The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • GTBank: Innoson admits misleading public on N14b court ruling

    Innoson Vehicles Manufacturing (IVM) has accepted that it erred on information concerning the recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court between the company and Guaranty Trust Bank Plc (GTBank).

    Admitting the error on the company’s official twitter handle, @Innosonvehicles, the company blamed the “error” on the staff of the agency managing its social media accounts.

    Last week Thursday, Innoson caused a social and online media storm by falsely claiming that the Supreme Court had ruled in his favour for GTBank to pay him N14 billion in 14 days. However, original records of the court proceedings showed no such ruling. GTBank had also advised the public that Innoson’s claims were false, mischievous and malicious.

    As facts on ground became clear very quickly, Innoson first of all moved to delete his declaration on social media that the apex court has ordered GTBank to pay him N14 billion within 14 days.

    Read Also: Court declares Innoson wanted for fraud

    As facts became clearer to the public, the embattled businessman silently deleted the false tweet from the company’s Twitter account. GTBank had also advised the public that Innoson’s claims were “false, mischievous and malicious”, emphasizing that there was no directive or order issued by the Supreme Court of Nigeria to the bank to make any payment to any of its debtor customers, calling for Nigerians to disregard the statement in its entirety.

    “The management of Innoson Vehicles Manufacturing want to bring to the attention of the public to the caption: Supreme Court Orders @gtbank to pay 14b to Innoson made on its official twitter handle @Innosonvehicles,” the company stated.

    Continuing, it said: “The caption was a slight distortion of the information. When the information came to our notice, we had to correct the error made by the staff of the agency managing our social media accounts. We apologise for that misleading information.”

    GTBank had also advised the public that Innoson’s claims were “false, mischievous and malicious”, emphasizing that there was no directive or order issued by the Supreme Court of Nigeria to the Bank to make any payment to any of its debtor customers, calling for Nigerians to disregard the statement in its entirety.

  • ‘Film, music, video retailers not under Censors Board’s control’ – Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court has declared that the powers granted the National Film and Video Censors Board (NFVCB) under its enabling Act did not extend to the regulation of the activities of retailers of film, music and video products.

    In a unanimous judgment of a five-man bench, the apex court held on Friday that the NFVCB has no powers to compel film, music and video retailers to register with it before operating.

    Justice Kayode Ariwoola, in a lead judgment, read by Justice Paul Galinje,  said the nation’s regulator of the film and movie sector was without the powers to control the operations of the retailers of such products, because neither do they own viewing centers nor charge fees for the viewing of such video, film or musical products.

    The apex court said it would require the amendment of the NFVCB Act to address the apprehension of the board and the problems it sought to address by seeking to control the activities of the retailers of film, video and music products.

    Read Also: N2.4bn fraud: Court awaits Supreme Court’s decision on Innosson

    The Supreme Court judgment was on an appeal marked: SC/395/2012 filed by the NFVCB against the 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Akure, which upheld the 2004 judgment of the Federal High Court, Osogbo, given in favour of the retailers.

    NFVCB had raided some retailers of film, video and music products in Osogbo, Osun State, claiming they were operating illegally having not registered with the board.

    The retailers, led by Akinola Adegboyega and two others, approached the Federal High Court to challenge NFVCB’s claim.

    The Federal High Court held in their favour, a decision the NFVCB appealed at the Court of Appeal, Akure.

    The Appeal Court dismissed the appeal for being unmeritorious and upheld the decision of the Federal High Court.

    The NFVCB further appealed to the Supreme Court, an appeal which the apex court decided on Friday against the appellant.

  • N2.4bn fraud: Court awaits Supreme Court’s decision on Innosson

    A Federal High Court in Lagos on Tuesday adjourned until June 27 for the Supreme Court’s decision in the trial of Innosson Nigeria Ltd for a N2.4 billion suit over alleged falsification of shipping documents.

    The Federal Government had through the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) filed a four-count charge bordering on forgery against Innosson and four others before Justice Ayokunle Faji.

    Listed as accused are: Innosson Nig. Ltd, Innocent Chukwuma, Charles Chukwu, Maximian Chukwura, Mitsui Osk Lines ‘C’ and Anajekwu Sunny.

    The accused were alleged to have conspired to commit the offences on Oct. 10, 2013 at Apapa Wharf, Lagos.

    When the case was called on Tuesday, only one of the accused, Maximum Chukwura, was present in court.

