeal, the court asked the appellant’s lawyer Emeka Etiaba (SAN) whether the case was a pre-election matter to which he answered in the negative.

    He said the appeal was about the leadership of the PDP in Ogun State and was not election related.

    Lawyer to the respondents, Alex Izinyon (SAN) insisted that it was a pre-election matter because it relates to the candidate nomination for the next general election.

    Izinyon drew the court’s attention to ground 8 of the application filed on December 14, 2018 by the appellant for accelerated hearing of the appeal, where the appellant said the subject of the matter is to determine who are the rightful candidates of the appellant in Ogun State.

    He also referred to paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the affidavit supporting the application where the appellant also said that the matter is about the determination of which of the two set of candidates that emanated from the two executive of the party should Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) should accept.

    He also had informed the court that the appeal has become a mere academic exercise because it has been caught by the 4th Alteration Act which requires the filing of a pre-election suit within 14 days.

    The court agreed with Izinyon and held that the case was a pre-election matter, on which the court no longer has jurisdiction in view of the effect of the 4th Alteration Act.

    Although Etiaba made spirited effort to sway the court to his side with argument that the suit was not a pre-election matter, the Supreme Court refused to accept his argument.

    He eventually agreed with the court position and withdrew the appeal.

    Justice Muhammad, in his ruling agreed with Izinyon that the appeal has become statute barred and lifeless, He consequently struck it out.

    ‎The same fate befell the second appeal when it was called later.

  • Supreme Court decides Rivers APC’s fate Tuesday

    *To deliver judgement on Appeal Court’s decision voiding APC’s primaries
    *Strikes out Sen Abe’s appeal for stay of execution of Appeal Court’s judgment
    *Orders parties to return to Appeal Court

    Supreme Court will deliver judgements in the about six appeals by the two warring factions of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Rivers State.

    The appeals are mainly against the decision of the Court of Appeal in Port-Harcourt, which upheld the judgment of the High Court of Rivers State which voided the primaries conducted by the faction loyal to Rotimi Amechi and the other loyal to Senator Magnus Abe.

    A five-man panel of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour scheduled judgment for Tuesday after entertaining arguments, on Monday, from lawyer to the faction loyal to Amaechi, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) and Henry Bello, who represented the faction loyal to Abe.

    Fagbemi and Bello argued the appeal filed by the APC, in which the court said it will give judgment on Tuesday, and which will be binding on the other appeals.

    Fagbemi urged the court to void the judgement of the High Court on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction when it entertains the suit on which the judgment was given.

    He contended that since the trial court had no jurisdiction it’s judgement in the matter amount to a nullity and should be set aside.

    Fagbemi urged the court to invoke Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act and give final judgement to end the multiple cases arising from the rivers state APC primary election.

    Read Also: Supreme Court did not bar Rivers APC, says Senator Uchendu

    Bello, in his counter-argument, urged the apex court to dismiss the appeal of the APC on the ground that it has become a mere academic in nature in view of an earlier decision by the court.

    He contended that by the decision of the court on February 8, 2019 which upheld the order of the High Court, restraining APC in Rivers State from conducting any primary election, the current appeal by APC had died and should be buried.

    Bello told the court that the respondents, led by Ibrahim Umar, who were aggrieved by the violation of the Electoral Act and the Constitution in the manner the APC conducted its pre-election matters in Rivers, had secured a consent judgement in their favour, a judgment, he insisted, still stands.

    He urged the court that to hold instant appeal has become academic exercise.

    At the conclusion of arguments by parties, Justice Rhodes-Vivour frowned at the multiple appeals filed by both factions of the APC in Rivers on a single issue.

    He said the multiple appeals were not only time wasting they were capable of confusing the court.

    Meanwhile, the Supreme, on Monday, struck out an appeal filed by Senator Magnus Abe against the stay of execution of the judgment of the federal high court, which nullified the nomination of Tonye Cole and others as candidates the APC in Rivers State in the general election.

    The court upheld the argument by lawyer to the APC, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN).

    Fagbemi had argued that the records of proceedings at the lower court, filed by Senator Abe did not follow the rules of the Appeal Court to certify the said documents.

    Ruling Justice Rhodes-Vivour noted that only a few of pages of the records of appeal were signed.
    He said since most of the pages were not signed, it could be interpreted that they were Senator Abe’s personal documents.

    Justice Rhodes-Vivour ordered parties to the appeal back to the Court of Appeal for the determination of the substantive appeal.

    Abe had appealed an interlocutory decision of the Court of Appeal, which stayed the execution of the judgment of the High Court which nullified the primaries of the APC in Rivers State

  • Acting CJN to chair maiden workshop for Supreme Court Justices, others

    The Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, will on Monday and Tuesday, chair the maiden workshop for Justices of the Supreme Court and judges of other courts, on issues relating to “secured transactions in movable assets.”

    The workshop, being the first of its kind, is being jointly organised by the National Judicial Council (NJI), the National  Collateral Registry (NCR) and the Juris Law Office (JLO)

    The head of JLO, Professor Niyi Ayoola-Daniels, explained that the workshop is intended to bring the jurists up to date on the salient provisions of the Secured Transactions in Movable Assets Act, 2017 (The Act) and Part III of the Central Bank of Nigeria Regulation on Registration of Security Interests in Movable Property by Banks and Other Financial Institution Regulation No. 1 of 2015 (The Regulation).

    Ayoola -Daniels said the workshop is part of efforts by the government to ensure that the nation’s Judiciary is abreast of the provisions of the law to allow for its effective application.

    He said  the Act alone and the Regulation will not guarantee “best practices” and “Rule of Law” in secured transactions in movable assets in Nigeria without effective application by a well knowledgeable and sound judiciary on the subject matter.

    He said, the workshop with the theme: “Leveraging on movable asset for credit delivery In Nigeria: Legal and regulatory framework,” is slated for Abuja between February 11 and 12.

    Ayoola-Daniels said the workshop aims “to acquaint Justices and judges with appropriate legal and regulatory framework of the secured transactions in Movable Assets Act and its contribution to the national economy.

    He said the Acting CJN will also deliver the keynote address, while the Governor, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, is scheduled to give the opening remarks.

    Ayoola-Daniels added: “”Also expected to participate at the workshop are Supreme Court Justices, Court of Appeal Justices, Chief Judge and Judges of the Federal High Court as well as Judges of the High Courts from many states across the country.

    “The Honourable Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, key government officials, captains of industry, and officials of the World Bank/ International Finance Corporation (IFC).

    “The Central Bank of Nigeria, in collaboration with the International Finance Corporation (IFC), established the National Collateral Registry (NCR) in 2016 in line with the Bank’s mandate on sustainable economic inclusive growth and financial inclusion. The NCR is a financial infrastructure that seeks to deepen credit delivery to Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) through enhanced acceptability of movable assets such as equipment, machinery, vehicles, crops, livestock, account receivables, inventories, and jewellery,” he said.