The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme

  • Kogi Utd 2-0 Supreme Court: It was hard earned victory, says Biffo

    Kogi Utd 2-0 Supreme Court: It was hard earned victory, says Biffo

    Head Coach of Nigeria National League side, Kogi United FC, Abdullahi Biffo has praised his players’ performance for their 2-0 victory over Supreme Court FC in their Week 20 encounter at the Confluence Stadium, Lokoja on Saturday.

    Biffo informed SportingLife that his team could not play at their very best due to fatigue they suffered in their away trip to Sokoto mid week.

    A goal in each half from Sanusi Pedro and Aminu Abdulkadir made it a losing return for Osho, who was asked to step aside as the Head Coach of Wada Boys in mid-season, now in charge of visiting Supreme Court.

    “I didn’t attach too much importance to this match until the blast of the whistle, you know we just returned from a 14 hour journey on Thursday, and that was telling on us today; we could have done better, but I also like to praise the Supreme Court boys, they really pressed us, challenged us all through, we promise our next game(against DSS) will be better as we will have time to rest and prepare,” said Biffo.

    Former Head Coach of Kogi United, Fatai Osho also showered praises on his former club despite his new club’s loss to the Wada Boys.

    Osho, who said his boys’ display was satisfactory having come together within just three weeks, noted that Kogi United will always remain in his heart.

    “It was a fantastic game, I can’t expect anything less from Kogi United, this is a team that is destined and deserved to be at the top, I congratulate the boys of Kogi United, it will always remain in my heart as I enjoyed my stint here, but I also commend my boys for at least holding Kogi United to this extent, this is just a three week old team, we are building a new Supreme Court, and I hope we will get it right,” Osho said.

    Chairman of the Confluence State club, Abdul Adama said the players really showed their former handler how improved they are as he remained coy on the club’s promotion ambition.

    Adama, however, called on the supporters and fans of Kogi United to continue with their support for the club as each game will be dealt with as they come.

    Kogi United have garnered 31 points from 19 games and will next host DSS FC on Saturday in Lokoja.

  • Jide Aladajobi vs NBA: A critique of Supreme Court’s decision

    On July 12, this year, the Supreme Court of Nigeria, in the case of Jide Aladejobi vs The Nigerian Bar Association, unreported judgment in Appeal No SC/121/2011, held that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear appeals from the decisions and or directions of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee hereinafter called LPDC of the Body of Benchers.

    In the lead judgment delivered by his lordship Hon Justice John Afolabi Fabiyi, JSC, the Court held that appeals from the directions of LPDC of the Body of Benchers should go to the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers said to have been created by section 11(7) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1990 as amended.

    Their lordships of the Supreme Court made up of Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, John Afolabi Fabiyi, Suleiman Galadima, Musa Datijo Muhammad and Stanley Shenko Alagoa JJSC, reasoned quite erroneously with respect, that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the appellant, Mr Jide Aladejobi, whose name was ordered to be struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria.

    In the lead judgment, Fabiyi, JSC, held: if it is the fact that there is presently no Appeal Committee of the august body on ground, such lacuna should be remedied without any undue delay so as to enable the appellant take necessary action deem fit as dictated by law before the Appeal Committee of Body of Benchers. If I may suggest it should be a standing committee like the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee. I dare say it that the time for same is now in my humbly view.

    It held that the decision of the Supreme Court in Okike vs LPDC (2005) 15 NWLR (pt.949) 471, was given per incuriam and that in the face of the applicable law it discussed, the Okike decision cannot stand the test of time. Was the Supreme Court right in its decision in Jide Aladejobi vs NBA on the points raised and decided by it? Is the decision in Okike vs LPDC (supra) given per incuriam. Was the Supreme Court Properly guided or did it properly guide itself in the Aladejobi’s case. My view on the above issues is in the negative.

    The Supreme Court decided Aladejobi’s case per incuriam in the face of its decision in Okike vs LPDC (2005) 3-4 SC 49. In the Okike vs LPDC (No1) supra, decided on April 1, 2005 and reported in the Judgment of Supreme Court (SC) which is different from Okike vs LPDC (No2) (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt.949) 471 decided on July 15, 2005, the Supreme Court on October 15, 2004, coram: Kutigi, Uwaifo, Musdapher, Pat-Acholonu and Akintan JJSC, as they then were, suo motu raised the constitutional point of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear appeals from the decisions/directions of LPDC. Full court was constituted to decide this point.

