The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Supreme Court refuses to hear 14 pre-election cases

    The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to hear about 14 pre-election appeals on the grounds that they were caught by the amendment to Section 285 of the Constitution which came into effect on June 7, 2018.

    The amendment to Section 285 of the Constitution required the trial court to determine pre-election cases within 180 days and gives the Court of Appeal and  Supreme Court 60 days each to determine such cases. It also provides that such appeals are filed with 14 days of the delivery of the judgment to be appealed.

    In the about 14 different rulings on Wednesday, two panels of the Supreme Court, headed by Justices Ibrahim Tanko Mohammed and Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, asked all the appellant lawyers, including Alex Iziyon (SAN) to withdraw their appeals.

    The court proceeded to strike out each of the appeals and refrained from making any consequential order. It said, since the appeals were caught by the alteration, the court no longer has jurisdiction to act on them or look into them, except striking them out of its list of case.

    The court said the effect of the 4th Alteration Act Number 21 was that all pre-election appeals that were not determined within the stipulated 60 days have become spent (no longer valid).

    The two panels, that sat on Wednesday,  were assigned to conduct “special court sitting”  to clear the courts list of all pending pre-election appeals relating to the 2015 elections, that were still pending before the court.

    Justice Tanko Mohammed, who headed the first panel, explained that the Supreme Court had, in its judgments on January 18 this year, in two pre-election appeals, dealt with all issues and questions relating the effect of the 4th Alteration Act and when it became effective.

    He said the judgments, which were in appeals: SC/307/2018 and SC/308/2018 formed the position of the court in all pre-election appeals and the question as regard when the amendment took effect.

    Read Also: Supreme court declares MCSN legal

    Justice Tanko Mohammed said “As it was the position of the court  in the two judgments delivered last Friday, the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear any pre-election appeal that has stayed unheard at the expiration of the constitutional stipulated 60 days.”

    On whether the 4th Alteration Act, which was assented to by the President on June 7, 2018 could have retrospective effect, Justice Tanko Mohammed said the new law, being a procedural law, assumes immediate effect, a position Justice Rhodes-Vivour also echoed when he presided over the second panel.

    On what happens to the decisions of the lawyer courts, which formed the subject of the appeals, Justice Rhodes-Vivour said said the court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the appeals.

    He added: “We do not have the power to pronounce on what happen at the lower courts since we lacked the jurisdiction to hear your appeal.”

    Almost all lawyers to the appellants in the appeals expressed discomfort about the court’s position. They all also said they have not read the court’s judgments in SC/307/2018 and SC/308/2028, which the Supreme Court said contains its position and the current position of the law on the issue.

    Lazarus Undi, who appeared for the appellant, Hon. Benjamin B. Nungwa in the appeal marked: SC/112/2018 was particularly unhappy about the court’s position.

    He said his case was different because his client had anticipated the effect of the new amendment, filed the appeal with 14 days and wrote to the court’s registry that the appeals falls among cases that must be decided within 60 days.

    He said the delay in determining the appeal with the 60 days was on the part of the court and not the appellant, who acted within the stipulated days and took further step to write the court on the need to hear the appeal within 60 days.

    Izinyon (SAN) who represented the appellant in one of the appeals that was struck out, commended the court for “taking the bull by the horn in dealing with that issue (as it relates to the effect of the 4th Alteration Act on pre-election cases filed before it was assented to) at once”

    He noted that the court’s position may affect some litigants and lawyers negatively, but expressed optimism that it would benefit all in the long run.

    Some of the affected appeals included the one by Senator Atai Ali Aidoko against Air Marshal Isaac Alfa, marked: SC/1058/18, in relation to the dispute over who was the actual candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2015 election in Kogi East Senatorial District.

    The court also struck out a similar appeal filed in the name of the PDP against the Court of Appeal judgment, which upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court, upholding Alfa as the actual candidate of the party.

    Also affected was the appeal by Senator Umaru Dahiru and another against All Progressives Congress (APC) and others, marked: SC/92/2018 in which the appellant is challenging the candidacy of Governor Waziri Tambuwal of Sokoto State in the 2015 election.

    The court also struck out the appeal marked: SC/429/2018 filed by Wahab Abiodun and four others against Senator Monsurat Jumoke Aduke Sunmonu and another.

    Other appeals struck our are: SC/693/2017 filed by Sir Friday Nwanozia Nwosu against PDP and three others; SC/910/2017 by Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission and another against Hon. Augustine N. NGO and others and SC/112/2018 by Hon. Benjamin B. Nungwa and APC against Hon. Joseph Hemen Boko and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    Also struck out are: SC/536/2018 by Barrister Ikenna Cyprian Uzokwelu against PDP, and  SC/1291/2018 by Anthony Itayi and another against Alhaji Abubakar Atiku Bagudu and two others.

