The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Supreme Court verdict: Fayemi lauds judiciary

    Ekiti State Governor, Dr Kayode Fayemi  has lauded the  judiciary for  its resolve to always uphold the tenet of truth and justice following the Supreme Court’s   dismissal of  the petition against him by ousted governor of Ekiti State, Mr Segun Oni

    Oni  had sought a review of the Court of Appeal ruling on Ekiti State governorship on October 15, 2010, but the Supreme Court in a unanimous judgment ruled that it had no jurisdiction on the matter.

    Fayemi  also thanked all Ekiti people  for their  support  for his administration and for believing  in the sanctity of truth.

    He said Friday’s victory has again confirmed that truth will always prevail no matter the situation and that Ekiti State will no longer  be governed through fraudulent means.

    Governor Fayemi who addressed journalists at the Ekiti State Governor’s Lodge in Abuja shortly after the  judgement of the Supreme Court, said there was no basis for the petition by Oni, adding that his claims were frivolous, baseless and a waste of time.

    Oni, Fayemi said had sought to use the frivolous case , which had spanned over two years, to distract him from actualising the developmental efforts going on in Ekiti State, and to give a false hope to his followers.

    He however said that in spite of the long drawn legal battle, he had refused to be distracted, stressing that this is evident in the  transformation going on in the state and the value that the administration has added to the lives of the average citizens.

    Fayemi said it was high time electoral offenders were punished under the law to serve as a deterrent to others and to clean up the electoral process.

     “Oni and his jesters merely sought to use this case to distract us, but we refused to be distracted. We have remained focused all through concentrating on the development of the state and this is evident in the lives of the people.

    “I think we should also put in place laws that will punish electoral offenders. I believe if Oni had been punished for rigging the 2007 governorship election in Ekiti State, he would not have had the effrontery to approach the court again seeking a backdoor to the governorship seat. It is sad that he rigged the 2007 election and was at the helms of affair of the state illegally for three and a  half years, while I, the winner of the election was in court until the case was eventually decided in my favour in 2010 at the Court of Appeal.

    “If the court having found Oni guilty of  fraudulently occupying the governorship seat of Ekiti State and  had gone ahead to punish him then, we would have been spared  this unnecessary case, which to me only shows how desperate some people can be, ” Fayemi stated

  • Ekiti: Supreme Court dismisses Oni’s suit

    The Supreme Court has struck out an appeal by former Ekiti State governor, Segun Oni against the election of Governor Kayode Fayemi.

    In a unanimous decision by a 7-man panel delivered in Abuja on Friday, the court said it lacks jurisdiction.

    Justice Sylvester Ngwuta read the lead judgement to which others agreed.

     

     

  • Ondo guber poll: Supreme Court dismisses Oke’s appeal

    Ondo guber poll: Supreme Court dismisses Oke’s appeal

    The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the Peoples Democratic Party’s candidate in the last governorship election in Ondo State, Olusola Oke.

    The court, in a judgment, held that the appeal was without merit and upheld the earlier decisions on the issue by the election petition tribunal and the Court of Appeal, Akure.

    Oke had challenged the outcome of the election, which returned the Labour Party candidate, Olusegun Mimiko, as duly elected governor of the state.

    But after the close of pleadings (after parties had filed their relevant papers), Oke applied to be allowed to include additional evidence.

    In his motion dated January 16, Oke argued that the evidence which were just released to it by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), were not in his custody when he filed the petition.

    The PDP candidate also argued that the evidence would enable the tribunal reach fair and just decision in the case.

    In a ruling on February 4 the tribunal refused the motion on the ground that it sought to amend the substantive petition and introduce fresh facts.

    The Court of Appeal, Akure, to which Oke later appealed, upheld the decision of the tribunal, to the effect that “any amendment to the petition would, in the circumstance, be substantial as to overreach the respondent.”

    Dissatisfied, Oke took his case to the Supreme Court.

    Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, in the lead judgment, held that Oke’s motion offended the provision of Paragraph 14(2)(a) and (b) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010.

