The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • 18 years after, Supreme Court voids Mobil’s sack of 860 Nigerian staff

    …Orders their immediate re-engagement, payment of outstanding salaries, allowances

     

    The Supreme Court has voided the sack by Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited of about 860 Nigerians employed on or 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 Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, but read Friday by Justice John 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 the 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 failed 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 (SPY).

    “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 its 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 ground 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 condition, they were compelled to sign a document identified as “Mobil Producing Nigeria status agreement for supernumerary police service condition agreement.”

    The workers said although some of them succumbed and endorsed the documents, others stood their ground, and later sought the protection of the court by filing a suit at the Federal High Court, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, marked: FHC/UY/CS/2004.

    In a judgment on January 24, 2006, Justice Gladys Olotu of the Federal High Court (now compulsorily retired by the National Judicial Council) ruled in favour of Mobil.

    The judge said, among others, that although the Mobil did not fully comply with the requirement under the Police Act, in recruiting SPY policemen, it could be assumed that it complied, having substantially complied with some of the regulations

    The Nigerian workers appealed Justice Olotu’s decision at the Court of Appeal, Calabar, Cross River State, which rendered its judgment  on May 21, 2009 a nullity.

    A three-man panel of the Appeal Court, in its May 21, 2009 judgment, held among others, that the Nigerian workers were Mobil’s employees and ordered it to assume its responsibilities as they relate to the Nigerian workers. The panel comprised Justice Kumai Akaahs, Jean Omokri and Theresa Orji-Abadua.

    Justice Orji-Abadua observed, in the lead judgment, that: “It is clear in exhibits D and E (Mobil’s letters to the Police, requesting training for its security recruit) that the 1st respondent (Mobil) was referring to their own security men as Supernumerary Police recruit, and it wanted them to be trained by the Nigeria Police in respect of which it made application to the Commissioner of Police in charge of Cross River State.”

    She noted that: “Section 18(1) & (2) of the Police Act expressly stated the way and manner a supernumerary police officer will be appointed upon the application of the person desiring to take advantage of the services of police for protection of his property. It is clear that any step short of the ones prescribed by the Police Act will be null and void.

    “The appellants were not employed by the Nigeria Police Force and then appointed as Supernumerary Police Officers by the Police Service Commission on the directive of the Inspector general of Police for the protection of the 1st respondent’s property as envisaged by Section 18(1) & (2) of the Police Act.

    “They were and still are the employees of the 1st respondent since there was no affidavit evidence indicating that the appellants’ employment had been determined by the 1st respondent,” Justice Orji-Abadua said.

    Mobil and the IGP appealed the Appeal Court’s judgment separately, the appeals that were dismissed Friday by the Supreme Court for lacking in merit.

    Read Also:ExxonMobil sells 60% stake in Mobil Oil Nigeria to Nipco

     

  • Nganjiwa: Fed Govt urges Supreme Court to ‘forcefully apply law’

    THE Federal Government has urged the Supreme Court to “forcefully” apply the law in determining its appeal challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision on Justice Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa of the Federal High Court.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arraigned the judge on a 14-count charge before Justice Adedayo Akintoye of the Lagos High Court.

    It accused him of receiving $260,000 and N8.65million gratification.

    The court dismissed Nganjiwa’s objection to the charge, but his appeal was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

    The appeal court held that EFCC could not arraign a judge unless the complaint had been acted on by the National Judicial Council (NJC), which will then hand over the judge for prosecution.

    In the appellant’s brief of arguments by its counsel Mr. Wahab Shittu, the Federal Government urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, set aside the order striking out the charge against Justice Nganjiwa and direct that he faces his trial.

    The appellant urged the Supreme Court not to be swayed by the fact that the respondent is a member of the Bench.

    “This appeal raises fundamental issues, which undoubtedly affect the judiciary, our primary constituency in particular and the administration of justice in general. This is a moment of decision.

    “Respectfully, the Apex Court owes a sacred duty and responsibility to forcefully apply the law, even when as in this case, the interest of a member of the judiciary is involved.

    “We are optimistic that the Supreme Court appreciates that the law operates on a scale of even balance without discrimination, without favour, not minding whose ox is gored because the Supreme Court is a court of law, a court of justice and a court of highest precedent in our judicial hierarchy.

    “It is in this sense that this honourable court is respectfully being called upon to uphold the law and to uphold the element of justice for history and posterity,” the appellant said.

    The Federal Government noted that the judge was charged with breaches of Revised Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers, which prohibits the acceptance of gift, bequest, loan, favour, benefit, advantage, bribe, among others.