  • Sunny Ade’s suit for Supreme Court

    African Songs Limited (ASL) and its sister company, Take Your Choice Records Stores Limited (TYC), have vowed to challenge a Court of Appeal judgment which dismissed their appeal in a copyright infringement case filed against them by music legend King Sunny Ade (KSA).

    Their lawyer, Ademola Olowoyeye, said the appeal would be filed as soon as the Supreme Court resumes from vacation.

    ASL, founded by the late Chief Bolarinwa Abioro, and TYC are alleging that Sunny Ade and his band allegedly breached a deal reached about 49 years ago.

    The Court of Appeal in Lagos, last November 9, in a lead judgment by Justice Biobele Georgewill, dismissed the companies’ appeal for lacking merit.

    It affirmed the Federal High Court judgment by Justice John Tsoho in which some of KSA’s claims were granted.

    But, ASL and TYC said they were confident of getting justice at the Supreme Court because the ‘’Court of Appeal erred.’’

    They told the Court of Appeal that the copyright agreement  entered into on October 6, 1970 between ASL and KSA and his band was still valid and subsisting.

    KSA had sought damages against ASL over a breach of contract and for the continuous infringement of the copyright in his musical works.

    He sought N1billion as general damages against ASL and TYC, and an order compelling them to deliver to him all the copies of the photographs or likeness of KSA in their possession.

    In a November 12, 2015 judgment, Justice Tsoho granted some of the reliefs, and awarded damages against ASL and TYC, which is being managed by the late Abioro’s son, Mr. Abubakar.

    Dissatisfied, the defendants appealed, and sought a declaration that the copyright in all the musical works composed by KSA pursuant to the October 6, 1970 agreement between ASL and the musician and his band, still subsists.

    The appellants sought a declaration that KSA’s suit at the lower court was an abuse of judicial process undertaken to their prejudice and financial loss.

    They further asked the Court of Appeal to award them N500million damages arising from the respondent’s resort to and obtaining an order of injunction which he knew or ought to know constitutes an abuse of court process.

    But, KSA and his band said they entered into an agreement with the appellants sometime in 1970 to produce, reproduce and sell his musical works contained in some master tapes for a period of five years only, beginning from October 5, 1970.

    The musician said on the expiration of the agreement, the appellants deliberately refused to return the master tapes containing the works to him.

    He said they continued with the manufacturing, reproduction and distribution of the musical works in violation of the agreement.

    The Court of Appeal held that the appellants’claim for N500 million damages was unfounded since KSA’s suit at the lower court was pursuant to the exercise of his right to protect his copyright.

    On why they are heading for the Supreme Court, ASL and TYC lawyers said the companies’copyright interest pursuant to the agreement extended far beyond five years.

    According to them, the Court of Appeal did not consider key provisions of the agreement which states that “the artist shall not record, perform or repeat any record which hitherto has been previously recorded for the company until 20 after the previous recording for the company of such records, performance or repeat records.”

    The appellants further argued that the agreement provides that the ASL “is still entitled to the sole right of production, sale (under such trademarks as it may select) use and performance (including broadcasting) throughout the world by any means whatsoever of records manufactured in pursuance of its agreement with artist.”

    According to the appellants, it was also stated that “the artist agree that they will assign to the company the full copyright in music, lyrics of any works that artist records for the company where such works are the original compositions of the artist.”

  • Supreme Court decides property suit Feb. 1

    The Supreme Court will on February 1 deliver judgment in the case between former Nigeria’s Ambassador to South Africa Alhaji Shehu Malami and a businessman, Sir. Emeka Offor.

    They are asking the Supreme Court to give them an Asokoro, Abuja property belonging to a retired Nigerian-American, Mr. Imokhuede Ohikhuare, as held by the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division.

    A panel of six justices led by  Justice Mary Odili fixed judgment last November 13.

    It took about 15 minutes for the justices to fix the date as they considered motions filed by the lead counsel to Malami and Offor, Mr. Joe Agi (SAN), which he later withdrew.

    Ohikhuare’s lead counsel Mr. Paul Erekoro (SAN) also withdrew his counter-motions.

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja last May 28 held that  Ohikhuare is the rightful owner of a  land at Plot 1809, Asokoro, Abuja.