    He held the provision prohibits an election tribunal from allowing any form of amendment after the expiration of the period within which to present an election petition.

     

  • Supreme Court quashes conviction of four

    The Supreme Court has quashed the conviction and sentence of four people by Senior Magistrate B. O. Quadri of the Magistrate’s Court 4 Ibadan, Oyo State, because the proceedings were wrongly conducted.

    Monsurat Lawal, Kazeem Alimi, Saidi Bello and Akeem Lawal were in 1998 arraigned before Magistrate Quadri, charged with conspiracy, malicious damages and causing grievous bodily harm.

    Trial was conducted and on June 14, 1999 when parties were to adopt their final written addresses, the first accused person, Monsurat was absent in court. Despite her absence, parties’ addresses were adopted. A similar occurrence was recorded on April 18, 2000 when the court’s judgment was delivered. Even when it was about 10 months after parties’ final addresses were adopted and the third accused person, Saidi was absent in court, the magistrate proceeded to deliver his judgment.

    He refused to indicate the third accused person’s absence in the court’s record, but recorded him as pleading with the court to be lenient with him. The magistrate found the accused persons guilty, convicted and sentenced them.

    Dissatisfied, the four appealed to the state High Court. They faulted the proceedings leading to their conviction and applied for an order of certiorari to quash the sentence and conviction.

    Their lawyer, Seni Adio of the firm of Copley Partners, particularly faulted the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence on the grounds that the trial magistrate conducted trial on two occasions when two of them were absent in court; that he delivered judgment 10 months after parties adopted their final addresses and that he misrepresented proceedings when he did not only failed to record the third accused person’s absence on April 18, 2000 but instead recorded that he pleaded for leniency (even when he was absent).

    In a ruling, the High Court refused the application by the convicted four, faulting the procedure they adopted.

    The court held that they ought to have appealed the judgment of the Magistrate Court and applied that the judgment be set aside rather than applying for a judicial review of the proceedings and an order of certiorari to quash the decision.

    Not satisfied, the four appealed to the Court of Appeal, Ibadan with the same argument and similar application. In its judgment on July 1 2003, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court.

    This development prompted their appeal to the Supreme Court in the appeal marked: SC.80/2004. The appellants maintained their arguments and sought similar reliefs.

    Adio particularly submitted that his clients’ resort to seeking an order of certiorari was informed by their belief that the trial Magistrate breached their right of natural justice with the way he conducted their trial, and that the errors he committed on the face of the court’s record showed denial of fair hearing and likelihood of bias under Section 36 and 294 of the Constitution.

    In its judgment on February 15 this year (a copy of which was obtained by The Nation last week) the apex court upheld the appeal by the convicted four and resolved all issues in their favour. The court upturned the decision by the Oyo State High Court, which the Court of Appeal, Ibadan upheld.

    Justice Mahmud Mohammed, in the lead judgment, held that the Magistrate Quadri was in error to have proceeded to conduct proceedings on June 14 when the first accused person was absent, the case being a joint trial.

    “The law is trite that addresses by parties or thier counsel are integral part of the hearing or trial of the accused person.

    “Proceeding with the trial of the accused persons in the absence of one of them therefore, had constituted a serious breach of the Criminal Procedure Law of Oyo State, which requires the presence of an accused person in court throughout his trial in the absence of any necessary allowable reasons in law to keep him out of the court for public safety,” Justice Mohammed held.

    He also faulted Magistrate Quadri’s decision to deliver judgment on April 18 in the absence of the third accused person, without reflecting his absence in the court’s record, but recorded him as pleading for leniency.

    “Certainly, for the first respondent (Magistrate Quadri) to attribute a plea of leniency to the third accused person, who was absent in court on the day the judgment ws delivered, may call to question the status of the proceedings of a court of law.

    “In other words, by refusing to record the absence of the third accused person, but recording what the absent third accused person did not say in court that day had, in my view, constituted a serious error of law on the face of the record of that inferior court to justify the removal of the entire proceedings of that court to the High Court by certiorari order to be quashed as sought by the appellants,” Justice Mohammed also held.

