Tag: Court

 

Rockbridge Construction Limited has urged a Benue State High Court sitting in Otukpo to dismiss a suit filed by three aggrieved Indigenes of Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Community of Ohimini Local Government Council in Benue over alleged hazardous quarrying activities.

The company, in its final written address filed by its team of lawyers, led by Emmanuel Ekpenyong Esq. of the law firm of Fred-Young & Evans LP before Justice G.A. Omale, argued that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit since issues relating to mines and minerals are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

The plaintiffs; Adoga Michael, Aiko Aboje and Frank Adigwu had filed the suit for themselves and on behalf of Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Community of Ohimini Local Government Council in the state.

They said they are farmers and indigenes of Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu in Oglewu District of the local government and resident in the said community.

They said they are the youth leaders of the community and have the mandate and the authorisation of the entire community to maintain the action on their behalf and against the named defendants.

The plaintiffs sued Rockbridge Construction and Chief Bernard Ejembi for himself and on behalf of Alaglanu Clan/Settlement in the local government as 1st and 2nd defendants.

The plaintiffs sought the sum of N500 million jointly and severally against the defendants “being general damages for the environmental pollution, damage to buildings/structures, general inconveniences and associated health hazard occasioned by the activities of the 1st defendant in connivance with the 2nd defendant in Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Village/Settlement in Oglewu District of Ohimini Local Government Council of Benue State.”

In the writ of summons dated October 28, 2022, they also sought an order compelling the defendants to give effect to the recommendations of the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) vide REF NO: NESREA/BNS/RCC/53/25 dated the 26th January, 2017.

They equally sought an order compelling the company to suspend further activities in Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu in Oglewu District of the local government in Benue State, pending full compliance with the recommendation of NESREA vide its report of 26th January, 2017.

But in its statement of defence dated November 30, 2022, and filed by Ekpenyong, the company denied all the allegations by the plaintiffs.

Rockbridge Construction argued that the plaintiffs are not representing the interest of Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Community because elders of this community have disassociated themselves from them.

It stated that the elders have maintained that the community will continue to enjoy good relationship with the company.

The company said, in a letter dated October 7, 2022, the elders of the community withdrew their support from the plaintiffs, stating that “the plaintiffs do not represent their interest.”

It said contrary to the argument of the plaintiffs, its quarrying activities at the site have no negative effect or caused any hardship to the Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Village because the site is far from the village.

According to the company, the 1st defendant has been carrying out quarrying activities at the site for close to 17 years and if its quarrying activities have been affecting the plaintiffs, they will not wait till after 17 years to complain.

It insisted that its quarrying activities have no hazardous effect in the area.

Besides, the company argued that it is not privy to the plaintiffs’ community letter of complaint to the Federal Mines Officer, Mines Inspectorate Department, Makurdi.

Rockbridge Construction faulted the plaintiffs’ claim that NESREA carried out an investigation on its quarrying activities and returned with a damning verdict against it when there is a subsisting Environmental Audit Certificate issued by NESREA itself.

The company however, stated that it is not aware of NESREA’s investigation or its report dated January 26, 2017 on its investigations against it and urge the Court not to attach any weight to the purported report because it was a copy of a public document that was admitted.

“This shows the report was not from proper custody,” it said.

Ekpenyong, in his final written address, equally argued that the issuance and service of the originating processes in the suit marked: OHC/85/2022 outside the jurisdiction of Benue State is incompetent, defective and liable to be struck out because leave of Court was not sought and obtained before commencing the suit against the company which has its place of business in Abuja.

He said the plaintiffs also did not comply with the provisions of Section 96 and 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.

“Rockbridge Construction Company Limited in which the plaintiffs sued.is neither a natural, a juristic nor corporate person.

“It is also not a proper, desirable and necessary party in this suit as such the name should be struck out.

“The plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute this suit in a representative capacity on behalf of Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Community.

“The plaintiffs have not proven by any credible evidence by calling expert witnesses to testify that they have suffered injury as a result of the purported acts of negligence of the company.

“The plaintiffs’ claims against the party are caught up with the defence of volunti non fit injuria,” the lawyer said.

He further submitted that the company has placed a formidable defence on the merits before the court against the claims of the plaintiffs.

He also said that the 1st defendant (company) has shown that it has discharged its obligations to Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Community and Alaglanu-Community at the material time.

According to him, the party was denied its right to fair hearing in the course of trial of this suit.

“This honorable court does not have territorial, procedural and subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this surt.