    Malami earlier laid claims to the property, which ownership he was  said to have transfered to Offor via an irrevocable power of attorney.

    But, the Appeal Court resolved four of the five issues raised for determination in favour.

    It set aside the judgment of the Federal Capital Territory High Court,  delivered by Justice M.S. Umar on  May 17, 2012.

    Ohikhuare bought Plot 1809, Asokoro, for N50 million in 2016.

    He built residential apartments  worth about N1billion on the land.

    “Between the time Mr. Ohikhuare bought the land, built and moved in with his family, lived there for four years, the respondents in the appeal, their privies or agent did not lay claims to Plot 1809 Asokoro,” his lawyers said.

    Ohikhuare was living with his family in the property until he was allegedly forced out on the strength of a verdict of an Abuja High Court.

  • Justice Abba –Aji’s well deserved elevation to Supreme Court

    When Aloma Mariam Mukhtar was sworn in as the first female justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in 2005 history was made. A woman finally mounted the apex bench for the first time since the Court came into being as Supreme Court of Nigeria on October 1st 1963.  That was some 55 years after it was set up and even longer if you add the colonial times when it was Federal Supreme Court.

    A similar event occurred on Tuesday, March 23, 1993 when Judith S. Kaye was sworn in, as Chief Judge of New York State. Governor Cuomo declared it was the beginning of ‘a new era.’ One of the most notable aspects of this new era is the fact that Chief Judge Kaye is New York’s first woman Chief Judge. Aloma Mariam Mukhtar later became Nigeria’s first female Chief Justice of Nigeria and indeed her presence at the apex court marked the beginning of a new era for Nigeria’s female judges who previously could only dream of making it to the Supreme Court.

    Then came Justice Olufunlola Adekeye, then Justices Mary Peter Odili, Clara Bata Ogunbiyi,  Kudirat Keke –Ekun and Amina Adamu Augie. Gradually the previously severe looking faces on the bench became mixed with soft faces, more pleasant to behold.

    After 14 years at the Court of Appeal, the Senate last Thursday confirmed the appointment of Hon. Justice Uwani Musa Abba-Aji as a justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. The Yobe State born jurist will be the seventh woman appointed to the apex court and second from the North East after the retired Clara Bata Ogunbiyi (Borno State).

    It has indeed been a long journey fraught with battles and controversies but as the good book says, to everything under the sun, there is a time and season.

    She was elevated to the Appeal Court on September 22, 2004 along with Justices Mary Peter Odili and Kudirat Keke –Ekun. Although women have not yet reached parity with men in terms of their numbers within the federal judiciary, significant progress has been made and the list keeps growing.

    Abba Aji’s confirmation came after the Senate considered the report of the committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and legal matters on her nomination. Chairman of the committee, David Umaru, said the nominee has been screened and satisfied all requirements.

    But her confirmation was not without pitfalls. Immediately her nomination was announced a certain Civic Society Network Against Corruption (CSNAC), through its Chairman, Mr. Lanre Suraji, urged President Muhammadu Buhari not to forward her name to the Senate for confirmation as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, on the basis that she was under corruption investigation by security agencies for allegedly accepting a bribe from a senior lawyer who is currently facing trial in court, some questions arose.

    Suraju, who is a member of the NJC’s Corruption and Financial Crime Cases Monitoring Committee set up last year by the CJN, was said to have threatened to challenge Abba-Aji’s appointment in court should President Buhari assent to  her elevation to the Supreme Court.

    Nonetheless, the National Judicial Council (NJC) has since reacted to the call asserting that there are no allegations of corruption against her. The NJC in a statement by its Director of Information, Mr. Soji Oye, explained that contrary to CSNAC’s claim, Justice Abba-Aji has no pending corruption case to disqualify her from being appointed to the apex court’s bench. The Council had at its 87th meeting chaired by the CJN on October 3 and 4, recommendedJustice Abba-Aji, currently the Presiding Justice, Kaduna division of the Court of Appeal, to the President for appointment as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

    Her lordship was one of the eight judicial officers, who were directed by the NJC to excuse themselves from duties, effective from November 2, 2016 on the request of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) pending the outcome of their investigation by the DSS, on corruption allegation. She and others were however directed to resume duties on June 7, 2017 on the grounds that no charges were brought against them by the AGF at the conclusion of their investigation.

    Strangely, as soon as she was announced for elevation, CSNAC showed up. Yet, the story of United States’ Justice Brett Kavanaugh is still very fresh. After investigations on allegations of sexual misconduct levelled at him, a letter to the Senate Republicans from the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman revealed that none of the witnesses provided evidence to back their claims. Subsequently, he was cleared and elevated to the Supreme Court of the United States. Some months ago, one of his accusers not only admitted that she lied to the congress but revealed that she had never met Kavanaugh.