    He further held that it was part of the essential principle of the nation’s Criminal Law and Practice, that the trial of an accused person (including judgment and sentence) for an offence has to be conducted in the presence of the accused person, except when he/she constitutes danger to public safety.

    Justice Mohammed upheld Adio’s submission in relation to the errors contained on the trial Magistrate Court’s record and held that the appellants had made sufficient case for the granting of the order of certiorari quashing the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence.

    He held that in granting an aplication for an order of certiorari, what is relevant is the existence of “lack of or excess of jurisdiction or, breach of the rule of natural justice and errors of law on the face of the record,” as aptly pointed out in this case by the appellants. He consequently allowed the appeal and granted the appellants’ prayers.

    “The ruling of the High Court of Oyo State dismissing appellants’ application, which was affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeal, Ibadan in its judgment of July1, 2003 is hereby set aside and replaced with an order granting the order of certiorari and quashing the proceedings of the trial of the appellants, including the judgment of the first respondent (Senior Magistrate Magistrate Quadri) in suit No. MI/944C/98,” Justice Mohammed held.

    Other members of the five-man panel that heard the appeal – Justices Muhammed Muntaka-Coomassie, Suleiman Galadima, Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta and Stanley Shenko Alagoa- agreed with the lead judgment.

  • Supreme Court fixes July 12 for judgment in case by ex-NLNG staff

    The Supreme Court has fixed July 12 for judgment in an appeal by 15 ex-workers of the Nigerian Liquefied Natural Gas Limited (NLNG).

    A five-man panel of justices of the court, led by Justice Walter Onnoghen, chose the date after entertaining arguments from parties.

    The plaintiffs, who were em-ployed as security officers by NLNG, particularly, want the court to determine whether it was proper for their former employer to summarily terminate their employment without recourse to due process of law.

    They told the court that though the High Court of Rivers State had on December 7, 2005, ordered their immediate reinstatement, the company had since refused to either comply with the judgment or pay their entitlements.

    The High Court had issued “an order directing the first defendant, its servants and officials to pay to the plaintiffs their accrued entitlements in the sums respectively computed in favour of each plaintiff.”

    NLNG, represented by Seyi Sowemimo (SAN) had contended that the appellants, being Supernumerary Police Officers (SPOs), the plaintiffs ought to approach the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) for their entitlements, a position the trial court upheld in its judgment.

    Dissatisfied, the 15 SPOs went before the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt. The appellate court, on March 5, 2009 gave its decision and held that the appellants were SPOs who, by virtue of the police Act, are members of the NPF.

    The court, however, noted that pursuant to the provisions of Section 18(4) of the Police Act, the first  respondent (NLNG), having availed itself of the services of the appellants as SPOs, has the legal duty to comply with the said section of the Police Act.

    Yet unsatisfied, the SPOs headed for the Supreme Court, urging it to decide whether, on a proper application of the law to the evidence before the court of appeal, the court was right when it held that they were   SPOs and members of the NPF.

    Arguing the appellants’ brief, their lawyer, Ledu Mitee told the apex court that the plaintiffs were recruited in batches from the year 2000 by the NLNG “whom they undoubtedly worked for and not by the NPF as alleged and contended by the respondents.

    “The Police Act, Cap. P19, 2004, clearly stipulated the procedure for the recruitment of SPOs otherwise called Supernumerary Constables and that procedure was not applied nor was shown by the respondents to have been applied in the appellants’ recruitment.

    “The appellants herein were not serving police officers as at 2000 when they were recruited, but persons of varied background including retired police, naval and army personnel, amongst others.

    “We, therefore, submit that there having not been compliance with the provisions of Section 18 (1) (2) of the Police Act in the recruitment of the appellants, the judgment of the lower court that the appellants are SPOs and members of the NPF be reversed and verdict entered that the appellants are employees of the first  respondent (NLNG) who, recruited them and for whom they undoubtedly worked,”Mitee argued.