“On a balance of probability, the party has proved its case and is entitled to judgment in its favour,” he added.

Ekpenyong, therefore, urged the court to dismiss the suit for being frivolous, lacking in merits and being an abuse of court process.

Chief Ejembi, in his final written address filed by his lawyer, Sunday Ayegba, prayed the court to resolve the three issues raised in the suit in favour of the defendants and dismiss the suit.

In his deposition on oath, Ejembi, who said he resides at Alaglanu-Oglewu Community, averred that the elders of Awulema Community denied any involvement in the letter of pre-action served on the company and the subsequent filing of the present case.

He said they wrote a letter dated 7th October, 2022, wherein the elders stated that they were not in agreement with the plaintiffs’ letter of pre-action.

He alleged that the elders maintained in the letter that they were in good relationship with the company.

Ejembi said the plaintiffs do not have their residences within the community to suffer any form of inconveniences to his knowledge.

Besides, he said that the quarrying and crushing site was a reserved area of land by Alaglanu Community for the same purpose since the year 1960 and the site had existed as such and in use by several road construction companies and stone breaking companies.

But in the final written address filed on December 5, 2024 by the plaintiffs’ counsel, P.A. Omengala, they urged the court to enter judgment in their favour in terms of their claims.

They said that they have proved their case to be entitled to the judgment of the court in that the suit is not statute barred nor is the defence’s argument of volenti non fit injuria applicable, and same having not been pleaded.

The plaintiffs also submitted that the court has the powers to discountenance the addresses of the defendants same having not addressed the basic issues in the case.

They said upon service of the originating process on the company and Ejembi, they filed their statements of defence.

They said the company, however, filed a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the substantive suit on several grounds.

The plaintiffs said they filed their response to the preliminary objection and the preliminary objection was struck out on May 17, 2023 for want of diligent prosecution.

They said they filed pre-action notices, which were served on the company, complaining bitterly about the hazardous effect of its activities on their community and the need to remedy the situation but to no avail.

According to them, the plaintiffs then complained to NESREA vide a letter dated 26th January, 2017 about the hazardous effects of the quarrying activities.

They said that NESREA gave a damning verdict about the activities of the company and suggested measures to ameliorate same but still to no avail, hence the decision of their community to approach the court.

In the suit, the plaintiffs called three witnesses to prove their case and tendered four documents marked as exhibits, while the defence equally called three witnesses and tendered some documents to back their argument.

After the parties adopted their final written addresses on April 29, Justice Omale fixed June 9 for judgment.

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday, dismissed a 950 trillion Pounds suit filed by a businessman, Mr Tunde Omosebi, against former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and others over allegations bordering on breach of fundamental rights.

Justice James Omotosho, in a judgment, held that the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/767/2024 and filed by Omosebi, was “highly unreasonable.”

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the applicant had, in the originating motion dated and filed on June 5, 2024, by himself, sued Hallies & Partner Ltd, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, Clifford Odibe and Daniel Mbohok as 1st to 4th defendants respectively.

In the course of proceedings on the matter, Omosebi amended the suit by joining three persons; Ali Olayemi, Phrank Shaibu, without the leave (permission) of court, and later expanded to 13 defendants by May 5.

Omosebi, in the statement of applicant attached to the motion, described himself as “a businessman, politician and by virtue of his positions as Chairman, Federal Executive Council (FEC) and Prime Minister of Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

He averred that he gets paid based on his positions, projects and contracts executed by his investments portfolio and businesses as contained in the corporate chatter.

He alleged that the agents of Hallies & Partner Ltd assaulted and criminally intimidated him at his office on July 6, 2023.

He said they left the premises with numerous threats and inhumane comments which infringed on his liberty and freedom.

He, therefore, demanded £950 trillion for alleged assault on his dignity, criminal intimidation, trauma, and enforcement of Fundamental Rights Rule 2009 guaranteed by the Constitution.