    On the Nigerian scene, if the AGF and his team that initially alleged graft failed to bring charges against her at the end of their investigations, why the insistence by CSNAC that she is under corruption investigation by security agencies?

    When the NJC in view of no pending corruption case against her and other justices called them back to work CSNAC raised no posers. All that while, she adjudicated over matters and wrote judgments. If she is considered unfit to sit on the apex court bench on account of alleged corrupt practices, does it then mean that justices with corruption tendencies are suitable for the Court of Appeal? Would it not amount to grave injustice for CSNAC to be silent over the recall to the Court of Appeal, of a judge that is likely to pervert the course of justice? Would it not be a great travesty of justice to suffer litigants the agony of going on appeal when it is known that they will not get justice? CSNAC needs to answer these questions and more because in their opinion she is unfit for elevation but kept mum when she was recalled.

    But for routine appeals to the Supreme Court by lawyers and litigants who are dissatisfied with some decisions of the appeal court including that of her lordship, there has never been any known petition against her.

    In a recent address to women judges, Hon. Justice Amina Augie of the Supreme Court of Nigeria had this to say:  “In writing our judgments, we must seek to interpret the law justly, fairly and expeditiously, to ensure that justice is not delayed. We must strive to ensure that we are not only applying the law as it is, but adopting philosophical and normative approaches to interpreting the law.

    “The end result should be a ruling or judgment that delivers justice while simultaneously building on existing jurisprudence… We are judges first, then women; so we must always present ourselves as qualified and competent candidates; not as alternative choice or affirmative choice.

    “As judges who are women, our roles are no different from our fellow male judges; our role as judges is to play a part in the creation of jurisprudence. That is, women that recognise the importance of human rights, regardless of the field of law in question, particularly so for judges in common law jurisdictions.

    “We must ensure that in interpreting and applying the law, we are playing a representative role as agents of change; that the law does not only have a human face but also has a woman face.”

    So far, the above charge has not been controverted as it concerns Hon. Justice Uwani Abba-Aji.

    The law is clear about the party on whom the burden of proof lies. The onus, the obligation has always been on the party who makes an allegation to prove the claims made against the other party. As at today, our laws provide that a party is presumed innocent while the other side bears the burden of proof. The law is trite that he who asserts a fact must prove it, and where enough and relevant evidence are not adduced, then it is he who has failed to produce the evidence that will fail in his case.

     

    • Okenwa is an Abuja based legal practitioner and Editor-in – Chief, Law & Society Magazine

  • IPMAN hails Supreme Court’s judgment

    Members of the Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria (IPMAN) have praised the Supreme Court’s judgment in Abuja, which declared Chief Chinedu Okoronkwo as the national president of the association.

    The marketers’ commendation was contained in a statement by their National Secretary, Alhaji Danladi Pasali, after a National Executive Meeting (NEC) on the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that validated Okoronkwo as the substantive IPMAN National president.

    Pasali said the new development would address the issues of misconduct and mismanagement, currently rocking the association.

    Okoronkwo won at the High Court, Appeal Court and Supreme Court judgment against Mr. Lawson Obasi, over the leadership tussle, which lingered for over four years.

    In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court struck out Chief Lawson Obasi’s appeal. It  also fined Obasi N2 million to be paid to Okoronkwo, adding that  Okoronkwo remained IPMAN’s substantive national president based on the Supreme Court judgment, delivered on December 14, 2018.

    According to him, the interest of all members of the association will be a top priority of the president, adding that the judgment was a welcome development to IPMAN members, and the oil and gas industry nationwide.

    “The judgment will enable us maintain the serenity we normally enjoyed in the distribution and dispensing of petroleum products to Nigerians across the country. Now that Okoronkwo is legally and fully on the IPMAN’s driver seat, members will get their allocation accordingly.

    “The NEC has reached an agreement with oil marketers for better synergy in meeting product availability in the country. IPMAN controls 80 per cent of the outlets nationwide and has control in distribution and dispensing of fuel in both urban and hinterland,” Passali added.

    Similarly, Okoronkwo also said the Supreme Court ruling is a reaffirmation of the role of the Judiciary in settling dispute without going to war or shedding blood carelessly. He saluted the Judiciary on the judgment, which is the first of its kind in pursuing IPMAN’s dispute up to the Supreme Court in Nigeria.