    Sowemimo and lawyer to the second respondent (the Commissioner of Police, Rivers State, Mrs. M.C Iroegbu, opposed the appellant’s argument and urged the apex court to dismiss the appeal as grossly lacking in merit.

  • Supreme Court strikes out motions on monarch’s case

    The Supreme Court has struck out two applications by Chief O. Amachree seeking to stay the execution of a judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State capital.

    Amachree brought the applications to stay the judgment which nullified the installation of the Amanyanabo of Kalabari, Prof. T. Princewill.

    The applications were filed on October 19, last year and on February 12. Both were struck out with an award of N50,000 each to the first respondent.

    The panel which heard the case comprised Justices Walter Omoghen, Muhammad Saifullah Munkaka Coomassie, Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta, Olukayode Ariwoola and Musa Dattijo Muhammad.

    The ruling was delivered by Omoghen.

    Chief MacDonald Abbi, for himself and the King Abbi Royal House, who are the king makers of the Kalabari Kingdom in Buguma, Rivers State, had approached the appellate court to set aside the decision of Justice J.M. Kobani of the Rivers State High Court, delivered on December 19, 2005.

    The court refused to grant the order to return the parties to status quo as at March 29, 2000 when the suit against the coronation of a new Amanyanabo was instituted.

    On July 31, 2000, Justice A. Wodu restrained all parties in contest of the stool of the Amanyanabo from taking any step as regards the installation without the consent and participation of all the parties in the suit.

    Others who consent must be obtained, the court held, were all the chiefs of Abbi Royal House, Council of Chiefs, the Karibo Group of Houses, the Buguma Council of Chiefs and the Kalabari National Assembly or any other affected body or bodies.

    But the order was allegedly violated, as the installation took place.

    Following Justice Kobani refusal to restore the parties to the status quo as at March 29, 2000, Abbi appealed at the Court of Appeal, seeking to restore the status quo.

    The appellant also sought to set aside the ruling of Justice Kobani of the trial court which reversed the restraining order made by Justice Wodu.

    The Court of Appeal held in its verdict: “The lone issue canvassed by the appellant (Abbi), is hereby resolved in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. The appeal is hereby allowed.

    “The ruling, including the orders therein, made on 19th December, 2005 are hereby set aside.

    “The appellant made out a case for restorative or mandatory injunction sought. The order made on July 31, 2000 remains extant.

    “The purported installation and recognition of the first defendant/respondent (Chief Prof. Princewill) are consequently set aside.”

    The Appeal Court thereafter ordered the Chief Judge of Rivers State to ensure accelerated hearing of the suit pending at the High Court “by a judge other than Justice J.M. Kobani.”

    The court also awarded N60,000 cost in favour of the appellant (Abbi).

    Following the death of the immediate past Amanyanabo of Kalabari, late King Obaye Abbiyesuku Amachree (X), who died on June 7, 1998, the Throne became vacant.

    Under the Kalabari native law and customs, the five contestants are all eligible to contest for the throne of the Amanyanabo of Kalabari Kingdom which is now being occupied by Chief Princewill.

    The King of Amanyanabo of Kalabara is a 400 years-old dynasty. It was one of the eight first-class chiefs recognised by the colonial administration in the old Eastern Region of Nigeria.

     

  • Odinga challenges election results in Supreme Court

    Odinga challenges election results in Supreme Court

    Kenya’s defeated presidential contender Raila Odinga filed a legal challenge to his election loss on Saturday in a major test of the country’s democracy five years after a disputed vote triggered deadly tribal violence.

    Shortly before, police outside the Supreme Court used teargas to break up a rally of around 100 Odinga supporters, who were urged by the outgoing prime minister to stay calm and trust in the law to resolve his complaint.

    BBC reports that Odinga’s petition threatens to extend the period of uncertainty shadowing east Africa’s largest economy.

    The outgoing prime minister refuses to accept the slim first-round election win by Uhuru Kenyatta, who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court over the 2007 bloodletting in which more than 1,200 people were killed.

    The March 4 vote was largely peaceful by contrast, and Kenyatta declared it “free and fair” in his acceptance speech last Saturday, though he added that the electoral process could be made more refined and efficient in the future.