    Mr J. I. Ajakaiye announced appearance for the prosecution, Mr George Uwechue (SAN) appeared for the first and second accused,

    Prof. J. N. Mbadugha, appeared for the third and sixth accused, while Mr Olusola Abimloye is for the fourth and fifth accused.

    Addressing the court, Mbadugha informed Justice Faji that the position at the Supreme Court remained the same as the pending appeal had not been heard.

    He said he had also applied that the case should be given accelerated hearing.

    In his reaction, Justice Faji asked if the prosecution as well as other defence counsel had been served with the application and Mbadugha replied in the negative. (No)

    The court then held that it was wrong for defence counsel not to have served other parties with his application, adding that counsel cannot address the court “ex parte” (without notice to other parties).

    On his part, the prosecutor, (Ajakaiye) informed the court that the facts of the case were not as stated by defence counsel.

    According to the prosecutor, the appeal was entered at the Supreme Court on Feb. 28 and by the court’s rules, the appellant ought to have filed his written brief within 10 weeks.

    He said he was at the apex court on May 18 to look out for developments, but discovered that nothing had been done on the appeal which the defence had left pending.

    The prosecutor added that the defence’s act was aimed at stalling progress of the case, noting that prosecution has filed an

    application to dismiss the appeal and that same had been served on the defence.

    Meanwhile, counsel to fourth and fifth accused, (Abimloye), has told the court that he had an innocuous application, seeking to dispense with the appearance of the fourth accused, who had always been present in court.

    But Justice Faji held that he could not take the application since there was already an appeal seeking a stay of proceedings before his court.

    In a short ruling, the court held that the manner with which defence counsel (Mbadugha) was handling the appeal was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act which supports speedy trial.

    He held that criminal matters takes priority, adding that counsel must do all he could to avoid the notion that the court’s process was being abused.

    Again, in view of the pending appeal, the court again adjourned the case until June 27 for a report of proceedings at the Supreme Court.

    The prosecution alleged that the accused falsified shipping documents which they deposited with Guaranty Trust Bank as collateral for N2.4 billion, a facility allegedly granted Innosson Nigeria Ltd.

    The shipping documents were also alleged to have been falsely presented as genuine and with intent to defraud in order to clear goods worth N2.4 billion.

    The offences contravened the provisions of Sections 1(2) (c), and 3(6) of the Miscellaneous Offence Act, Laws of the Federation 2004.

    NAN

  • Alleged abduction plot: Kashamu urges Supreme Court to enforce his rights

    Senator representing Ogun East Buruji Kashamu has faulted the Court of Appeal judgment dismissing his fundamental rights suit.

    Through his lawyers, he filed two notices of appeal at the Supreme Court, urging it to enforce his rights and to set aside the Court of Appeal judgment.

    Kashamu said the Court of Appeal erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice by dismissing his preliminary objections and ignoring evidence of a plot to abduct and extradite him.

    “The lower court misdirected itself when it held that the appellant has not made out a case of breach or likelihood of breach of his fundamental rights,” Kashamu said.

    The senator argued that his affidavit before the Court of Appeal was full of facts showing an alleged plot by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and others to abduct and transport him to the United States to face trial over alleged offences in respect of which he had been exonerated.

    “There was uncontroverted evidence before the lower court that in 2000, during the Presidency of Olusegun Obasanjo, an illegal abduction was carried out against a Nigerian citizen with the assistance of government officials with the consent of the said President Olusegun Obasanjo.

    “The lower court was wrong in failing to see that all those information that were available to the appellant were enough to justify an apprehension of likelihood of breach of his fundamental right to liberty through his abduction by the respondents and transportation to the USA.

    “The decision of the lower court is contrary to the established position of the law that any person who apprehends that his fundamental rights has been, is being or is likely to be contravened is entitled to bring an action to enforce his fundamental rights,” Kashamu said.

    He argued that the Court of Appeal erred in assuming that he ought to wait until the plot to have him abducted had been executed before approaching the court for redress.

    He said he provided enough evidence to justify the protection of his fundamental right to liberty, which he said the Court of Appeal overlooked.

    According the appellant, the Court of Appeal also erred when it dismissed his notice preliminary objection challenging the appeal’s competence and its jurisdiction to entertain it.

    The senator said the Court of Appeal’s decision was contrary to constitutional provision that an appeal against an interlocutory decision must be filed within 14 days of the decision appealed against, which he said the AGF failed to comply with.