    Okoronkwo said: “It is not news that IPMAN has been embroiled in leadership tussle since January 2014, which has ended with the Supreme Court judgment. Let me make it abundantly clear that the Supreme Court ruling has brought to an end all IPMAN’s legal matters. IPMAN, as a family, has become stronger with a direction and solid foundation. The founding board of trustees members of IPMAN as registered with Corporate Affairs Commission in 1983 Constitution, has all passed away and one day,  we at the leadership of IPMAN today, will also bequeath IPMAN to our children yet unborn.

    “That is the more reason we should drop our personal interests for a better and virile IPMAN that will challenge the future threats to our businesses,” he said.

    He added:“We have lost trillions of naira while many of our members have lost their lives in the last five years because of lack of leadership in IPMAN to coordinate our businesses within the government circle and other stakeholders in the downstream sector. IPMAN was not represented when major policy decisions were being taken to move our businesses forward, but that has changed henceforth. The setback we have experienced in our businesses as IPMAN members in the last five years has become history today as IPMAN will henceforth be represented in all statutory boards of Federal Government’s agencies to protect members interest.

    “I promise to run a government where all IPMAN members nation wide will look at their shoulders and be proud of being members of our great association.”

    He commended President Muhammadu Buhari, Minister of Petroleum Resources and Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) Group Managing Director (GMD), Dr Maikanti Baru, and his management team for their understanding, tolerance during the Association’s trying period.

    Members of IPMAN NEC recognised by the Supreme  Court judgment include Elder Chinedu Okoronkwo, National President; Alhaji Abubakar Maigani Shettima, Vice President; Aihaji Danladi Pasali, National Secretary; Bola Adeleke, National Treasurer; and Chief Leo Nkameme, National Organising Secretary.

  • Supreme Court faults relocation of Ekiti council’s headquarters

    *Orders return of Ilejemeje headquarters to Eda-Oniyo

    The Supreme Court has reversed the 1996 relocation of the headquarters of Ilejemeje Local Government Area of Ekiti State from Eda-Oniyo to Iye-Ekiti.

    A five-man panel of the court, in a unanimous judgment on Friday, said the relocation, announced via a radio broadcast by then military Governor of the state, was unlawful.

    The court agreed with the appellant – Oba Julius Awolola – that, by virtue of the State Creation (Transitional Provisions) Decree No. 72 Vol. 83 of 1996, and the Local Government (Basic Constitutional Provisions) Decree of 1997 and 1998, the headquarters of Ilejemeje Local Government area was Eda-Oniyo.

    Justice Paul Galinje, in the lead judgment, held that the location of Local Government’s headquarters in Eda-Oniyo was backed by statute and could not be relocated elsewhere without the state enacting a new law after repealing the earlier one.

    He said: “The location of the headquarters of Ilejemeje Local Government in Eda-Oniyo is a product of statute and no law has been promulgated to relocate it to any other place.”

    Justice Galinje set aside the March 6, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin division, which okayed the relocation.

    Instead, Justice Galinje restored the earlier judgment of the Ekiti State High Court, which in 2001 held that Eda-Oniyo was the lawful location of the Ilejemeje Local Government Area’s headquarters, but failed to order a reversal of the relocation.

    Justice Galinje invoked the court’s power to, after reversing the relocation, order the state government to take immediate steps to return the Ilejemeje LG headquarters to Eda-Oniyo from where it was relocated to Iye-Ekiti shortly after the state was created on October 1, 1996.

    The case started in the High Court of Ekiti State with the suit filed in 1999 by the traditional head of Eda-Oniyo (the Eleda of Eda-Oniyo), Oba Julius Awolola.

    Awolola had, by his suit, challenged the Ilejemeje LG’s headquarters from his community, as reflected in the state’s law law, to another community, without any legal justification.

    Oba Awolola had instituted the appeal in 2008 to challenge the judgment of the Court of Appeal which had ruled in favour of the respondents.

     

  • Supreme Court okays emergence of Delta traditional ruler

    …Strikes out appeal against Uwaukoni as Iyasei of Ogwashi-Uku Kingdom

     

    The Supreme Court has affirmed the emergence of Chief Mike Nwaukoni as the Iyasei (traditional Prime Minister) of Ogwashi-Uku Kingdom in Delta State.

    A five-man panel of the court, in a unanimous judgment on Friday, struck out the appeal filed by three members of two royal families in the kingdom for lacking in merit.