    It said given that the judge was on trial for alleged breach of such official code, which would result in criminal consequences if found guilty, there was no justification for halting the criminal process initiated by the state to enforce the law.

    “This is another fundamental reason why my Lords should allow this appeal,” the appellant said.

    The Federal Government argued that Justice Nganjiwa was not arraigned for disciplinary infractions, which are in NJC’s exclusive terrain, but for criminal offences, which remain in the state’s jurisdiction.

    The appellant noted that it is the President, not the NJC, who has the final authority to discipline or remove a judge.

  • N11.5b ‘fraud’: Akala, senator, businessman take EFCC to Supreme Court

    A former Governor of Oyo State, Otunba Adebayo Alao-Akala, former Deputy Chief Whip of the Senate, Senator Ayoola Agboola and a businessman, Mr. Femi Babalola, have taken the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to the Supreme Court over allegation of N11.5 billion fraud.

    The move by the trio stalled the commencement of trial in the case that was scheduled to start on Monday before Justice Muniru Owolabi of an Oyo State High Court, holden at Iyaganku, Ibadan.

    According to the EFCC, the alleged fraud was committed when the first defendant, Alao-Akala, was governor of the state between 2007 and 2011.

    Agboola, the second defendant, at the time served as commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Matters, while Babalola owns an engineering firm, Pentagon Engineering Services that executed some contracts during the administration.

    At the court yesterday, counsel to Alao-Akala and Babalola, Mr. Hakeem Afolabi (SAN), moved two applications before Justice Owolabi, informing the court that his clients have filed an interlocutory appeal on the matter before the Supreme Court, seeking an adjournment of the case in order to await the decision of the apex court.

    He said the applications dated April 7 and filed on April 9, were filed on 10 grounds, praying the court to allow the defendants to go, and “should be told not to return to sin, though they are not sinners.”

    He relied on some earlier pronouncements of the Supreme Court, including Amaechi versus Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    Pastor Richard Ogunwole (SAN), who is the counsel to the second defendant, Ayoola Agboola, aligned himself with the two applications moved in the court, saying the interlocutory appeal in the Supreme Court would terminate the proceedings at the high court entirely, if it succeeds.

    He urged the court to “tarry a little, not resting it,” in continuing with the case so that it would not run on collision course against the apex court.

    But the EFCC’S counsel, Dr. Benedict Ubi, opposed the adjournment, arguing that granting the application would amount to “a violent violation of the Constitution of Nigeria, ” relying on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Olisa Metuh versus Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    He urged the court to disregard the applications and go on with the case.

    Justice Owolabi, however, adjourned the case till June 4 for ruling on the applications, whether the court would await the decision of the Supreme Court or it would continue with the trial while the interlocutory appeal is still pending in the apex court.

    The EFCC on October 11, 2011 filed the matter before Justice Moshood Abass of the court and the defendants were admitted to bail, which they perfected.

    Justices Akintunde Boade and Bayo Taiwo, had also sat on the case before the former retired and the latter transferred out of Ibadan Division.

    Alao-Akala was admitted to bail at N5 million with two sureties, while the second and third defendants were also granted bail at N3 million each with two sureties.

    But the three defendants were re-arraigned before Justice Owolabi on March 5, 2018, over the same matter by the EFCC.

    The trio pleaded not guilty to the charges preferred against them.

    Counsel to the defendants urged the court to allow their clients to enjoy the previous bail condition granted to them, which was granted by the court.

    The defendants are facing an 11-count charge of conspiracy, awarding contract without budgetary provision, obtaining by false pretence, acquiring property with money derived from illegal act and concealing the ownership of such property, among others.

    The EFCC’s counsel, Dr Benedict Ubi, had told the court that when Alao-Akala was the governor of Oyo State, he awarded a road contract worth N8.5billion between 2007 and 2009 to Pentagon Engineering Services, alleging further that the firm handled the contract on behalf of the 33 local governments  without budgetary provision.

    Alao-Akala, he contended, ordered the supply of drilling machines on behalf of the 33 local governments worth N3.5billion, saying Alao-Akala purportedly conspired with Ayoola to withdraw N2.9 billion from Oyo State Local Government Joint Account.

  • Overburdened Bench

    The newspaper report that over 5,000 cases are pending in the Supreme Court, should worry every Nigerian. The sobering report claimed that appeal cases at the apex court last for about 10 years. That is justice delayed; which is justice denied. The report gave the history of some cases that lasted over 30 years in its journey from the lower courts to the apex court.