    The full court was then led by Uwais CJN as then was. Other members of the panel were, Belgore, Kutigi,Ejiwunmi, Musdapher, Pat-Acholonu and Akintan JJSC as they then were. Arguments were canvassed and the supreme on July 15, 2005 held that it has jurisdiction to hear appeals from the directions of LPDC.

    In the lead ruling of Uwais CJN as he then was at page 67 of the report his lordship held that: This court does not readily oust its jurisdiction. In principle, it jealously protects its jurisdiction. It follows from the foregoing that this court amply has jurisdiction to hear the present appeal from the Disciplinary Committee. I therefore, so hold. Accordingly, the appeal in this case is fixed for hearing on April 28, 2005.

    It is that appeal that was heard that is reported in (2005) 15 NWLR (pt,949) and it is known as Okike vs LPDC No 2. See Ndukwe vs LPDC (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt.1026) 1 at 32 para H. It was a unanimous decision of the full court of seven Justices of that court. That decision is fully reported. With respect the learned counsel who appeared and argued the case of Aladejobi did not properly guide the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme also did not guide itself properly. If the court had adverted its mind to its decision of full court delivered on April 1, 2005, as it ought to, it could not have come to the view it held in Aladejobi’s case. Perhaps it is necessary to stress here that both the Supreme Court and learned counsel that appeared in this Aladejobi case did not appreciate the fact that the law that created the Appeal Committee of Body of Benchers has been repealed by Decree No 21 of 1994. See Okike vs LPDC No1 and in particular the lead ruling of Uwais CJN as he then was at pages 61-62 thereof.

    It is submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court was clearly per incuriam in the face of the decision of the same Supreme Court which was of the full court and which was neither referred to nor over ruled in Aladejobi case.

    The Supreme Court is, therefore, most humbly requested to correct itself and overrule its decision of July 12, this year as it was not properly guided in the light of the prevailing laws and its own decision which it ought to take judicial notice of.

     

  • BFIG slams $2.8b suit on RUSSAL over Supreme Court judgment

    BFIG slams $2.8b suit on RUSSAL over Supreme Court judgment

    BFIGroup Corporation,the Nigerian-American Consortium, has started the enforcement of the Supreme Court order with a $2.8 billion suit against RUSSAL and Dayson Holden Limited at the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    The law suit was instituted by the firm following government’s inability to kick RUSSAL out of the Aluminum Smelter Company of Nigeria (ALSCON) after the Supreme Court judgment last year.

    The President of DFIG Group, Dr Reuben Jaja, told The Nation that his firm was fed up with RUSSAL’s contempt for the Supreme Court judgment, and as such, “will challenge anybody not willing to obey the judgment of the Supreme Court and will ensure that the judgment is obeyed and enforced.”

    As part of the ligation, BFIG had sought and secured a court order in the country, to serve RUSSAL with the suit by mail, and on January 31, this year, it was served on RUSSAL accordingly.

    Jaja said: “They have received it, the case has been scheduled for March 25, 2013, adding  that BFIG was prepared to fight a battle with RUSSAL. “This case is for the pain and insult inflicted on the Nigerian  body by RUSSAL.”

    He said the group has “already notified the police, demanding enforcement and expects the signed copy of the Share Purchase Agreement  (SPA) from the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) in five days. Thereafter, we will commence enforcement by using enforcement infrastructure.”

    Jaja said the suit started in the United States against RUSSAL, “for interference in contractual relations, in our prospective business advantage in ALSCON, conspiracy to defraud us and unfair competition,” stating that BFIG was further angered when RUSSAL questioned the list of those to visit the plant after the Supreme Court judgment vacated their hold on ALSCON, and Nigerian government could not do anything about it.

    He insisted that the Federal Government “was supposed to step in the next day after the Supreme Court judgement to boot them out and institute an interim management.”

    To ensure that the case is quickly dispensed with, Jaja said: “The $2.8 billion is now a contingent liability on the balance sheet of ALSCON/RUSSAL, and nobody, especially bankers will deal with them with such a liability, until the case is resolved. It is a slam dunk case.”