     

  • Airhiavbere can’t challenge Oshiomhole’s qualification – Supreme Court

    Airhiavbere can’t challenge Oshiomhole’s qualification – Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court on Friday barred the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate, Charles Airhiavbere from challenging the educational qualification of Edo State Governor, Adams Oshiomhole.

    Delivering judgment in an appeal by Oshimohole, the apex court set aside part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Benin, which ordered fresh hearing of Airhiavbere’s petition.

    The appellate court had allowed Airhiavbere to include in his notice of appeal-ground to challenge Oshiomhole’s educational qualification.

    This was against the ruling of the tribunal which ruled that the ground was not contained in Airhiavbere’s petition. Dissatisfied, Oshiomhole through his legal team of Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Ricky Tarfa (SAN), Niyi Akintola (SAN), Femi Falana (SAN), Mike Ozekhome (SAN) and Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN) approached the Supreme Court.

    Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour, who delivered the judgment, said the trial tribunal was right in stopping Airhiavbere.

    The Justice said, “The issue of non-qualification is not clearly before the court. It amount to injustice for court to look for other ground for the petitioner.

    “The tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the non-qualification since it is not contained in the ground of appeal.”

    The apex court, however, said Airhiavbere could still challenge the validity of the election in 51 units in five Local Governments.

    Justices Mahumd Mohammed, John Fabiyi, Mary Peter-Odili, Clara Bata Ogunbiyi, Bayang Akaahs and Stanley Allagoa agreed with the judgment.

    Adopting his written address, Olanipekun had told the apex court that the Airhiavbere lost the opportunity to challenge Oshiomhole’s qualification because it is not contained in his ground of petition.

    Since he did not specifically plead the issue, Olanipekun said the apex court should not allow Airhiavbere to ambush his client by raising the issue in his argument.

  • Supreme Court, NBA, Aregbesola honour Eso at valedictory session

    Supreme Court, NBA, Aregbesola honour Eso at valedictory session

    There were encomiums galore for the late Justice Kayode

    Eso at the valedictory session organized by the Supreme Court yesterday in Abuja.

    Appointed to the apex court in 1978, Eso retired at the age of 65 in 1990.

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Aloma Mariam Mukhtar, said Eso “symbolizes the characteristics of a thorough-bred Nigerian with the capacity to reside in any part of the country freely and contributing immensely to the development of any community he found himself.

    She recalled that various committees chaired by Eso at different times recommended the establishment of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    Mukhtar described him as a “perfect and very principled gentleman, a legal icon of international repute whose legal and judicial sojourn on earth has left an enduring footprints in the Nigerian Judiciary.

    “No doubt Justice Kayode Eso contributed immensely to the development of the Nigerian judiciary , the country and indeed the whole world. It is my firm belief that be judicial colossus has gone to rest with the lord and the saints that have in the past transited beyond”, she added.

    The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Adoke (SAN), said Eso was an amiable gentleman of remarkable achievements, a statesman and great jurist.

    “ By dint of hard work, courage, characteristic candour, commitment and selflessness, he impacted positively on our individual lives, the profession and the nation.

    According to the Nigerian BarAssociation (NBA) President Okey Wali, SAN, Eso delivered a total of 463 judgments, 390 of which were concurring judgments, 69 lead judgments and four dissenting judgments.

    He said: “Eso epitomised the golden era of the Nigerian judiciary”, adding that he was an “apostle of true federalism”.

    At the event were Osun Governor Rauf Aregbesola; former CJNs-Lawal Uwais, Salihu Belgore and Dahiru Musdapher; retired Justice Kalgo, Justice Gabriel Kolawole and Chief Bode George.

    Others included former NBA spokesman, Muritala Rasheed, Alhaji Tajudeen Oladoja, Niyi Akintola (SAN), Damian Dodo (SAN), Chief G.O.K. Ajayi (SAN), Prof. Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN), Gboyega Awomolo (SAN) and Ade Okeya-Inneh (SAN), among others.