Tag: Court

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the final forfeiture of N150 million linked to a member of House of Representatives, Rep Nicholas Mutu, to the Federal Government.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik granted the order on Thursday while delivering a ruling on a motion for final forfeiture moved by counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ekele Iheanacho, SAN.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the application was brought pursuant to Section 44(2) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006.

The court had earlier granted an interim order and also directed the publication of the order in a national newspaper.

Iheanacho told Justice Abdulmalik that the anti-graft agency had complied with the order of court by publishing the interim forfeiture order in a national daily.

The senior lawyer said after the publication was made, no sufficient cause was shown why the funds under the interim forfeiture should not be finally forfeited to the Federal Government.

After considering the application, the objections, and various affidavits filed by counsel to Mutu and his company, Airworld Technologies Ltd, the judge held that the commission’s motion had merit.

She, thereafter, ordered the final forfeiture of the said funds to the Federal Government of Nigeria.

The EFCC had presented the findings of its investigation to the court which revealed that Mutu, who represents Bomadi/Patani Federal Constituency of Delta, had agreed and received as kickbacks totalling the sum of N400, 159, 689.63.

The fund was said to have been received from a Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) consultant (Starline Consultancy Services), while serving as the House of Representatives chairman on NDDC.

The funds were said to have been received and laundered through the Heritage Bank accounts of the lawmaker’s companies; Airworld Technologies Ltd and Oyien Homes Ltd.

According to EFCC, Mutu, a six-term member of the lower house, is not just a director in these companies, he maintains the highest shares in the companies while the other sharesholders and directors are his wife and members of his immediate family.

The NDDC consultant had approached Mutu’s committee to assist them recover debts owed by oil and gas companies operating in the Niger Delta region.

The consultant had sought the assistance of the House committee to use its powers to compel the oil and gas companies to pay up their debts.

Following the intervention of Mutu’s committee, in this regard, the oil and gas companies were invited to the House where the consultant were able to meet with them and reconciled figures.

The committee issued payment demands notices to the companies and eventually, over N100 billion, was recovered for NDDC.

While the consultant received their fees, Mutu’s companies received part of the funds.

While the EFCC’s investigation was ongoing, the lawmaker was alleged to have procured the NDDC consulatnt to issue a subcontract letter to his company Airworld Technology Ltd so as to cover up the kickback payments he received.

The commission said this was done to deceive the investigation and pervert the course of justice.

During the investigation, Mutu was said to have returned the sum of N150 million but later claimed he did not do so voluntarily.

He was said to have claimed that the funds received by his companies were based on lawful transactions relying on sub-contract documents.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Abdulmalik found that the said N150 million refunded by Mutu constituted proceeds of unlawful activities.

The judge, consequently, ordered that the money be finally forfeited to the Federal Government.

NAN recalls that Justice Folashade Giwa-Ogunbanjo of a sister court had, recently in a money laundering charge preferred against Mutu and his company, discharged and acquitted the defendants of all the counts.

The EFCC had, however, appealed against the judgment by Justice Giwa-Ogunbanjo.

 

The Federal High Court, Abuja has awarded N200 million against the Nigeria Police Force over the unlawful killing of Mallam Kabiru Babai.

The suit was filed by Mr Bernard Okpi on behalf of the Muslim Community of Gwarimpa Estate, Abuja.

Delivering judgment on Thursday, Justice Peter Lifu held that the applicant proved her case on the preponderance of affidavit evidence.

“The fundamental right to life of the applicant’s husband was unlawfully violated by the conduct of the 4th respondent,” the judge held.

Justice Lifu said the declaratory reliefs were founded on the constitutional violation and succeeded.

He added that the applicant was entitled to compensatory damages for the unlawful deprivation of her husband’s life.

“The gravity of the violation and its devastating consequences on the widow and children must be taken into account,” he said.

However, the court refused the relief seeking to compel the attorney-general to institute criminal proceedings against Sgt. Moses Samuel.

The court subsequently declared the killing unlawful and an infringement on Babai’s constitutional right to life.