    He said BFIG is not blackmailing or challenging the government, but is interested in executing the Supreme Court order which handed ALSCON over to it. He was angry that RUSSAL, “is still there managing the plant, and the government has not stepped in to ask them to leave.”

    Jaja disclosed that the BFIG has delivered a mutually agreed SPA to BPE, which was validated by the court, lamenting, however, that the group has asked the BPE for a meeting on the discrepancies in the SPA, on February 8, 2013, but that the BPE declined.

     

     

  • Supreme Court cautions ‘UNILORIN 49’ on excessive demands

    The Supreme Court yesterday cautioned the reinstated lecturers of the University of Ilorin (UNILORIN), Kwara State, to stop demanding excessively from the institution.

    The lecturers, popularly called the ‘UNILORIN 49’, were sacked in February 2001 for participating in a nationwide strike embarked upon by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU).

    But the apex court on December 11, 2009 reinstated them and asked UNILORIN to pay them their salaries and allowances.

    The institution returned to the Supreme Court yesterday to complain that the lecturers had obtained a Federal High Court order to withhold about N302 million in its First Bank account, based on a purported order.

    The lecturers are demanding that the institution should monetise their annual leave for the over eight years they were at home.

    They are also asking for sabbatical allowance, though they were not at work while a few of them were already engaged by other institutions.

    They also want the institution to return about N200 million deducted at source from their monies and paid as reward to the institutions that had engaged them before they were reinstated.

    The UNILORIN’s counsel, Mallam Yusuf Alli (SAN), urged the apex court to clarify its judgment whether it covered the spurious demands made by the lecturers.

    Reacting yesterday, the panel chaired by Justice Mahmud Mohammed expressed concern that the lecturers were interpreting the judgment of the court to justify their excessive demands.

    Justice John Fabiyi, who gave the lead judgment in the case, was also on the panel yesterday.

    The judge, who was angry that his judgment was being misused by the lecturers to make things difficult for the institution, advised the lecturers to stop embarrassing the institution.

    Justice Fabiyi said: “Which sabbatical? Which order of this court says you should go on sabbatical? Sabbatical when you were not around for eight years. Is it moral for you to be asking for all these?

    “You are embarking on an illegality. It is not your business to ask for money which your clients were not entitled to.

    “Your clients must abide by the law. You don’t take instructions blindly. I was in the matter. What you are doing is immoral.

    “I owe you a duty to tell you in blunt terms. You are not entitled to those things you are asking for. Go and advise your client and stop embarrassing the university.”

    Justice Mohammed, who said it was not necessary for the court to interpret the judgment, enjoined the lecturers’ counsel, Toyin Oladipo, not to take steps that would embarrass the judiciary.

    He said the judgment of the court was for the payment of the lecturers’ salaries and allowances.

    He told Oladipo to advise his clients that what they were asking for were not included in the judgment.

    In the judgment delivered by Justice Fabiyi on December 11, 2009, the apex court held that “the learned justices of the court below were wrong in finding that that issue estoppels availed the respondents. Such a conclusion was wrong.

    “If the doctrine of stare decisis was followed by the learned majority justices, all forms of furore would have been averted. In conclusion, I find that this appeal is no doubt meritorious. It is hereby allowed. The decision of the majority justices of the court below is hereby set aside. In its place, the judgment of the trial judge is restored to the effect that the living 41 appellants are hereby reinstated and should be paid their salaries and allowances from February 2001.”

    On the fate of the three lecturers that died while the matter was still in court, Justice Fabiyi said: “For the appellants who died during the protracted litigation, may their souls rest in perfect peace. It has been written of old that it is appointed unto a man once to die, but after this the judgment. In their graves, they must be crying for justice. An incidental order is clearly warranted.”

    He went on: “See Nnaji vs. Chukwu (1988), 3 Nigeria Weekly Law Report (NWLR) (pt.78) 184 at 208. They are deemed to have passed on while in service. Their salaries and allowances should cease on their respective dates of death.”

    The Supreme Court awarded N50,000 as cost against the respondents, N10,000 at the appeal court and N5,000 at the trial court.