Omosebi prayed the court to make an order for the defendants to tender public apology on national and international newspapers, magazines, televisions and across relevant media of his choice in perpetuity.
He sought “an order restricting the defendants and associates from 20 kilometers radius of his businesses and property in perpetuity.”
He equally sought a £95 trillion exemplary damages against the defendants, among others.
Justice Omotosho, while delivering the judgement, reiterated the court’s responsibility to conserve judicial resources by filtering out cases deemed, “highly unreasonable.”
The judge observed that the suit originally had four defendants but was later expanded without court’s permission to 10 defendants on Nov. 19, 2024, and further to 13 defendants on May 5.
The judge held that based on these procedural irregularities and other factors, the suit lacked a reasonable cause of action and was dismissed accordingly.
Justice Omotosho advised Omosebi to await judgment on his separate suit filed against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Olayemi Cardoso, and others, seeking £990 trillion claim.
The judge, who highlighted the prevalence of similar cases pending in the court, seized the opportunity to addressed the legal community, especially the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), on the need to be cautious of such suits
“We can’t continue this way because the temple of justice is not open for everything,” he said.
NAN reports that Omosebi, in a similar suit before Justice Omotosho, sued CBN governor and a number of commercial banks
The judge had fixed June 4 for ruling on the preliminary objection of the defendants.

 

Flowerbudnews

Mr Tunde Omosebi has filed a 990 trillion pounds suit against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Mr Olayemi Cardoso, and co-defendants over allegations bordering on breach of his fundamental human rights.

Omosebi, who referred to himself as “His Majesty,” a businessman and a politician in the suit filed before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, also sought exemplary damages of £99 trillion against the defendants.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that while CBN governor is the 1st defendant, Chairman/Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc, Guarantee Trust Bank (GTB) Plc, Zenith Bank Plc respectively are 2nd to 4th defendants.
Omosebi, who is the claimant, equally sued the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and House of Representatives’ Speaker, Tajudeen Abbas, as 5th to 6th defendants in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/766/2024.

In the originating motion dated June 5, 2024, but filed Jan. 29, the claimant sought six reliefs.
Omosebi prayed that “an order be entered for the sum of £990,000,000,000,000.00 (nine hundred and ninety trillion pounds) for traumatic torture and Enforcement of Fundamental Rights Rule, 2009 as guaranteed by the Constitution.
“An order be entered that converts CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA to RESERVE BANK OF NIGERIA as guaranteed under SEC 212 of CRIMINAL CODE OF NIGERIA BANKS.
“An order be entered that Nigeria banks involved with these financial irregularities, operating and contributed to the disadvantaged economy be converted to DRIG BANK with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) per the industrial arrangements at the Assembly of Business Owners and the Federal Executive Council (FEC), and submit same to the Chairman, Federal Executive Council.”
He further sought “exemplary damages against defendants for £99,000,000,000,000.00 (ninety-nine trillion pounds).
“10% interest on the total recoverable amount.
“N5,000,000.00 (five million naira) cost of suit.”
Omosebi, in the statement attached to the application, said as a businessman, politician and by virtue of his positions as “the Chairman, Federal Executive Council, and Prime Minister of Federal Republic of Nigeria, I am very conversant with the facts of this matter.”
He said he gets paid based on his role, projects and contracts executed by his businesses, investments portfolio as contained in the corporate resolution.
“At the trial of this suit, the applicant shall rely on the terms of the corporate resolution and schedule of distribution,” he said.
Omosebi alleged that the defendants breached the assembly industrial agreement/arrangement, denied his Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rule 2009, Sections 35, 43, 45 and Fundamental Objectives and Directives of State Policy 14(2)(b) and 16(1)(a-b).
According to him, approximately four years ago, the applicant opened and operates few corporate and personal accounts with defendants 2 with aim of managing these finance per the constitution.