    According to him, the Court of Appeal also erred in failing to see that the AGF had no locus standi to appeal against parts of Justice Okon Abang’s judgment, which were in the interest of National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) chairman, the National Security Adviser (NSA) and the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), all of who did not appeal against the adverse decisions.

    Besides, the appellant said the Court of Appeal violated the legal principle that a ground of appeal must arise from the judgment or ruling of the court appealed against.

    He urged the Supreme Court to hold that the Court of Appeal’s decision was contrary to the principle that leave of court must be sought and obtained before appealing in respect of fresh issues that were not canvassed before the trial court.

     

     

     

  • Supreme Court refuses to sack Pinnick’s NFF executive

    The Supreme Court has refused to hear a suit seeking to sack the Amaju Pinnick-led executive committee of the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF).

    Instead, the court, in unanimous judgment of a five-man panel, ordered the re-listing of the suit before the Federal High Court in Jos, Plateau State for it to be heard promptly on its merit. The judgment was on an appeal marked: SC/731/2016 between Yahaya Adama and Obinna Ogba vs Aminu Maigari and three others.

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onoghen, who headed the panel, wrote the lead judgment, which Justice Ejembi Eko read in his absence. The Supreme Court, set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal which said the suit could no longer be heard having earlier been struck out by the Federal High Court, Jos.

    The apex court declined the appellants’ prayer that it invokes its powers under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act to hear and determine the case on the merit. It noted that the appellants failed to meet the necessary conditions to warrant the court to invoke it’s powers under Section 22 of its Act to hear a case as a trial court.

    The court also said the conditions were put in place to discourage lawyers from flooding the apex court with requests for trying cases, which is the duty of the trial courts.

    Adamu and Ogba, on September 19, 2014 filed initiated the suit before the Federal High Court, Jos, praying the court to among others, hold that they, along with others elected on August 26, 2014, were members of the legitimate executive committee of the NFF.

    They listed as defendant, the NFF (represented by its President, Alhaji Aminu Maigari and Musa Adamu), the Plateau State Football Association representing the football association in the 36 states of federation and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and the Minister of Sports.

    On September 19, 2014, the Federal High Court granted an ex parte order restraining the NFF from conducting its General Assembly. Despite the court’s order, the NFF proceeded to conduct the General Assembly where members of the Pinnick-led executive committee were elected on September 20, 2014.

    On September 23, 2014, the Federal High Court nullified the General Assembly and the elections which produced Pinnick and other members of his executive for being held three days earlier in defiance of a pending suit and the court’s restraining orders. Due to a settlement talks said to be being brokered by then then President Goodluck Jonathan, Adama and Ogba, on October 30, 2014, applied to withdraw the suit and the court promptly struck it.

    The court then set aside the previous injunctive orders made against the elections of Pinnick-led executive.

    With the talks said to have broken down the plaintiffs subsequently applied for the re-listing of the case, a prayer the court granted.

    The court in granting the prayer also restored all the injunctive orders set aside while earlier striking out the suit. But the Maigari-led executive and the Plateau State Football Association representing the other associations in the FCT and other states, appealed the Federal High Court’s ruling at the Court of Appeal in Jos.

    On July 25, 2016, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment, allowed the appeal and nullified the Federal High Court’s ruling re-listing the case. The Court of Appeal also set aside the injunctive orders which the Federal High Court restored.

    Adama and Ogba later appealed to the Supreme Court, through their lawyer, P.I.N Ikwueto (SAN). They the court to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which set aside the order of the Federal High Court, re-listing of the case. They also urged the apex court to invoke section 22 of the Supreme Court Act by taking over the case and decide it on merit.

    The respondents, represented by Festus Keyamo (SAN), objected to the appeal and urged the court to dismiss it.

  • Supreme Court refuses to hear suit seeking to sack Pinnick’s NFF executive

    The Supreme Court has refused to hear a suit seeking to sack the Amaju Pinnick-led executive committee of the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF).

    Instead, the court, in a unanimous judgment of a five-man panel, ordered the re-listing of the suit before the Federal High Court in Jos, Plateau State, for it to be heard promptly on the merit.

    The judgment was on an appeal marked:SC/731/2016 between Yahaya Adama and Obinna Ogba vs. Aminu Maigari and three others.

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onoghen, who headed the panel, wrote the lead judgment, which Justice Ejembi Eko read in his absence.

    The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal which said the suit could no longer be heard having earlier been struck out by the Federal High Court, Jos.