    In one classical instance, a dispute over the ownership of Nwayal pond in Taraba State, which started in an area court in 1989 went through an upper area court, to a high court, to the Court of Appeal until it was finally determined by the Supreme Court in 2015. The case which was decided at the high court by Justice Mahmud Mohammed when he was the chief judge of the state, came before the Supreme Court when Mohammed was the Chief Justice of Nigeria, 15 years after.

    That case lasted for 26 years; but a land case between the Anglican Church and the Iwaya community lasted for 33 years, starting at the Ikeja High Court in 1984 and determined by the Supreme Court in 2017. There is also a 1989 case over a vehicle attached in the execution of a judgment, allegedly belonging to a third party, which now has a December 2018 date for hearing. There are other cases which lasted several decades in their journey to the Supreme Court.

    According to the report, the Supreme Court currently has 16 justices. That number will constitute an average of three panels of the court, since a full panel of the apex court is made up of five justices. Perhaps that partly explains why many of the cases last so long, such that most likely, some of the litigants may have died before their disputes are determined by the apex court.

    We note the provisions of Section 230(2) of the 1999 Constitution that: “The Supreme Court of Nigeria shall consist of (a) the Chief Justice of Nigeria, and (b) such number of Justices of Supreme Court not exceeding twenty-one, as may be prescribed by an act of the National Assembly.” With only 16 justices currently at the apex court, there is still a maximum vacancy of five justices left to fill the constitutional limit, subject to an act of the National Assembly, which could it make lesser.

    The implication of that provision is that at its fullness, the Supreme Court shall consist of four panels of five justices. With the entire country beholden to the Supreme Court of a maximum of 21 justices, that would still not be enough to deal with the clog up of 5,000 cases. At its current manpower of just three panels of five justices, each panel would have to deal with roughly 1,666 cases to decongest the court’s cause list, while a panel of four will deal averagely with 1,250 cases per panel.

    Notably, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is provided under section 233 of the 1999 constitution (as amended) and its sub-section 2 provides instances where appeal shall lie as of right, to include: “where the ground of appeal involves question of law alone, decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings before the Court of Appeal.” It also includes: “questions as to the interpretation or application of this constitution.” Furthermore, questions on contravention of the fundamental human rights and a sentence of death by the Court of Appeal. Where appeals do not lie as of right, as enumerated above, it lies with the leave of court.

    So, the court is overwhelmed with cases. For us, this staggering delay in getting justice in our country is one more reason why Nigeria should go back to the practice of federalism. Why should nearly all cases have the chance to get to the Supreme Court? We recall that there was once a Court of Appeal in Western Nigeria. In our view, there is nothing wrong with having different jurisdictions for federal and state courts, such that matters exclusively within the purview of a state end up in appellate courts in the state.

    In the immediate, the Supreme Court must rev up its efforts to bring technology to aid its performance. We acknowledge the ongoing effort of the Supreme Court in this regard and urge for accelerated action. Also, the vacancies in the court should be filled immediately. Another cause of the congestion is the requirement for appearances at the Supreme Court to become a senior advocate. We urge the relevant agencies to change that requirement, more so with the limited number of SANs elevated every year.

    The current speed of cases across the hierarchy of courts does not meet the basic requirement of justice, and if we lay claim to being a democracy, we must wake up to this national challenge.

  • Court awards N4m cost against lawyer for filing frivolous appeal

    *Upholds Ikpeazu’s election

    The Supreme Court has penalised a lawyer and politician, Friday Nwosu for filing what the court considered a frivolous appeal.

    The apex court, in a judgment on Friday, awarded N4million as penalty against Nwosu and in favour of the four respondents in the appeal.

    Nwosu, by the judgment, is to pay each of the respondents N1m as cost.

    Nwosu had, in his appeal marked: SC/693/17, challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, in which it was held to the effect that Okezie Ikpeazu was qualified to contest the 2015 governorship election in Abia State.

    Justice Amina Augie, in the lead judgment, upheldIkpeazu’s election and dismissed Nwosu’s appeal. The lead judgment was read on behalf of Justice Augie by Justice Sidi Bage.

     

    Details later…

     

  • Assets declaration: Supreme Court to determine Senate President’s fate July 6

    THE Supreme Court has fixed July 6 for judgment in the appeal by Senate President Bukola Saraki against the December 12, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja.

    The Appeal Court had ordered him to enter defence in respect of three out of the 18 counts contained in a false assets declaration charge brought against him by the Federal Government.

    A five-man panel of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Dattijo Muhammad chose the date yesterday after parties adopted their written briefs of argument in relation to the appeal by Saraki and the cross-appeal by the prosecution.

    Saraki was arraigned before the CCT on an 18-count amended charge bordering on corruption and false declaration of assets.