It also ordered the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents to commence prosecution of Samuel.

The court awarded N200 million against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents as compensation and exemplary damages.

“The judgment is so entered,” Justice Lifu ruled.

The News Agency of Nigeria, (NAN) reports that Babai was allegedly killed on Dec. 3, 2021, by Sgt. Moses Samuel of the Police Command in Osun.

The deceased was a truck driver, Imam, philanthropist and family breadwinner before his death.

According to court documents, Babai and others were travelling when their truck developed a mechanical fault at Ota-Efun, Osogbo in Osun.

While Babai was under the truck fixing it, police officers reportedly arrived in a minibus and engaged the driver in an argument.

During the incident, one officer allegedly shot the co-driver, Harisu Musa, in the hand.

Babai reportedly came out from under the truck and questioned why the driver was shot.

Court records showed that an officer hit Babai with a shovel and kicked him repeatedly.

It added that Sgt. Moses Samuel struck Babai with the butt of his gun and shot him in the chest.

“The bullet penetrated his heart and he died on the spot,” the court heard.

The officers reportedly fled, but bystanders apprehended one of them and took him, alongside Babai’s body, to the police command.

Babai’s remains were later moved from the Osun Police Command to the morgue at UNIOSUN Teaching Hospital, Osogbo and was later taken to Bauchi State for burial.

Although police indicted Samuel for murder, he was not prosecuted and no support was offered to Babai’s family.

Okpi filed suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1292/2022 on Aug. 3, 2022, in the name of Babai’s widow, Balkisu Kabiru- Babai.

The respondents were the Police Service Commission, Inspector-General of Police, Commissioner of Police, Osun State, Samuel, and the Attorney-General of the Federation.

The applicant sought declarations that the killing was unlawful and violated Babai’s fundamental right to life.

She also sought an order compelling the prosecution of Samuel and N2 billion as compensation and exemplary damages.

The Attorney-General filed a preliminary objection, challenging the court’s jurisdiction and his inclusion as a party.

He argued that the Federal High Court, Abuja, was not the proper place for the case.

The attorney-general also maintained that the police remained the appropriate authority to prosecute Samuel.

Okpi opposed the objection, urging the court to dismiss it and argued that the AGF relied on the Federal High Court Rules instead of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules.

He also cited Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution, which empowered the AGF to institute and undertake criminal proceedings.

The Inspector-General of Police and the Commissioner of Police, Osun Command, also filed a counter affidavit.

They argued that they could not be held liable for acts allegedly committed outside the scope of Samuel’s duty.

Okpi disagreed, insisting that Samuel acted while on official duty with other officers.

 

The Federal High Court (FHC) has issued (Pre-Election) Practice Directions, 2026, for a fair, impartial and expeditious determination of pre-election cases across the country.

The new practice direction was issued by the Chief Judge (CJ), Justice John Tsoho.

This is in exercise of the powers conferred on him by virtue of Sections 254, 285 (9), (10) and (14) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Sections 29 (5) and 88 (2) of the Electoral Act, 2026 and all other powers enabling him to that regard.

The FHC’s Director of Information, Dr. Catherine-Oby Christopher, made this known in a statement on Tuesday in Abuja.

She said the practice directions is also aimed at ensuring that in all election matters, the parties focus on matters which are genuinely in issue.

She said it would minimise the time spent in dealing with interlocutory matters; ensure that the possibility of amicable settlement is explored before the parties go into hearing and minimise undue adjournments and delays in the conduct of matters.

The director said this was in line with the constitution, the Electoral Act, 2026, and other applicable laws.

“The Federal High Court of Nigeria hereby notifies members of the Bar, political parties, litigants and the general public that the Honourable the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Hon. Justice John Terhemba Tsoho, OFR, has issued the Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Practice Directions, 2026.

“It is instructive that the current Practice Directions has repealed the 2022 version,” the statement said.

According to a copy of the (Pre-Election) Practice Directions, 2026 attached to the statement, the provisions of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 shall apply to any issue not provided for in this Practice Directions.