    The apex court declined the appellants’ prayer that it invokes its powers under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act to hear and determine the case on the merit.

    It noted that the appellants failed to meet the necessary conditions to warrant the court to invoke its powers under Section 22 of its Act to hear a case as a trial court.

    The court also said the conditions were put in place to discourage lawyers from flooding the apex court with requests for trying cases, which is the duty of the trial courts.

    Adamu and Ogba on September 19, 2014 initiated the suit before the Federal High Court, Jos, praying the court to, among others, hold that they, along with others elected on August 26, 2014, were members of the legitimate executive committee of the NFF.

    They listed as defendant, the NFF (represented by its President, Alhaji Aminu Maigari and Musa Adamu), the Plateau State Football Association representing the football associations in the 36 states of federation and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and the Minister of Sports.

    On September 19, 2014, the Federal High Court granted an ex parte order restraining the NFF from conducting its General Assembly.

    Despite the court’s order, the NFF proceeded to conduct the General Assembly where members of the Pinnick-led executive committee were elected on September 20, 2014.

    On September 23, 2014, the Federal High Court nullified the General Assembly and the elections which produced Pinnick and other members of his executive for being held three days earlier in defiance of a pending suit and the court’s restraining orders.

    Due to settlement talks said to be being brokered by the then President Goodluck Jonathan, Adama and Ogba on October 30,2014 applied to withdraw the suit and the court promptly struck it.

    The court then set aside the previous injunctive orders made against the elections of Pinnick-led executive.

    With the talks said to have broken down the plaintiffs subsequently applied for the re-listing of the case, a prayer the court granted.

    The court in granting the prayer also restored all the injunctive orders set aside while earlier striking out the suit.

    But the Maigari-led executive and the Plateau State Football Association representing the other associations in the FCT and other states appealed the Federal High Court’s ruling at the Court of Appeal in Jos.

    On July 25, 2016, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment, allowed the appeal and nullified the Federal High Court’s ruling re-listing the case.

    The Court of Appeal also set aside the injuncitve orders which the Federal High Court restored.

    Adama and Ogba later appealed to the Supreme Court, through their lawyer, P.I.N Ikwueto (SAN).

    They asked the court to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which set aside the order of the Federal High Court, re-listing of the case.

    The respondents, represented by Festus Keyamo (SAN), objected to the appeal and urged the court to dismiss it.

  • Supreme Court refuses to hears suit seeking to sack Pinnick’s NFF executive

    Orders re-hearing of suit before Federal High Court, Jos

     

    The Supreme Court has refused to hear a suit seeking to sack the Amaju Pinnick-led executive committee of the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF).

    Instead, the court, in unanimous judgment of a five-man panel, ordered the re-listing of the suit before the Federal High Court in Jos, Plateau State for it to be heard promptly on the merit

    The judgment was on an appeal marked:SC/731/2016 between Yahaya Adama and Obinna Ogba vs. Aminu Maigari and 3 others.

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onoghen, who headed the panel, wrote the lead judgment, which Justice Ejembi Eko read in his absence.

    The Supreme Court, set aside the judgment of the Court of Apeal which said the suit could no longer be heard having earlier been struck out by the Federal High Court, Jos.

    The apex court declined the appellants’ prayer that it invokes its powers under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act to hear and determine the case on the merit.

    It noted that the appellants failed to meet the necessary conditions to warrant the court to invoke it’s powers under Section 22 of its Act to hear a case as a trial court.

    The court also said the conditions were put in place to discourage lawyers from flooding the apex court with requests for trying cases, which is the duty of the trial courts.

    Adamu and Ogba, on September 19, 2014 filed initiated the suit before the Federal High Court, Jos, praying the court to among others, hold that they, along with others elected on August 26, 2014, were members of the legitimate executive committee of the NFF.

    They listed as defendant, the NFF (represented by its President, Alhaji Aminu Maigari and Musa Adamu), the Plateau State Football Association representing the football association in the 36 states of federation and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and the Minister of Sports.

    On September 19, 2014, the Federal High Court granted an ex parte order restraining the NFF from conducting its General Assembly.

    Despite the court’s order, the NFF proceeded to conduct the General Assembly where members of the Pinnick-led executive committee were elected on September 20, 2014.

    On September 23, 2014, the Federal High Court, nullified the General Assembly and the elections which produced Pinnick and other members of his executive for being held three days earlier in defiance of a pending suit and the court’s restraining orders.