“That, with no just cause, approximately seven (7) months till date, applicant’s corporate and personal accounts have been unaccessible due to defendants 2 & 3 negligence, oppressive and abusive conduct which violates the constitution and purpose of operating a bank.
“That, defendant (2) agreed to deposit $50,000,000.00 (fifty million dollars) in applicant’s account with the bank in 2022 in the interim. and till date such has not been credited.
“That, additionally defendant (2) suggested that DRIG BANK operation be moved to defendant (2) building at Maitama to justify herein entrusted funds.
“That, over £500,000,000,000.00 (five hundred billion pounds) were entrusted with defendants 1, 2 and 3 among other funds with herein co-defendant(s)/banks that have not been credited nor accounted for till date to the applicant.
“That, defendant 1 commits perjury by presenting to the general public a vague statement claiming to be signed by applicant, which in turn breached the other of the Assembly and affects the credibility of the applicant.
“That, defendant(s) as of January 2024 breach the industrial agreement consented to during the assembly of Business Owners, Federal Executive Council and the Chairman, Federal Executive Council as well as, infringed on applicants intellectual property, obstruct applicant from operating his accounts, access to cash among other concerns as guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rule 2009 in accordance with the Constitution.
“That, defendants 5 & 6 deliberately denied applicants of his fundamental rights and entitlements till date as agreed and guaranteed under the constitution and the Gazette 485.”
The claimant said based on the facts and defendants’ abusive conduct, disregard for rule of the assembly and constitution, he respectfully prayed that the court grants his reliefs and enter judgement as prayed in accordance with the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules 2009 as guaranteed by the constitution:
In a preliminary objection by the CBN governor’s lawyer, F.H. Maikano, the lawyer argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the claimant had failed to disclose cause of action against her client.
She said the suit was bereft of facts, hence, it was incompetent.
The UBA, GTB, Zenith Bank, including the Senate President and the House speaker in their respective submissions, urged the court to dismiss the suit for failure to disclose cause of action against them.
They argued that the claimant lacked the locus standi to sustain the action for the failure to disclose cause or reasonable cause of action against them.
Dr Sonny Ajala, SAN, who appeared for the Zenith Bank (4th defendant) in a preliminary objection filed on Feb. 14, challenged the competence of the suit.
Ajala sought an order setting the objection down for hearing on points of law raised in the application and an order “dismissing in limine the suit number::FHC/ABJ/CS/766/2024 against the bank.”
According to him, there is no cause and/or reasonable cause of action disclosed in the statement of the applicant and the depositions as contained in the 10 (ten) paragraphs affidavit in support of the originating motion against the 4th defendant.
He argued that Omosebi, in the suit anchored on the alleged infringement of his fundamental rights, failed to show how the bank compromised his right.
“The statement of the applicant and the depositions as contained in the 10 (ten) paragraphs affidavit in support of the originating motion failed to show any banker-customer contractual relationship between the claimant and the 4th defendant.
“The statement of the applicant and the depositions as contained in the 10 (ten) paragraphs affidavit in support of the originating motion failed to show any iota of privity of contract and/or privity of estate between the claimant and the 4th defendant.
“The suit of the claimant is not maintainable against the 4th defendant as the 4th defendant Is an /improper and unnecessary party in the suit of the claimant,” the lawyer said.
Ajala submitted that the suit “is brought mala fide against the 4th defendant” and that it was “speculative, vague and mere academic exercise.”
“The reliefs sought in the claimant’s sult are nebulous and not grantable,” he added.
Responding, Omosebi, who appeared by himself in the case, urged the court to discountenance the defendants’ arguments.
The claimant, while moving his counter affidavit in opposition to the preliminary objection, referred to himself as “the Supreme Council and Chairman of FEC.”
He alleged that “President Bola Tinubu and other presidents in the world are under his command and authority.”
He insisted that the CBN and the commercial banks named in the suit breached his fundamental rights, hence, he was entitled to the rekiefs sought.
After listening to lawyers representing parties in the suit, Justice Omotosho adjourned the matter until June 4 to rule on the preliminary objection of the defendants.