“The court, in every pre-election matter before it, shall pay particular attention to the provisions of Sections 29 (5) (6) (7), 83 (5) & (6), 88 (1 4) of the Electoral Act, 2026 and Section 285 (14) (C) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)

“A party challenging the conduct or outcome of a primary election shall join as respondents in the suit, all the relevant parties to enable the court to effectively determine the dispute,” it said.

It said In cognizance of pre-election cases being time sensitive in nature, the registry of court in all the judicial divisions shall be open on Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays, between the hours of 10am and 2pm exclusively for the filing of pre-election matters.

“Every pre-election matter shall be commenced by an Originating Summons as specified in Forms 3, 4 and 5 of Appendix 6 to the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, with such variations as circumstances may require.

“PROVIDED however, that where a party alleges fraud, forgery or highly contentious facts in a pre-election matter, the parties shall in addition to or in lieu of affidavits, set out the particulars of such alleged facts; which shall be examined by way of calling of witnesses viva voce or receiving of documents in evidence.

“The parties and the court shall be entitled to summon any person to attend, to produce documents before it, or to be examined or cross examined before it in like manner at the hearing of the suit,” it said

To ensure speedy dispensation of justice, it said an electronic mail and other electronic means may be employed by the court in order to inform counsel of urgent court and case events.

Besides, the practice directions allows a judge handling a pre-election matter to leverage technology in the conduct of proceedings, including virtual hearings.

“Upon the close of exchange of processes between the parties, the court shall within seven (7) days set down the matter for hearing.

“The court shall continue to accord priority to all pre-election matters until judgement is delivered.

“Where a matter comes up for hearing under this Practice Directions and either of the parties is absent, the court shall either suo motu or upon oral application by the counsel for the party present, order that the address of the party absent be deemed adopted if it is satisfied that the parties had notice of proceedings.

“The court and the parties shall prevent unnecessary delays and accordingly, not more than two (2) adjournments shall be granted to any party to an action covered by the provisions of this Practice Directions,” it said, among other guidelines.

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday threatened to dismiss a suit filed against Chief Judge (CJ) of Federal High Court (FHC), Justice John Tsoho, and Justice Peter Lifu for lack of diligent prosecution.

Justice Salim Ibrahim, in a ruling, held that the case may be dismissed if there was no representation for the plaintiff, Mr Nkemakolam Ukandu, a chietain of African Democratic Congress (ADC), in the next adjourned date.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Ukandu, the National Welfare Secretary of ADC, had sued the National Judicial Council (NJC), the FHC CJ and Justice Lifu as 1st to 3rd defendants respectively, over alleged bias and disobedience to court order.

Ukandu, in a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1165/2026, sought an order compelling the NJC to investigate allegations of corruption, abuse of judicial powers and bias levelled against Tsoho and Lifu.

When the case was called on Tuesday, only counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants (Tsoho and Lifu) were in Court.

No lawyer appeared for the plaintiff (Ukandu) and there was no representation for NJC either.

J.U.K. Igwe, SAN, who appeared for Tsoho and Lifu informed the court that the case was adjourned for mention.

He recalled that on June 22 when the matter came up, neither the plaintiff nor his lawyer was in court.

The lawyer, who said it seemed the plaintiff was not ready to prosecute the case, urged the court to strike out the suit.

Justice Ibrahim, however, said it was necessary to give the plaintiff another opportunity in the interest of fair hearing.

Igwe then told the court that efforts to serve the plaintiff with their preliminary objection and other processes had been unsuccessful.

He said the bailiff told them that the address of the plaintiff counsel at No. 4, Oyo Street, Garki at Area 2 in Abuja, could not be located as there was no building on the plot.

The lawyer, therefore, said a motion ex-parte for substituted service had been filed.

He said the motion was dated and filed on June 25.

He said the application sought an order allowing their notice of preliminary objection, memorandum of conditional appearance, joint statement of defence, and others, to be served on the plaintiff by substituted means by pasting the processes at the entrance gate of No. 4 Oyo Street, Garki, Area 2, Abuja.