    Read Also:Abe to court: declare me APC candidate

    Justice Dauda Sidi Bage, who read the lead judgment, faulted the competence of the appeal filed against the July 12, 2010 judgment of the Benin division of the Court of Appeal, which upheld Nwaukoni’s installation as the 13th Iyasei of Ogwashi-Uku Kingdom in Delta State.

    Justice Bage said: “The amended statement of claim was found to be defective. The entire appeal therefore collapses. This appeal is hereby struck out.  Parties are to bear their respective costs.”

    Other members of the panel were Justices Dattijo Mohammed, Kumai Akaahs, Paul Galinje and Amina Augie.

    The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday brought to a close the about 13-year dispute over who should occupy the traditional stool.

    Augustine Arueze,  Okonkwo Iyase and Chief Colins Afuwah – had, on behalf of the Umu-Uti family of Agidiase Quarters of Ogwashi-Uku, instituted the appeal, marked SC/55/2011, before the apex court.

    They had prayed the Supreme Court to, among others, set-aside the July 12, 2010 judgement by the Court of Appeal, Benin, which upheld Nwaukoni’s installation as the 13th Iyasei of the Kingdom.

    The appellants had argued that the Court of Appeal erred in allowing Nwaukoni’s selection and installation as the Iyasei.

    They had equally contended that Nwaukoni is not a member of the two royal families, from where all the past Iyasei were selected.

    The appellants argued that it’s was only Ugbekide (from the Chami lineage) and Umu Uti (from the Jogwa lineage of Agidiase, Ogwashi Uku of Aniocha South LGA Delta State, could produce an Iyasei.

    The Benin division of the Court of Appeal had, in its judgment, reversed the March 20, 2008 judgment of the High Court in Ogwashi-Uku.

    The High Court had, in its judgment, faulted Nwaukoni’s selection by the Ogwashi-Uku Council of Elders, known as the Obi.

    The High Court had granted reliefs in a suit the appellants filed in 2005 to stop Nwaukoni’s installation as the Iyasei.

  • Supreme Court’s rebuke unsettles Court of Appeal

    Last week’s Supreme Court judgment on the All Progressives Congress (APC) congresses in Rivers State has unsettled the Court of Appeal, it was learnt at the weekend.

    The apex court’s strong words used in the judgment, sources said, made the Justices uncomfortable.

    The chastisement of the appellate court has also come under critical review by notable lawyers.

    In the judgment, the Supreme Court chided the Court of Appeal for engaging in “judicial rascality” in setting aside the order of a Port Harcourt High Court barring the state APC executives from conducting congresses.

    The apex court also described the conduct of the Court of Appeal as “sacrilegious”.

    As judicial officers, Court of Appeal justices have accepted the judgment but some seem to believe that their Lordships at the apex court were a bit harsh on the justices of the lower court, a source said.

    A notable lawyer, who craved anonymity, said the “language of the learned justices of the Supreme Court was somehow harsh”.

    He believes that the language adds nothing to the point made by the apex court, which is that the court of appeal violated the principle of judicial precedents in granting an order of stay of execution against the ruling of the Port Harcourt high court.

    A professor of law said: “Setting aside a judgment of a lower court is enough indictment. They have been told that their interpretation of the law was wrong.  Any other thing that does not add value to the law is absolutely unnecessary.”

    He said the Supreme Court had restated what is a fundamental principle in law;  that is a favourable ruling should not be accorded a party that is in grave disobedience of court orders.

    In the opinion of another lawyer, what should interest both the bar and the bench “is that the Supreme Court is telling our lordships to do their work more thoroughly”.

    He said politicians should never be encouraged to ridicule the courts by engaging in what the Supreme Court described in the judgment in question as “the most impudent manner”.

    The Rivers State High Court, before Justice Chinwendu Nwogu, on May 11 issued injunctive reliefs that restrained the APC from conducting congresses in the state. The reliefs were sequel to a suit filed by one Abdullahi Umar and 22 others. The order was reaffirmed on May 13.

    The APC approached the Court of Appeal for a stay of proceeding and execution of the high court order. The Appeal Court stayed the execution of the high court order.

    Umar and the respondents appealed the order of the Appeal Court. Granting their prayers, the Supreme Court held that “it is a very serious matter for anyone to flout a positive order of a court and still approach the court for remedy”. The Supreme Court further held that it was wrongful for the Court of Appeal to have entertained a party in contempt of a valid court order.

    “The simple truth, therefore, is that when the respondent applied for stay of execution, it was in gross abuse of a court order. The court guards its power jealously. Regrettably, the lower court condoned the respondent’s conduct,” Justice Centus Nweze ruled on behalf of other justices of the Supreme Court.