 

The re-arraignment of Olugbenga Obadina, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Almond Projects Limited, on Monday, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) suffered a setback.

Obadina is being prosecuted over his alleged involvement in the misappropriation of N33.2billion meant for the purchase of arms by retired Col. Sambo Dasuki, a former National Security Adviser (NSA).

The matter, which was fixed for hearing before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, could not proceed because the amended charge, claimed to have been filed by the EFCC, was not in the court record.

Upon resumed hearing, the prosecution lawyer, Ibrahim Buba, informed the court that he had an amended charge filed on May 2 and served on the defendants.
But Justice Omotosho could not see the amended charge in the court record after a thorough search.
“Counsel, I do not have that charge before this court and I have checked our ledger and I do not see it there,” he said.
The judge said the amended charge might have been mistakenly taken to another court at the instruction of the anti-graft agency’s lawyer during the filing of the process.
Buba, who admitted that the amended charge might have been taken to Court 8, instead of Court 7 where the trial judge presides, tendered an apology for the mixup.
Adeola Adedipe, SAN, who appeared for the defendants in the case, also apologised to the court on behalf of the prosecution.
Justice Omotosho subsequently adjourned the matter until June 26 for re-arraignment of the defendants.
“This matter is adjourned to June 26 for arraignment of the defendants for the amended charge that is not before this court as a result of the prosecution given wrong number of the court at the Process Unit,” the judge said.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Obadina, alongside his company, was earlier re-arraigned on Jan. 13, 2024, by the anti-corruption commission on eight-count charge bordering on money laundering to the tune of N2.17 billion before Justice Omotosho.
The defendants, however, pleaded not guilty to the counts and the judge ordered his remand in Kuje Correctional Centre pending the perfection of his bail conditions.
NAN reports that Dasuki, a former NSA during the President Goodluck Jonathan government, was accused of criminal diversion of funds to the tune of 2.1 billion U.S. dollars.
The money was allegedly part of funds earmarked by the Federal Government to fight Boko Haram insurgency in the northeast.
The EFCC had, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/142/2016, sued Obadina and Almond Project Limited as 1st and 2nd defendants, following their alleged link with Dasuki’s misappropriated funds.
They were formerly being prosecuted before Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of a sister court before his elevation to the Court of Appeal.
In court three of the charge, Obadina and Almond Projects Ltd were alleged to have, on April 3, 2014 directly took possession or control of the sum of N 648,000,000.00 (Six Hundred and Forty Eight Million Naira) paid into the account of Almond Projects Ltd with Zenith Bank Plc Account No: 1010921116.
The money was allegedly to have been paid from the account of the Office of the National Security Adviser with the Central Bank of Nigeria without contract award.
The agency said the fund formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful activity of Col. Dasuki (rtd) and the offence is contrary to Section 15(2), (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 as amended in 2012 and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
NAN reports that Justice Dimgba had, on July 4, 2024, adjourned for adoption of final written addresses after the EFCC had closed its case with four witnesses and the defendants called two witnesses before he was elevated to the Appeal Court.

 

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Thursday, dismissed a suit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited seeking to stop the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) from taking administrative action against it

Justice James Omotosho, in a judgment, held that the suit was an abuse of court process having been filed after a similar suit was filed on the issue by a lawyer, Festus Onifade, with Multichoice and FCCPC as parties in the suit.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that MultiChoice, the operator of DStv and Gotv had, recently, increased the subscription rates on its packages against an invitation by FCCPC to give explanation on why the company wanted to effect a price hike.

Justice Omotosho, on March 12, restrained FCCPC from sanctioning the pay-Tv company until the hearing and determination of the substance suit.

The judge gave the order after an ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/379/2025 and moved by Moyosore Onigbanjo, SAN, to challenge FCCPC’s alleged threat.

NAN reports that the FCCPC had summoned MultiChoice Nigeria Ltd to provide explanations regarding the March 1 price review of its packages.

The commission directed the company’s chief executive officer to appear for an investigative hearing on Feb. 27, raising concerns over frequent price hikes, potential market dominance abuse and anti-competitive practices within the pay-TV industry.
The FCCPC also issued a stern warning, stating that failure to justify the price adjustment or comply with fair market principles would lead to regulatory sanctions.
However in the ex parte motion filed by MultiChoice’s legal team led by Moyosore Onigbanjo, the company sought an order of interim injunction restraining the FCCPC and its officers from carrying out the threat against it, as communicated via a letter dated March 3, pending the hearing and determination of the motion for an interlocutory injunction.
It also sought an order restraining the commission and its officers from issuing any further directive or taking any steps capable of disrupting its business activities, pending the hearing and determination of the motion for an interlocutory injunction.
Justice Omotosho had, on March 27, fixed today for judgement after counsel for the MultiChoice, Onigbanjo and FCCPC’s lawyer, Prof. J.E.O. Abugu, SAN, adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the suit.
Delivering the judgement, the judge observed that an earlier suit filed by Onifade before the same Federal High Court in Abuja, and in which Multichoice is a party, was still pending before the company decided to file the instant suit.
The judge said Multichoice could ventilate the issues in the suit filed by Onifade simply filing a counter claim rather than filing a separate suit.
“With respect to issue two, abuse of court process refers to when a party misuses a court process for the purpose of harassing or annoying his opponent.
“It is to file multiple processes on the same issues and between the same parties,” he said, citing previous court cases.
According to the judge, the abuse lies in the multiplicity and the manner or evidence of the right of the parties rather than the exercise of the right per se.
Citing previous case, Justice Omotosho held that “the employment of judicial process is generally regarded as abuse of judicial process where a party improperly uses the issue of the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent and the efficient administration of justice.”
The judge said MultiChoice also admitted to the existence of a similar suit In Paragraphs 7 and 8 of its further affidavit.
“Now in that suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/363/2025 between Mr. Festus Onifade and Multichoice Nigeria Limited and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, the plaintiff there had filed a suit challenging the right of Multichoice to increase its subscription price as same is unfair.
“The plaintiff therefore sought among others a declaration that Multichoice suspends its impending price increase for being in breach of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018.
“This instant suit was filed by Multichoice challenging the powers of the defendant (FCCPC) to regulate its subscription prices.
“The origin of both suits is from a complaint by the said Mr Festus Onifade about the alleged unfair increase proposed by Multichoice Nigeria Limited.
“It is therefore clear as day that weighing both suits, especially the parties and reliefs sought, the suits are similar and can be contested in one of the suits and not in different actions,” he said.
He further held that MultiChoice was aware of the suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/363/2025 filed by Onifade on Feb. 27, “which means it was filed before this instant suit.”
“To my mind, filing this instant suit even though the defendant in that suit is now the plaintiff is an abuse of court and an unnecessary and vexatious duplicity of actions.
“Quite dearly, these issues can be dealt with in that pending suit without the need to file a fresh surt.
“Relying on the above decisions, I therefore hold that the plaintiff in this suit could have ventilated its grievance in the other pending suit without the need to file a fresh suit.
“Allowing this suit to go on to conclusion will lead to a likely conflict of decisions arising from judgments in this court and in the other suit.
“The long and short of what this court is trying to say is that this instant suit is an abuse of court process on grounds of multiplicity of actions.
“Thus this suit must be dismissed for being an abuse of court process,” the judge ruled.
The judge then proceeded to decline jurisdiction and dismissed the suit.
However, Justice Omotosho went ahead to determine the case on the merit and held that since Nigeria runs a free market economy, the FCCPC lacked the power to interfere in the decisions of private companies to fix their prices.
The judge held that under Section 88 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, it is only the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that can regulate prices in a regulated industry and for essential goods, not the kind of services being rendered by the Multichoice where consumers have choices.
The judge held that the FCCPC had no business querying how companies fix their prices in a free market economy.