He alternatively sought that the court documents be sent to the plaintiff electronically through WhatsApp Messenger or WhatsApp number provided by the plaintiff in his writ of summons.

After moving the motion, the judge granted it partly by directing the applicants to paste the processes on the gate of the above-address.

Justice Ibrahim further ordered the 2nd and 3rd defendants (Tsoho and Lifu) to ensure that the order of the court is served on the plaintiff and the 1st respondent (NJC) in the suit.

The judge, who ordered that hearing notices be issued and served on Ukandu and the NJC, adjourned the matter until July 6 for hearing.

NAN observes that the suit stemmed from the ADC leadership crisis involving an aggrieved member, Nafiu-Bala Gombe, whose case is currently before Justice Lifu.

Gombe’s suit seeks an order stopping Sen. David Mark-led leadership of ADC from parading themselves as leaders of the party.

Ukandu, who is seeking to be joined in the suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, brought by Gombe, accused the CJ and Justice Lifu of manifest bias, and willingness to do the biddings of persons against the interest of the party.

Ukandu, in the suit he personally filed at the FHC, faulted the CJ for reassigning the suit to Lifu after it was taken away from Justice Emeka Nwite.

He said the reassignment was in disregard to the orders of the Supreme Court as well as Justice Nwite.

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja has convicted and sentenced a Boko Haram member, Alkali Yarima, also known as La’ari, to death by hanging for participating in the attacks on Maiduguri in Borno in 2015.

Justice James Omotosho, in a judgment, also sentenced Yarima to a life imprisonment in count six of the charge which bordered on receiving a training on arms and weapon handling in preparation to commit acts of terrorism.

While the convict was committed to a 35-year imprisonment in count one, Justice Omotosho sentenced him to a 30-year jail term in count five.

The judge, thereafter, handed down a 10-year imprisonment for Yarima in each of counts two, three and four of the charge.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that though the judgment was delivered during the just-concluded Abuja mass trial of suspected terrorists, details of the verdict was sighted on Friday in Abuja.

The Federal Government had, in the charge marked: FHC/KNJ/CR/971/2026, preferred a seven-count charge against the convict.

The charge was dated May 26 and filed on May 29 by Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, Director, Public Prosecutions of the Federation.

In count one which attracted 35 years’ jail term, Yarima (aka La’ari), with Chest Number: 1636 of Lawanti Area of Mafa Local Government Area in Borno was alleged to have, sometime between 2009 to 2015 at the time of his arrest, professed membership and continued to belong to Boko Haram group, a proscribed terrorist organisation in Nigeria.

He was accused of accepting “Da’awah from Mohammed Yusuf (founder of Boko Haram).”

The offence is punishable under Section 16 (1) of the Terrorism (Prevention Amendment) Act, 2013.

In count six, where he bagged a life imprisonment, the convict was alleged to have “engaged in conducts in preparation to commit acts of terrorist acts when you travelled to Arab country for training on arms and weapon handling.”

The offence is contrary to and punishable under Section 21 of the Terrorism (Prevention Amendment) Act, 2013.

The Federal Government, in count seven which attracted a death penalty, accused the terrorist of committing acts of terrorism when he participated in the attacks on Maiduguri.

The offence is contrary to and punishable under Section 2 (1) of the Terrorism (Prevention Amendment) Act, 2013.

NAN reports that the trial, which usually takes place at Kainji in Niger, was moved to the the Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja.

The AGF, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who led the Federal Government’s team of lawyer for the prosecution, said the government was determined to stamp out terrorism and its related activities from the country.

According to the minister, we will fight with every inch of our blood to ensure that we make Nigeria a safe haven for everybody.

 

The National Industrial Court in Abuja has fixed Oct. 21 for hearing of a suit filed by 70 disengaged staff of Premium Pension Limited (PPL) against the company.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the affected ex-workers are challenging their disengagement and the alleged failure of the company to pay their gratuity and other entitlement.

Justice Rakiya Haastrup fixed the date after lawyer to Premium Pension, Johnson Usman, SAN, applied for time to enable him reply to the claimants’ response to the company’s counter-claim.