    Due to a settlement talks said to be being brokered by then then President Goodluck Jonathan, Adama and Ogba, on October 30,2014, applied to withdraw the suit and the court promptly struck it.

    The court then set aside the previous injunctive orders made against the elections of Pinnick-led executive.

    With the talks said to have broken down the plaintiffs subsequently applied for the re-listing of the case, a prayer the court granted.

    The court in granting the prayer also restored all the injunctive orders set aside while earlier striking out the suit.

    But the Maigari-led executive and the Plateau State Football Association representing the other associations in the FCT and other states, appealed the Federal High Court’s ruling at the Court of Appeal in Jos.

    On July 25, 2016, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment, allowed the appeal and nullified the Federal High Court’s ruling re-listing the case.

    The Court of Appeal also set aside the injuncitve orders which the Federal High Court restored.

    Adama and Ogba later appealed to the Supreme Court, through their lawyer, P.I.N Ikwueto (SAN).

    They the court to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which set aside the order of the Federal High Court, re-listing of the case.

    They also urged the apex court to invoke section 22 of the Supreme Court Act by taking over the case and decide it on merit

    The respondents, represented by Festus Keyamo (SAN), objected to the appeal and urged the court to dismiss it.

  • Supreme Court did not nullify Pinnick board’s election, NFF says

    The Nigeria Football Federation ( NFF ) on Friday in Abuja assured that there was no reason to get worried about a Supreme Court decision on the 2014 elections into its Executive Committee.

    The football body, on its twitter handle some moments after the court’s ruling, said the Supreme Court in Abuja did not nullify Amaju Pinnick’s election as NFF President.

    It said its reaction followed news to the contrary ongoing on social media.

    The newsmen reports that a football stakeholder, Chris Giwa, had been contesting the authenticity of the Pinnick-led board.

    While the Proprietor of Jos-based Giwa FC was elected NFF president at an NFF Congress in Abuja, Pinnick was elected at another NFF Congress in Warri on Sept. 30, 2014.

    Giwa took the matter to the apex court, after losing out at the Appeal Court and at the Court of Arbitration for Sport ( CAS ).

    Read Also: Supreme Court to go digital July 16, says Onnoghen

    NFF’s counsel, Festus Keyamo, was quoted in the tweet as saying: “Nobody should cause unnecessary panic in Nigeria’s football. That’s my case.

    “Supreme Court did not nullify Amaju’s election. The Supreme Court did not remove Amaju from office.

    “The Court only referred the case back to the Federal High Court to be tried properly, to know which of the elections held in 2014 was right.

    “Amaju was not a party to the case at the Supreme Court. So, the court could not have removed a party from office without joining the party and hearing from the party.’’

    NAN

  • Supreme Court to go digital July 16, says Onnoghen

    CHIEF Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen said yesterday that there would be no more manual filing of court processes at the Supreme Court from July 16.

    All communication between lawyers and the court would be done electronically, he said.

    This was as Onnoghen called for constitutional amendment to end executive control of judiciary at the state level.

    Justice Onnoghen spoke at the Fifth Criminal Justice Reform Conference in Asaba, the Delta State capital, organised by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Criminal Justice Reform Committee chaired by Chief Arthur Obi Okafor (SAN).

    Its theme is: “Criminal Justice Reforms in Nigeria: The journey so far.”

    The CJN, represented by the National Judicial Institute (NJI) Administrator Justice Rosaline Bozimo (rtd), hoped that the new policy on electronic filings as well as the case management systems software deployment would be “funded to fruition”.

    He said: “In a bid to enhance justice administration and provide our citizens with the justice system that they deserve, the manual forms of communication within Nigerian courts will soon be phased out. Henceforth, lawyers who have acquired the legal email can now communicate electronically with the courts.

    “The Supreme Court will only serve processes by electronic means (legal mail) on all matters. This will become effective on the 16th of July 2018 and mandatory. All new filings as from 16th July 2018 must bear counsel’s legal email address.

    “To ensure compliance, it is also imperative that all heads of courts acquire legal email addresses for their courts from the Judicial Information Technology Policy Committee, especially for their litigation department staff. All courts are also encouraged to start using the email for serving lawyers.

    “In addition, communication between the various judicial bodies will very soon be through official electronic system only, thereby harnessing the benefits of the system in terms of confidentiality, integrity and availability.”

    Justice Onnoghen reiterated the need for the judiciary’s independence, saying: “It is quite often said that the litmus test to find out how free and democratic any nation is, is to look at its judiciary to find out what powers the nation is prepared to concede to this vital partner in governance.”