 

Flowerbudnews

The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has declared that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction over simple contracts “that are regulated by statute,” and entered into by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) with an engaged contractor.

Justice Okong Abang, in a unanimous judgment, held that the appeal was unmeritorious.
The judgment was delivered in an appeal filed by the CBN against Adani Mega System Ltd and its certified true copy made available to newsmen on Wednesday in Abuja
Adani Mega System Ltd had acted as a service provider/vendor of a screening platform for the inspection of all inbound and outbound cargo.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the dispute, however, arose from an executed “build, operate and own agreement” dated March 3, 2017.

Adani Mega System Ltd, by virtue of a project engagement mandate from the CBN dated Feb. 16, 2017 and a build, operate and own agreement dated March 20, 2017, held a valid and duly executed contract with the CBN Technical Committee of the Comprehensive Import Supervision Scheme (CISS).

This was done on behalf of the Federal Government of Nigeria as the exclusive service provider/vendor for the enterprise screening platform for the inspection of all inbound and outbound cargo.
In compliance with the relevant due process of laws of Nigeria, the CBN at the time, sought and obtained a letter of no objection from the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP) regarding the contract between the company and the Federal Government through the CBN’s Technical Committee of the Comprehensive Import Supervision Scheme (CISS).
After the certificate of no objection was obtained, the company said it commenced work by expanding its capital, including borrowed funds running into millions of dollars, and completed extensive work on the project.
Subsequently, the company alleged that the CBN, without any reasonable ground, suspended its contract despite its completion.
As a result of the suspension, the CBN Technical Committee on the Comprehensive Import Supervision Scheme, in a letter dated Sept. 18, 2017, terminated the company’s contract.
Aggrieved by the development, the company challenged what it termed the unlawful termination of its concluded contract at the Federal High Court, Abuja.
The company’s legal team relied, among other authorities, on the provisions of the Pre-Shipment Inspection of Import Act Cap 26, Laws of the Federation, and the Pre-Shipment Inspection of Export Act Cap 25, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
The parties argued their case and Justice J. Mohammed, in the judgement, faulted the CBN’s suspension and agreed with the company’s legal team’s submission.
Dissatisfied, the CBN counsel, S.K. AbdulSelam, approached the Appeal Court, asking it to interpret relevant laws regarding whether or not the Federal High Court has jurisdiction over simple contracts.
He prayed the court to determine whether the trial court lacked the competence and jurisdiction to hear and determine the respondent’s suit, which was based on a simple contract.
The court, therefore, urged the appellate court to quash the company’s suit.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Abang upheld the lower court decision.
The judge held that a due consideration of the facts of the case and the interpretation of various statutory provisions cited by the parties led to the conclusion.
He said, “having regard to the agreement of the parties that led to the execution of Exhibit PL3 (build, operate and own agreement) for the provision of the scanning services infrastructure required for Pre-Shipment Inspection of all inbound and outbound cargo as prescribed by Nigerian law, the contract is not an ordinary simple contract.”
The judge held that the contract, which the CBN regarded as “simple,” was a contract with “statutory flavour.”
“In other words, it is a contract regulated by statute; that is, regulated by the provisions of the Pre-Shipment Inspection of Import Act Cap 25 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and the Pre-Shipment Inspection of Export Act Cap 26 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria,” the judge added.
Abang held that where there is a dispute arising from such a contract regulated by statute, it is the statute itself that will determine the forum where the aggrieved party will ventilate its grievance.
He made reference to Section 20(3) of the Pre-Shipment Inspection of Export Act Cap 25 Laws of the Federation 2004.
“Every proceeding under this Act shall, subject to the applicable procedure, be commenced at the Federal High Court, and any reference in this Act to ‘Court’ shall be construed accordingly.”
The court unanimously found the appeal unmeritorious and dismissed same.