Justice Haastrup had, on June 17, granted application by claimants’ lawyer, M. O. Akinsanya, for leave to file their response to the defendant’s counter-claim out of time and to deem the response as being properly filed.

Shortly after the judge granted the claimants’ application, Usman said “with the grant of the application, the claimants’ defence to our counter-claim has been regularised.”

According to the lawyer, we need time to reply to their defence to our counter-claim.

The claimants, in the suit, contended that their disengagement was illegal and unjust as it was allegedly done by PPL for no reason, with malice and bad faith.

They added that their disengagement without being paid all they are entitled to, despite their repeated demand, had placed them in a situation of hardship.

The suit was filed by some of the affected staff, including Ibrahim Usman Raji, Emmanuel Folorunsho, Mustapha Saidu Sulaiman, Muhammed Baba Ibrahim – (suing in representative capacity on behalf of themselves and 60 others, whose employment were wrongly terminated).

Premium Pension Limited is listed as the sole defendant.

The claimants are praying the court for eight declaratory reliefs and nine monetary clams.

Raji and others want the court to, among others, declare that contracts of employment existed between the claimants and the defendant from the time the claimants were respectively offered appointments by the defendant and until their disengagement.

The claimants also want a declaration that the abrupt termination of their contract of employment was wrongful, illegal and unlawful for the refusal of the defendant to give adequate notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice and for no reason whatsoever.

They want the court to issue an order mandating PPL to pay them their gross emoluments in respect of “a lump sum payment equivalent to three months” as contained in their respective letters of disengagement.

The court is equally urged to order the defendant to pay all claimants their respective gratuity as communicated to all staff previously upon approval of the board of the defendant.

The claimants are also seeking and order mandating the defendant to pay all of them “their entitlements in full without any deduction of purported liabilities.”

They stated, in a statement of facts, that they were all disengaged and served with their respective letters of disengagement from Aug. 4, 2025.

They said although all the letters of disengagement were backdated to July 29, 2025 and stated to be effective from the Aug. 1, 2025.

Raji and others also stated that they had all resumed work in the month of August 2025 before they were served with their respective letters of disengagement and by so doing, they were all entitled to the payment of education subsidy which is paid annually in the month of August.

They added that the defendant deliberately backdated the letters of disengagement to the July 29, 2025 so as to deny them their earned benefits and requisite notice or payment in lieu.

The claimants further stated that the defendant had also refused to pay to them their profit share, performance and productivity bonus in spite of several demands.

The claimants stated that the defendant’s action had caused them and the other affected employees and their dependents severe hardship, financial loss, and emotional distress.

In its defence, Premier Pension faulted the competence of the suit and urged the court to dismiss it.

It stated that the claimants were disengaged as a result of restructuring/reorganisation.

The company stated that the affected ex-workers were paid their three month’s salary in lieu of notice and so they are not entitled to three months’ notice.

The company claimed not to have violated any international best practices on labour, employment and industrial relations.

It stated that being a private company, and the employment of the claimant being one that does not enjoy statutory flavour, it can disengage them at any time for any reason whether good or bad or for no reason at all provided it complied with its handbook by giving the claimants or its employees a notice or payment of three months’ salaries in lieu.

Premium Pension further stated that the claimants were disengaged in line with Premium Pension Limited Human Resources Policy Manual and Employee Handbook.

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja has convicted and sentenced a 37-year-old man, Zakaria Garba, to death by hanging over his involvement in the 2014 Nyanya Motor Park bomb explosions that killed no fewer than 70 persons while several others sustained varying degree of injuries.

Justice James Omotsoho, in a judgment delivered in the just-concluded Abuja mass trial of suspected terrorists, also handed down a life imprisonment for Garba in another count of the five-count charge.

Justice Omotosho convicted the defendant after he pleaded guilty to the five counts preferred against him by the Federal Government.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the judgement was delivered on Tuesday in the charge number: FHC/KNJ/CR/985/2026, filed by the office of the Attorney-General of three Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice.