    At the conclusion of the prosecution’s case, Saraki made a no case submission, which the CCT, in a ruling on June 14, 2017, upheld and discharged and acquitted him on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove its case.

    Upon appeal to the Court of Appeal, Abuja by the prosecution, the appellate court, in its December 12, 2017 judgment, held among others that the prosecution was able to establish a prima facie case against Saraki in three of the 18 counts. The three counts are: 4, 5 and 6.

    The Appeal Court ordered that Saraki be made to enter defence in respect of the three counts and for parties to return to the CCT for the continuation of trial.

    Saraki appealed the judgment and asked the Supreme Court to set aside the aspect of the judgment where he was ordered to enter defence before the CCT in respect of the three counts.

    The prosecution also cross-appealed the judgment and urged the Supreme Court to restore the full charge it brought against Saraki before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT). It wants the Supreme Court to set aside part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in which it voided 15 out of the 18 counts in the charge.

     

  • FJSC overrules Supreme Court on Chief Registrar’s reinstatement

    The Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) has overridden the judgment of the Supreme Court ordering the Court of Appeal to, among others, reinstate its Chief Registrar, Bode Thomas.

    In the judgment delivered on February 16, the Supreme Court ordered Thomas’ immediate reinstatement, payment of his outstanding salaries and allowances, among others.

    Rather than obey, the FJSC directed Thomas to proceed on 300 days accumulated compulsory leave.

    The Nation, last Friday, sighted a copy of the March 9 letter,  which was copied the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa.

    Justice Bulkachuwa minuted on the copy sighted by The Nation. She directed the head of the Court of Appeal’s Accounts Department to act on the letter.

    The letter, which also directed Thomas to resume duties on January 2, 2019, few weeks to his retirement, acknowledged the Supreme Court’s judgment.

    It says while he is reinstated, Thomas should proceed on his accumulated leave.

    Although Thomas, his lawyers and officials of the Court of Appeal and FJSC refused to comment on the legality of FJSC’s decision, The Nation found that the directive that Thomas proceeds on an accumulated leave offends both the Public Service Rules and the FJSC Regulations.

  • Recall process: Dino Melaye heads for Supreme Court

    •Senator seeks voiding of Appeal Court’s judgment 

    SENATOR Dino Melaye (All Progressives Congress – Kogi West) has lodged an appeal at the Supreme Court against the March 16, judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which affirmed the power of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct a referendum for the purpose of recalling a legislator unhindered.

    Melaye, in a notice of appeal dated April 3, filed by his lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), urged the Supreme Court to among others, set aside the Court of Appeal judgment, which upheld an earlier judgment by Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    INEC had in July last year, on receiving a petition from some registered voters from Melaye’s constituency, requesting his recall on grounds of non-performance, wrote to notify him about the petition and further steps it intended to take.

    On learning about the petition, Melaye filed fundamental rights enforcement suit before the Federal High Court, Abuja, accusing INEC of not affording him fair hearing by not serving him with a copy of the petition to enable him respond.

    Before the suit could be heard, Justice John Tsoho (also of the Federal High Court, Abuja) entertained an ex-parte application from Melaye, and granted it, restraining INEC from taking any further steps in relation to the petition.

    Justice Dimgba, who later heard the substantive suit, dismissed it for being unmeritorious. The judge, in his judgment, held that Melaye’s suit was “hasty, premature and presumptuous”.

    Melaye appealed to the Court of Appeal, which, in a unanimous judgment of a three-man panel on March 16, 2018, dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit.

    Justice Tunde Awotoye, who read the Court of Appeal’s lead judgment, upheld the decision of the Federal High Court and said the trial court ought not to have wasted time hearing Melaye’s suit, but should have struck it out for not disclosing any cause of action.

    It is this decision of the Court of Appeal that Melaye now seeks to challenge at the Supreme Court with his notice of appeal of seven grounds.

     

  • Recall process: Dino Melaye heads for Supreme Court

    …Seeks voiding of Appeal Court’s judgment affirming INEC’s power on recall

     

     

    Senator Dino Melaye (All Progressives Congress – Kogi West) has lodged an appeal at the Supreme Court against the March 16, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which affirmed the power of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct a referendum for the purpose of recalling a legislator unhindered.

    Melaye, in a notice of appeal dated April 3, 2018, filed by his lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), urged the Supreme Court to among others, set aside the Court of Appeal judgment, which upheld an earlier judgment by Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    INEC had in July last year, on receiving a petition from some registered voters from Melaye’s constituency, requesting his recall on grounds of non-performance, wrote to notify him about the petition and further steps it intended to take.