  • ‘Supreme Court didn’t set aside Rivers APC’s congresses, primaries’

    The Publicity Secretary of Rivers State All Progressives Congress (APC), Chris Finebone, said the Supreme Court did not set aside the party’s ward, local government and state congresses and  the primaries.

    He said the appeal filed at the apex court by Ibrahim Umar and 22 other supporters of Senator Magnus Abe (Rivers Southeast) – the ruling was given yesterday – three issues were canvassed, one of which was that the Appeal Court did not act correctly by granting a stay of execution on the interlocutory orders of the Rivers High Court, with the apex court agreeing with them.

    Finebone, yesterday in Port Harcourt, explained that the Supreme Court did not make pronouncements on the other issues, since the Rivers High Court, presided over by Justice Chinwendu Nwogu, had already given final judgment on them, an action he insisted made the present development a mere academic exercise.

    He stressed that the Supreme Court only granted the appeal in parts and did not make any consequential order, which he said could only be a subject matter at the Appeal Court, when the appeal hearing of the Rivers high court judgment would begin.

    Finebone said: “The Supreme Court today (yesterday) allowed the appellant’s appeal, which was against the stay of order of injunction of May 11, 2018. The apex court said the said order should not have been stayed. The Supreme Court made no orders, except to set aside the Court of Appeal’a order, which clears the way for hearing of the main appeal at Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt, against the judgment of the Rivers High Court. Their prayer that Supreme Court should hear the pending appeal at Court of Appeal was rejected. The appeal is to be heard and determined by the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt.

    “It is important for APC faithful to ignore the raging propaganda by detractors that the Supreme Court set aside congresses and primaries of the party in Rivers State. That is a lie from the pit of hell.

    “As things stand, all pending appeals at the Appeal Court are proceeding apace. Appeal and stay of the final judgment of the Rivers High Court, Port Harcourt, given on the October 10, 2018, are being perfected and hearing will commence thereafter.”

    Rivers APC Chairman Ojukaye Flag-Amachree said: “What the Supreme Court did today (yesterday) was to set aside the stay of execution of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt on an order given by Justice Chinwendu Nwogu, which has been overtaken by his judgment. Because after the stay of execution, Justice Nwogu has given his judgement.

    “No court has set aside the order of perpetual injunction granted by Abuja High Court 14, presided over by Justice A. O. Musa, on September 4, 2018, in which it restrained the APC and its National Chairman, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole (1st and 2nd defendants), from tampering with the mandates of the elected officials/delegates elected at the 1st defendant’s ward, local government and state congresses in Rivers State on May 19, 20 and 21, 2018, either by nullifying, removing or in any way refusing to give effect to the outcome of the said congresses or by purporting to conduct another congress in respect of Rivers State.”

  • Supreme Court frowns at APC, Appeal Court handling of Rivers congresses

    •Says party’s action condemnable
    •Faults Appeal Court for tolerating APC’s ‘excesses’

    The Supreme Court criticised yesterday the All Progressives Congress (APC)  and the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division over their handling of the processes leading to the party’s May congresses held in Rivers State.

    A panel of five justices of the court held, in a judgment, that the APC acted in “condemnable, egregious and preposterous” manner by proceeding to conduct its  ward, local government and state congresses of May 19, 20 and 21, 2018, respectively, in Rivers State, in disregard of a pending court order restraining it from so acting.

    The panel headed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), said the Appeal Court, Port-Harcourt engaged in “a sacrilegious exercise of discretion” by ignoring the doctrine of stare decisis in its June 21, 2018 judgment, given in favour of the APC, despite the party’s decision to conduct its congresses in Rivers State in breach of subsisting orders of the High Court of the state.

    The judgment was on an appeal by 23 APC members, including Ibrahim Umar, David Ndah, Prince Morris, Kudem Bale, and Otokim Jack, who were aggrieved by the outcome of APC’s congresses.

    Justice Centus Nweze, who read the lead judgment, upheld the appeal and set aside the June 21, 2018 order of the Court of Appeal, with which it stayed the execution of the May 11 and May 30 orders made by the High Court of Rivers State stopping the conduct of  the congresses.

    Justice. Nweze, after reviewing the handling of the case by the Port Harcourt division of the Appeal Court, said: “Regrettably, the lower court condoned the condemnatious, egregious and preposterous approach of the respondent herein (APC).”

    He said the Supreme Court will not support such unruly conduct as exhibited by the APC in Rivers State.

    Jusice Nweze added: “Well, this court (Supreme Court) has a duty to resist this attempt to achieve forensic victory through jiggery-pokery. True to its constitutional mandate, this court cannot lend its weight to this unhealthy approach.