The judge sentenced Garba to a 35-year jail term each in counts one and two, a life imprisonment in count three, a death sentence in counts four and five.

“May God have mercy on you,” the judge said.

NAN observes that in count three which attracted a life imprisonment, Garba of Jambutu Park, Jimeta Local Government Area of Adamawa, and others now at large, were alleged to have, sometime in 2014 while at the Nyanya Motor Park, FCT Abuja, within the jurisdiction of the court, committed the offence.

They were said to have knowingly conspired among themselves “to commit acts of terrorism by planning and coordinating the bombing of Nyanya Motor Park, Abuja through the use of explosives devices, which bombing resulted in the death of over 70 persons and injured several others.”

The offence is punishable under Section 17 of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 and punishable under same Section of the Act.

In count four which also attracted capital punishment, the terrorist, who stated in his confessional statement that he used to sell tea and bread, with others now at large, were said to have, sometime in 2014 while at the Nyanya Motor Park, FCT Abuja, committed the offence.

They were said to have “knowingly and intentionally caused the detonation of explosives devices at Nyanya Motor Park with intent to cause death and serious bodily harm to members of the public, which act resulted in over 70 (Seventy) persons’ death and injuries to several others.”

The offence is punishable under Section 1(3) of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013.

Also in count five which attracted death penalty, the convict and others now at large were said to have, sometime in 2014 while at the Nyanya Motor Park, FCT Abuja, “participated in an act of terrorism which caused the death of over 70 (Seventy) persons by detonating explosives.”

According to the charge, you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 1(3) of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013.

Justice Omotosho also handed down various prison terms to some other terrorists who pleaded guilty to the separate terrorism charges filed against them.

Ali Mohammed, in charge number: FHC/KNJ/CR/1020/2026, was committed to a 25-year jail term in count one and 15-year imprisonment in count two.

Isa Saleh was sentenced to a 20-year imprisonment in a one-count charge marked: FHC/KNJ/CR/973/2026.

Tujan Mohammed, in a charge marked: FHC/KNJ/CR/954/2026, also bagged a 20-year jail term in the one count preferred against him by the Federal Government.

For Salisu Bala, the judge convicted and sentenced him to a 20-year imprisonment in count two but discharged and acquitted him in counts one and three in the charge marked: FHC/KNJ/CR/963/2026.

NAN reports that the trial, which usually takes place at Kainji in Niger, was moved to the the Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja.

The AGF, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who led the Federal Government’s team of lawyer for the prosecution, said the government was determined to stamp out terrorism and its related activities from the country.

According to the minister, we will fight with every inch of our blood to ensure that we make Nigeria a safe haven for everybody.

 

The High Court of Justice of Kaduna State has dismissed a suit filed against a company, Datum Construction Nigeria Ltd, seeking to stop its quarrying activities at a quarry site in Kujama, Kaduna State over allegations of farmland degradation.

Justice Edward Andow, in a judgement, held that the suit filed by an alleged farmland owner, Shekwogaza Joseph Audu, was unmeritorious.

Justice Andow said he found that while Audu may have genuine concerns regarding the damage to his land, he had completely failed to present the quality of evidence required by law to sustain his claims.

Although the judgement was delivered on June 8, 2026, its certified true copy was made available to newsmen on Thursday in Abuja.

The plaintiff had, in the suit marked: KDH//KAD/409/2021, sued Datum Construction Nigeria Ltd as sole defendant.

In the writ of summons filed on March 24, 2021, by his lawyer, S.I. Abdulaziz Esq., the plaintiff sought six reliefs.

Audu sought a declaration that the company’s continuous rock blasting and other quarry activities had grossly undermined and affected the value of his land.

He sought a declaration that the environmental impact of the defendant’s activities had also damaged soil water quality for farming and function through the earth thereby making farm unproductive and crop yielding in his land untenable and further devaluing the land.

The plaintiff, therefore, sought an order that the firm shall remove any object and cease any activity that affects his right to enjoy peaceable possession, occupation and use of his land.