 

Flowerbudnews

The Federal High Court (FHC) has announced the establishment of Freedom of Information (FoI) Desk to enhance journalists’ and public access to information in the court.
The Director of Information of the FHC, Dr Catherine Christopher, made the announcement on Sunday in a statement made available to newsmen in Abuja.
She said the establishment of the desk was in line with the commitment of the court to uphold transparency, promote accountability and enhance access to information.
“The court hereby announces the establishment and operationalisation of Freedom of Information (FoI) Desk.
“The Information/FoI Desk has been created to serve as a central point for:
“Receiving inquiries from journalists and members of the public.
“Submitting letters, formal FoI requests, and related correspondence;
“Providing guidance on accessing public records and information in line with the Freedom of Information Act,” Christopher said.
The director said the desk, which is located at the FHC’s Headquarters in Abuja, is fully staffed with trained personnel ready to assist individuals and organisations seeking information about the court’s activities, decisions and operations.
She said the desk would also ensure compliance with legal and procedural requirements in accessing information.
“This initiative reflects the court’s ongoing efforts to foster open communication and support the constitutional right to information.
“For further information, please visit the Information/FOI Desk at the Federal High Court Headquarters during official working hours from 8:00am to 4:00pm, or contact us via email at fhc.informationdepartment@gmail.com or phone 09160005854.”
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the FoI Act, passed in 2011, grants citizens a legally enforceable right to access information held by public institutions, including government ministries , agencies and bodies performing public functions.
The Act aims to promote transparency, accountability, and public participation in government.

 

Rite Foods Ltd, the manufacturer of Fearless Energy Drinks, have sought a N1.6 billion in damages from Mamuda Beverages Nig. Ltd, the maker of Pop Power Energy Drinks, over allegations bordering on trademark infringement.

Rite Foods Ltd, in a fresh suit filed by its team of lawyers led by Oyetola Oshobi, SAN, and Boonyameen Lawal, SAN, also sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the company from further producing Pop Power Energy Drinks with similar resemblance with its products.

In the writ of summons marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/705/2025 filed on April 14 before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja, the plaintiff sued Mamuda Beverages, a Lebanese firm based in Kano, as sole defendant.

The plaintiff, which has its registered trademark number as 38227 and its registered designed number as NG/DS/NT/2020/1099, sought 10 reliefs.

It sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining Mamuda Beverages, its directors, distributors or any other person(s) from infringing its registered trademark by engaging in the trade or business of manufacturing, supplying, distributing or selling the drinks in Nigeria,