    On learning about the petition, Melaye filed fundamental rights enforcement suit before the Federal High Court, Abuja, accusing INEC of not affording him fair hearing by not serving him with a copy of the petition to enable him respond.

    Before the suit could be heard, Justice John Tsoho (also of the Federal High Court, Abuja) entertained an ex-parte application from Melaye, and granted it, restraining INEC from taking any further steps in relation to the petition.

    Justice Dimgba, who later heard the substantive suit, dismissed it for being unmeritorious. The judge, in his judgment, held that Melaye’s suit was “hasty, premature and presumptuous.”

    Melaye appealed to the Court of Appeal, which, in a unanimous judgment of a three-man panel on March 16, 2018, dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit.

    Justice Tunde Awotoye, who read the Court of Appeal’s lead judgment, upheld the decision of the Federal High Court and said the trial court ought not to have wasted time hearing Melaye’s suit, but should have struck it out for not disclosing any cause of action.

    Justice Awotoye said: “Such statutory bodies like the INEC should be allowed to exercise their statutory powers without interference by the court. The appellant cannot claim that his right of fair hearing was infringed upon. His right to fair hearing has not been violated since INEC, as a statutory body, is not a tribunal neither is it a court of law.

    “The appellant has not disclosed any cause of action and the suit ought to have been struck out by the trial court for not disclosing any cause of action. I agree with the decision of the trial court.

    “Ordinary, it ought to have struck out the suit for non-disclosure of cause of action. This is because where there is no cause of action, the court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit.  Having resolved all the issues in the appeal against the appellant, I hereby struck out the suit and dismiss the appeal,” Justice Awotoye said,

    It is this decision of the Court of Appeal that Melaye now seeks to challenge at the Supreme Court with his notice of appeal of seven grounds.

    As against the finding by the Court of Appeal that INEC was still within time to conduct Melaye’s recall process, the Senator wants the Supreme Court to hold otherwise.

    Melaye wants the Supreme Court to, among others, declare that the statutory 90-day period for INEC to conduct a recall process, provide in Section 69(b) of the Constitution, having elapsed by effluxion of time on September 23, 2017, INEC can no longer validly proceed on the basis of the petition for his recall, presented on June 23, 2017.

    He equally wants an order of perpetual injunction, restraining INEC from commencing or further proceeding with the process of acting on the petition presented to it by his supposed ‎constituents.

    Read Also: INEC to proceed with Melaye’s recall as his appeal fails

  • Akeredolu loses at Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed an appeal by Ondo State Governor, Oluwarotimi Akeredolu for lacking in merit.

    Akeredolu had, by the appeal, challenged a July 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which upheld an order by Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of Federal High Court in Abuja, granting permission to Olusegun Abraham to serve Akeredolu through substituted means, court documents in relation to the suit he (Abraham) filed.

    Abraham’s suit is challenging the outcome of the primary of the All Progressives Congress (APC), which produced Akeredolu as the party’s candidate for the last governorship election in Ondo State.

    In a unanimous judgment on the appeal marked: SC/698?2017, a five-man panel of the Supreme Court held that Akeredolu’s appeal was without merit.

    Akeredolu has however described the court’s decision as a none-issue.

    Justice John Okoro, in the lead judgment, but read by Justice Paul Galinje, upheld the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal and awarded N500,000 cost against Akeredolu, in favour of Abraham.

    Justice Galinje said: “the appellant went to the Federal High Court to challenge serve of originating summons and other process on him. His challenge was dismissed. At the appeal to the Court of Appeal, his appeal was also dismissed.

    ”He further appealed to this place and filed six grounds of appeal and formulated four issues for determination of the appeal. My leaned brother considered all the issues submitted for the determination of this appeal and came to the conclusion that the appeal lacks merit and ought to be dismissed.

    ”The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Cost of N500,000 is awarded against the appellant and against the 1st respondent. “Justices Ibrahim Tanko, Olukayode Ariwoola, Kumai Akaahs and and Galinje, who were also members of the panel, agreed with the lead judgment.

    In a reaction to the judgment, Akeredolu, in a statement by his Chief Press Secretary, Segun Ajiboye, assured the people of the state that there is no cause for alarm over the supreme.

    “At best, the ruling only succeeded in correcting Abraham to serve Akeredolu through substituted means in relation to the suit he (Abraham) filed.

    Governor Akeredolu, therefore, wants to state equivocally that there is no cause for alarm over the ruling delivered by the Supreme Court,” Ajiboye said.

    The governor asks the peace-loving people to dismiss the ruling, adding that it is nothing to worry about and advised them to continue to support his administration in its determination to develop the state.