Audu also prayed the court for an order awarding the sum of 5 million naira against the company as damages for causing the degradation and for undermining the land quality which had led to loss in food quality and production due to its activities.

The plaintiff, who sought a 21 per cent interest per annum on the judgment until final liquidation, also sought a cost of the action as shall be assessed by the court.

In his witness statement on oath which he adopted at trial, Audu said he was the owner, under customary law, of a piece of farmiand located at Magashanu Road, Tudun Wada, Kujama, Kaduna State.

He said his family had occupied and continually cultivated on the farmland crops such as rice, corn, millet, beans, and sorghum since 1991.

He alleged that Datum Construction Ltd operates a granite quarryying directly to the north of and abutting his land.

He alleged that since the company commenced operations, the farm’s harvest yields had suffered devastating declines.

But the company, in its amended statement of defence, filed by its lawyer, Emmanuel Ekpenyong Esq. of the law firm of Fred-Young & Evans LP, vehemently denied the allegations.

The defendant “asserts its standing as a highly responsible, law abiding corporate citizen.”

Although the firm did not explicitly admit or deny the plaintiff’s title, putting him to the strictest proof, it stated that the Federal Ministry of Mines and Steel Development granted it Quarry Lease No. 1793QLS on August 15, 2007, following rigorous regulatory inspections, which lease remains valid through successive renewals until 2027.

It argued that it carries out its operations using global best practices with reasonable care and skill.

It contended that dust emission is actively suppressed by spraying the extraction areas with water before rock crushing.

It emphasised that rock blasting is not an everyday event but a highly regulated, periodical exercise occurring only once every one or two months in the presence of designated State inspectors.

The firm also produced Environmental Audit Certificates issued by the National Enforcement Agency (NESREA) to it to establish due compliance in its quarrying activities.

Ekpenyong argued that when Audu raised a complaint about stray rocks in 2013, the company deployed personnel and a bulldozer to inspect and clear the area, but its team was blocked and denied entry to the land.

He submitted that no other resident or entity in Kujama had lodged complaints against the firm’s operations. It describes the current litigation as an abusive attempt by the plaintiff to use the apparatus of the court to force the defendant into buying his land.

Ekpenyong prayed the court to dismiss the suit for lacking in merit.

During cross-examination of the plaintiff’s sole witness, he confirmed that he did not produce any documentation or proof of either statutory or customary ownership of the farmland.

He admitted that he did not know the size and borders of the farmland and did not produce before the court, any scientific expert report explaining how the quarrying activities of the company affected his farmland and farm produce.

During cross-examination of the defendant’s sole witness, the plaintiff’s counsel attempted to discredit “Exhibit F”, one of the Environment Audit Reports issued by NESREA and tendered by the defendant’s counsel, on the ground that since a Quick Response (QR) scan of the code on Exhibit F in open court did not show the agency who issued it, the document is fake.

Delivering the judgement, Justice Andow held that under Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011, when a party alleges forgery in a civil suit, that allegation carries a criminal standard of proof and must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

“An open-court scan using a mobile device, conducted without prior notice or expert technological testimony, is insufficient to prove forgery beyond a reasonable doubt or to completely strip a public document of its presumption of regularity.

“Even if this court were to completely discount Exhibit F due to the QR code anomaly, Exhibits C, D, and E remain intact, uncompromised, and cover nearly a decade of audited environmental operations.

“Apart from mere assertions, the plaintiff failed to prove its legal title or interest on the farmland or the size and borders of the land. This robs him of locus standi in this case.

“Furthermore, the plaintiff’s failure to establish his own case means he cannot succeed by simply pointing out flaws in the defence.

“In a civil suit, a plaintiff must win on the strength of his own credible evidence, not on the perceived weakness of the defendant’s case.

“The plaintiff here has provided no scientific data, no boundary descriptions, no title documentation, and no verified proof of financial loss. His claims remain completely unproven.

“Issue 3 is accordingly resolved against the plaintiff.

“This court cannot act on sentiment or substitute speculative common sense for solid, expert proof.

“This suit is thoroughly unmeritorious and is bound to fail.