    “Therefore, I have a duty to allow this appeal. Accordingly, I hereby enter an order setting aside the ruling of the lower court delivered on June 21, 2018.”

    Justice Nweze upheld the contention by the appellants that the Appeal Court ought not to have granted the order of stay of execution in favour of APC while the party was still in disobedience of the order of the High Court.

    Justice Nweze noted that on May 11, 2018, “not minding the invasion of the court by hoodlums, an invasion that was charaterised by the destruction of items of the court, the court was still able to deliver its ruling and issued an interlocutory injunctive orders restraining the respondents from conducting its congresses….

    “As if that was not enough, on May 19 and May 20, and May 21, respectively, in notwithstanding the pendency of the injuctive orders, the respondent (APC) went ahead to conduct the ward, local government and state congresses.

    “This defiance has prompted the high court’s order of mandatory injunction of May 30. The restraining order cancels state congresses of May 12, 19, 20 and 21.

    “Despite the subsisting orders of the court, orders of May 11 and 30, the respondent in the most impudent manner, beseiged the  Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Divison for an entreaty to favour it with an order of stay of proceedings and order of stay of execution.

    “The lower court sitting on both favoured the respondent, that is, the applicant before it, with an order staying the execution of the ‘order of injunction made by the High Court of Rivers State, Port Harcourt in the ruling delivered by Nwogu J, on Friday, May 11, 2018.’

    “The simple truth, therefore, is that, when the respondent applied for stay of execution before the lower court, it was in gross disobedience of the positive order of the trial court.

    “From all indications, notwithstanding this unfortunate development, the lower court still found it legitimate to favour the respondent with a positive order of stay of execution. This was wrong,” Justice Nweze said.

    He faulted the Apeal Court’s failure to abide by the doctrine of “stares decisis” and refusal to subject itself to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case – the Military Governor of Lagos State Vs Ojukwu. He said the Appeal Court, by its conduct, “embarked on a journey of self-immolation and the Japanese ‘harakiri’” a journey, Justice Nweze described as a sacrilegious judicial exercise of discretion.

    He said:  “Indeed, nothing could be a more sacrilegious judicial exercise of discretion than the lower court’s ill-advised embarkation on this ill-fated journey of self-immolation, or what the Japanese call the harakiri, that means suicide, all in an attempt to in an attempt to circumvent the authority of this court.”

    Justice Nweze described the decision of the Appeal Court to disregard the established precedent of the Supreme Court as gross insurbordination.

    He said: “This court (the Supreme Court) is the highest court  in Nigeria; its decisions bind every court, authority or person in Nigeria.

    “By the doctrine of stares decisis, the courts below are bound to follow the decision of the Supreme Court. The doctrine is a sine qua non for certainty in the practice and the application of law.

    “The refusal, therefore, by a judge of the court below to refuse to be bound by this court’s decision is gross insubordination.”

    Justice Nweze described the attempt by APC’s lawyer, Hakeem Afolabi (SAN), to distinguish the case from the Supreme Court’s decisions in  Military Governor of Lagos State vs. Ojukwu, and Odogu vs. Odogu, as superficially attractive, but feeble.

    He frowned at what he described as APC’s lawyer’s “advocacy style” in the case, and said lawyers must draw a distinction between their role and status as lawyers, and their political interests.

    The lawyer to the appellants, who are supporters of Senator Magnus Abe, Henry Bello, said the imperative of the Supreme Court’s judgment was “a warning to politicians to always be obedient to court orders ahead of 2019 elections”.

    Alleging exclusion, Ibrahim Umar, David Ndah, Prince Morris, Kudem Bale, Otokim Jack and others  had,  in May 2018 sued the APC and sought to stop its congresses.

    Justice Chiwendu Nwogu of the Port Harcourt Division of the High Court of Rivers State, on May 10, 2011, granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the APC from conducting the congresses.

    The party went ahead to conduct the congresses on May 19, 20 and 21.

    This prompted Justice Nwogu to nullify the congresses in his ruling of May 30.

    Dissatisfied with the May 30 ruling of the High Court, the APC proceeded to the Port Harcourt Division of the Court of Appeal, praying for an order of stay of execution of both the May 11 and May 30 orders of the High Court and an order of stay of proceedings before the said High Court.

    The Court of Appeal on June 21, 2018, granted the APC’s request, a development which prompted the plaintiffs in the High Court to appeal to the Supreme Court to challenge the order of stay of execution granted by the appeal court.