    He said while the judiciary at the federal level enjoys financial independence, as it receives its funding directly from the Federation Account, it was not so for the states, as Chief Judges have to wait on governors to release state judiciary funds.

    Senate President Bukola Saraki, represented by Prof. Nuhu Jamo, said the problem of prison congestion and other ills affecting the justice system must be addressed.

    “The figure of 240 holding facilities in the country points to a legal system that has long been neglected and in need of adequate attention. Similarly, the 66 per cent figure representing the inmates awaiting trial supports the call for special courts that would help speed up the process, as relevant.”

  • Supreme Court voids Mobil’s sack of 860 Nigerians… 18 years after

    The Supreme Court has voided the sack by Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited of about 860 Nigerians employed in before the year 2000 as security officers, but named by the company Supernumerary Police Officers (SPY).

    The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment of five justices, held that it was illogical and without legal backing for Mobil to have employed the Nigerians and sought to off-load them to the Nigeria Police through the back door.

    The judgement was on an appeal marked:SC/33/2010 filed by Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited against the 2009 Court of Appeal judgment which upheld the Nigerian workers’ claim to being employees of the oil giant.

    The Supreme Court, in the lead judgment by Justice John Inyang Okoro, upheld the earlier Court of Appeal’s decision in the case, which agreed that the Nigerians, led by Okon Johnson,were and are still Mobil’s staff and should be accorded all benefits.

    The Court of Appeal also ordered Mobil to pay the Nigerian staff all oustanding allowances and salaries from when they were purportedly variously disengaged.

    While summarising his lead judgment, Justice Okoro said: “The summary of the facts is that the 1st to 15 respondents were employed by the appellants as Supernumerary Police Officers (SPY) and issued with appointment letters.

    “Thereafter, it (appellants) tried to off-load them (the 1st to 15 respondents) to the Nigeria Police, a decision the Nigerian employees rejected.

    “The court bellow upheld their argument that they are not police officers, but staff of Mobil Nigeria Unlimited

    “So Mobil appealed to this court. And after we have painstakingly looked at all the exhibits before us, including the appointment letters. And we have also looked at the Police Act as it relates to the mode of appointment of SPYs.

    “We agree with the lower court that the respondents were employed by Mobil Nigeria Unlimited as their security staff.

    “There is nothing in the Police Act, which gives Mobil the authority to appoint security officers and then, off-load them to the Nigeria Police.

    “If the Police Council wanted to appoint SPYs, it would have done in accordance with the Police Act, which it faled to do.

    “The law is very clear. Whoever wants the services of policemen in its establishment, should apply to the Inspector General of Police (IGP). The IGP would then request for and receive clearance from the President of the country.

    “After receiving clearance from the President, the IGP will now authorise the Police Council to direct the Police Service Commission (PSC) to appoint. That is the way the law puts it.

    “The PSC will now appoint these officers and then, post them to any establishment that requires them.

    “But, in this case, Mobil advertised for recruitment, conducted interview,issued them with appointment letters; and then, gave them that name: Supernumerary Police Officers (SPYs).

    “Whatever name you give them, the basis is who appointed them? So, whoever appointed them is their boss, which is Mobil Nigeria Unlimited.

    “So, this appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the lower court is upheld,” Justice Okoro said.

    The apex court also dismissed a similar appeal by the IGP on the grounds that it was unnecessary and a waste of public funds.

    The Nigerian workers were variously employed in early 1990s by Mobil in its security unit. But for unknown reasons, the company chose to refer to them as: “SPY Police of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited,” a decision that later created confusion over the actual status of the workers.

    In 2000, a dispute arose about the status of the security guards, with Mobil claiming to have transferred their employment to the Nigeria Police Force (NPF).

    Mobil claimed it engaged them as SPY police personnel, and not actual staff; a claim the affected workers disputed, with some of them refusing to be transferred out of their stations.

    They (the Nigerian workers) alleged being victimised, with some sacked unceremoniously for insisting on right to being entitled to be treated as other employees of Mobil.

    They further alleged that aside from being subjected to harsh working conditions, they were compelled to sign a document identified as “Mobil Producing Nigeria status agreement for Supernumerary Police Service condition agreement.”

    Justices Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, Mary Odili, Amiru Sanusi and Sidi Bage, who were also on the panel, agreed with Justice Okoro’s lead judgment.