“Consequently, the plaintiff’s case fails and his claims are hereby dismissed in their entirety for want of evidence.

“Each party shall bear their own costs,” the Judge ruled.

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja has sentenced three terrorists to death by hanging over terrorism offences.

The three terrorists were convicted and sentenced to death after they pleaded guilty to the offences they were charged with by the Federal Government in the ongoing Abuja made trial.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that while Danladi Lawal was sentenced to death by Justice James Omotosho, Abdullahi Mohammed and Mohammed Gulama Shaibu were handed down a capital punishment by Justice Salim Ibrahim.

When the case was called before Justice Omotosho on Thursday, 33-year-old Lawal, a.k.a Dankawu, pleaded guilty to counts one, two, three, four and five after the charge was read to him.

The judge sentenced the convict to a 30-year imprisonment in count one, 15-year in count two, life imprisonment in count three, death by hanging in count four and a life imprisonment in count five.

“May God have mercy on you,” Justice Omotosho said.

NAN reports that in the charge marked: FHC/KNJ/CR/956/2026, the Federal Government, through the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, preferred a five-count charge against Lawal.

In count four that attracted a death penalty, the convict who is from Maikaho village, Jibya Local Government Area of Katsina State and others now at large, were said to have sometime in 2020 while in Maikaho village, committed the offence.

They were said to have unlawfully abducted and detained an elderly man for four days in a bush hideout at Ilela and demanded the sum of N950,000.00 as ransom from his family thereby intimidating the public and causing serious fear and insecurity in the community.

The offence is contrary to Section 1 (2) of the Terrorism (Prevention Amendment) Act 2013 and punishable under the same Section of the Act.

In count five that attracted a life imprisonment, Lawal was said to have knowingly received the sum of N450,000.00 being part of the ransom proceeds obtained from the kidnapping of an elderly man.

The offence is contrary to Section 13 of the Terrorism (Prevention Amendment) Act 2013 and punishable under the same Section of the Act. .

Also, Justice Ibrahim separately sentenced Abdullahi Mohammed and Mohammed Gulama Shaibu to death by hanging after they pleaded gulty to the charges filed against them.

In the charge marked: FHC/KNJ/CR/245/2026, Mohammed pleaded guilty to the one-count, while Shaibu, in the charge marked: FHC/KNJ/CR/329/2026, pleaded guilty to a two-count charge.

The judge sentenced Shaibu to death in count one and life imprisonment In count two.

Justice Ibrahim equally sentenced Mohammed Dezami Sherife in charge number: FHC/KNJ/CR/1248/2026, to a life imprisonment in counts two, six and eight of 10-count charge earlier preferred against him by the Federal Government, after he pleaded guilty to them.

In a related development, Justice Omotosho on Thursday also sentenced Shamsudeen Muhammad Ibrahim, a.k.a Abu Harira, to a life imprisonment in count one and a 35-year jail term in count which shall run from today, June 18.

In count one, Ibrahim of Angwar Hayin Ikara Maje, Ikara LGA, Kaduna State, sometime in the year 2022 in Kubwa FCDA Owner Occupiers, did committed the offence.

He was said to have “knowingly rendered support to ISWAP by receiving trainings and sermons from A. Mujahid from Al-Qeada on promoting and sympathising with terrorist activities.”

The offence is contrary to Section 15(a) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition Act, 2022) and punishable under the same section of the Act.

In count two, the convict was accused of having “an information about the activities of the ISWAP/ANSARU terrorist group and failed to disclose such information to any law enforcement or security officer as soon as reasonably practicable.”

The offence is contrary to Section 16 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition Act, 2022) and punishable under the same section of the Act.

Justice Emeka Nwite in another development, sentence Lawi Abubakar Mohammed to a 20-year jail term each in counts one and two which he pleaded guilty to on Thursday.

The judge ordered that the prison term shall commence from the date of arrest and to run consecutively, making a total of 40 years imprisonment.

The judge ordered that at the end of the prison term, the convict shall be rehabilitated and deradicalised before being release into the society.