Rite Foods Ltd prayed the court for an order for the delivery up for destruction of the offending Pop Power Energy Drink products and all other products held to be infringing its registered design and trademark, in the possession, custody and/ or control of the defendant.
It sought “general damages in the sum of $1,000,000,000.00 (one billion Naira) for injury suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the infringement and unlawful use of the plaintiff’s registered design and trademark by the defendant.
“Cost of this suit in the sum of N60,000,000.00 (sixty million naira).”
In its statement of claims, Rite Foods Energy, incorporated as a company in February 2007, said it produces fast-moving consumer goods such as “Bigi Drinks,” “Fearless Energy Drinks,” “Sosa Fruit Drinks” and “sausage”
The plaintiff said before it introduced its energy drinks, other energy drinks in the Nigerian market were being sold in 250 millilitre and 473 millilitre metal cans.
It said it pioneered and designed a unique and highly distinctive 500 millilitre plastic bottle with colours, size, shape, ornamental configuration with a lion head and the name, “Fearless” which together form a distinctive getup or design.
Rite Foods said its novelty design and aesthetic of the “Fearless” energy drinks was registered as an industrial design under the Patents and Designs Act on 24 August 2020 by the Registrar of Patents and Designs.
It, however, averred that Mamuda Beverages had since the introduction of the design and before the issuance of the writ of summons in this suit infringed on the plaintiff’s registered design for the Fearless Energy Drinks bottle.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant’s imitation, though in a smaller 330ml bottle, bears striking similarities in shape, colour, and logo placement, leading to widespread confusion among consumers and retailers, some of whom have referred to the infringing product as “small Fearless.”
Against this backdrop, Rite Foods said it sued Mamuda Beverages before Justice Inyang Ekwo of a sister court in suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/139/2025 to seek redress earlier in the year.
The plaintiff said on Jan. 31, it obtained injunctive and other preservative orders before Justice Ekwo, restraining Mamuda Beverages from continuing with the manufacturing, supplying, distributing, selling, marketing the earlier Pop Power Energy drinks’ product.
It alleged that while these interim protective orders of the court were pending, the defendant approached it with a proposal for settlement.
It explained that the proposal for settlement was predicated on four broad heads.
It said it was agreed that “the bottle cap shall be changed to a different colour, the two existing border lines on the product label shall be modified to anew colour, the word “classic” on the label shall be replaced with an alternative term and the colour of the bottle shall not be black or gray and shall be adjusted to a different colour.”
It said it was to ensure that the defendant would redesign its energy drink product in such a way as to distinguish their product from that of the plaintiff.
Rite Foods said in the earlier suit, it did not demand for any monetary compensation for the damage suffered and losses incurred as a result of the defendant’s deliberate imitation of its product.
“All the plaintiff wanted was to be able to enjoy its intellectual property right in its product and to restrain unauthorised persons such as the defendant from infringing on same,” it said.
It said parties executed terms of settlement which was filed in the registry of the court on March 3, and subsequently adopted same as the consent judgment on March 4.
Rite Foods Ltd, however, alleged that a few weeks after the consent judgment of the court, it got wind of the commencement of production and distribution of a “remake” or “remodel” of Mamuda’s Pop Power Energy Drinks’ product.
“Upon an examination of the purported “remake” or “remodel” of the earlier infringing Pop Power Energy Drinks product, it was discovered that the new product was substantially the same as the earlier infringing product which was subject of suit 139,” it averred.
According to the firm, the defendant is currently producing the Pop Power Energy Drinks in commercial/industrial quantities for purchase by the unsuspecting public.
Against this development, Rite Foods Ltd filed the fresh suit against Mamuda Beverages Nig Ltd.
It said unless the court intervenes, the defendant will continue to infringe on the plaintiff’s exclusive right to the use of its registered design and trademark.
But in its preliminary objection, Mamuda Beverages urged Justice Nwite to dismiss the suit for being an abuse of court process.
The company, through his lawyer, Chief Offiong Offiong, SAN, argued that Rite Foods Ltd had filed a similar suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/139/2025 before Justice Ekwo.
The defendant said that the case which was instituted on Jan. 28 by the plaintiff via a motion ex parte, motion on notice as well as a writ of summons, had the same parties in the instant suit.
It admitted that on Jan 31, Rite Foods’ ex-parte application was granted and the company executed same on Feb. 10.
Mamuda Beverages also admitted that the parties subsequently compromised and settled the said suit on terms of settlement adopted on March 4 and entered as consent judgment by Justice Ekwo.
It said one of the agreements was that Mamuda Beverages shall effect modifications to the product design of its Pop Power Energy Drinks before resuming production and sale, which it claimed it did.
According to the defendant, the present suit therefore constitutes an abuse of court process in that it seeks to relitigate matters resolved in suit no FHC/ABJ/CS/139/2025.
“The honourable court is functus officio in respect of the subject matter and lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaints of the plaintiff in this suit,” it argued.
Justice Nwite had fixed May 28 for the hearing of the preliminary objection of Mamuda Beverages Nig Ltd.