Tag: Court

 

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday, adjourned the N300 million fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by the Singer, Darlington Achakpo, popularly known as Speed Darlington, against the police, until March 19 for adoption of processes.

Justice Musa Liman fixed the date after counsel for the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police, CSP Audu Garba, informed the court that the police had just filed a further counter affidavit in response to the singer’s further affidavit served on them in the last adjourned date.

Rosemary Hamza, who appeared for Speed Darlington, said she was yet to be served to know how to respond appropriately.
The court subsequently fixed March 19 for parties to adopt their processes.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that in the fundamental right suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1832/2024, Speed Darlington sued I-G as sole respondent.
The artiste, who urged the court to declare that his arrest and detention violated his fundamental rights as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution, sought four orders.
In the suit filed by Deji Adeyanju, he sought an order directing the I-G to immediately and unconditionally release him from detention facility where he is being kept.
Alternatively, he sought an order mandating and compelling the I-G to produce him before the court to enable the court inquire into the circumstances constituting grounds of his arrest and detention and where it deems fit, admits him to bail.
He also sought “an order directing the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of N300,000,000.00 (Three Hundred Million Naira) only as general, exemplary and aggravating damages for their unlawful and continued detention since the 2024 till date.”
In the affidavit deposed to by Esther Eyisi, a secretary in the law firm, she alleged that Speed Darlington was first arrested on Oct. 4, 2024 for allegedly defaming Burna Boy, a popular musician.
She said he was illegally detained for five days and subjected to severe torture and maltreatment without being formally charged to a court of competent jurisdiction.
Eyisi averred that the artiste was eventually granted bail by the police after spending five days under inhumane conditions.
According to her, on Nov. 27, 2024, the applicant was arrested and detained by officers of respondent on the grounds that he allegedly jumped administrative bail.
This, she said, was in spite of notification from her client about his medical emergency and his inability to report on the scheduled date and obtaining the permission of the officers of the respondent to travel to Owerri, Imo for a performance.
She said the continuous detention of Speed Darlington without arraignment contravened his constitutional rights, describing him as the “breadwinner in his family.”
But in the police counter affidavit deposed to by SP David Atama, he averred that on Sept. 24, 2024, his office received a petition from the nominal complainant, Damini Ebunoluwa Ogulu, popularly known as Burna Boy, through his counsel G.C. Ijioma of Rockfold Chambers.
Atama said Burna Boy alleged threat to his life, intimidation, among his followers contrary to Section 24 of the Cybercrime Prohibition (Prevention) Act, 2015 (as amended).
The officer alleged that in the course of investigation, Speed Darlington was invited and he came and volunteered a written statement and admitted the commission of the offence.
But in the further affidavit, Speed Darlington said he had never admitted to committing any offence.
The singer said the allegations in the counter affidavit were false and misleading as Burna Boy “himself had confirmed the allegation which is now subject of brute joke that several personalities have been making publicly in respect of the said Burna Boy.”
He said he had never jumped bail contrary to the police submission.
Meanwhile, Speed Darlington was, on Jan. 15, admitted to a N20 million bail with one surety by Justice Ekerete Akpan of a sister count in Abuja.
Justice Akpan gave the order in a ruling on the singer’s bail application moved by his lawyer, Marshall Abubakar, after he pleaded not guilty to a two-count charge bordering on alleged cybercrime.

 

A Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja, on Thursday, cautioned the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police in the charge filed against Sen. Andy Uba, and two others, over allegations bordering on N400 million fraud .

Justice Inyang Ekwo gave the warming after I-G’s lawyer, M.C. Anthony, relied on the FHC (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, in a motion ex-parte filed to seek an order for substituted service of the charge on Uba and his co-defendants.

When the matter was called, Anthony, who announced appearance for the prosecution, told the court that he was holding brief for another counsel.

Justice Ekwo then asked him if he was a private or government lawyer and Anthony responded that he was a government lawyer.

“You cannot hold brief for a government officer in court,” the judge told him.

Justice Ekwo further observed that on Nov. 13, 2024 when the matter was heard, though Anthony appeared in court in company of another lawyer, he did not inform the court that he held a brief of his colleague.

“You were in court on 13th of November, 2024 with Mohammed Gajo,” he said.
When the judge asked him what the ex-parte motion was all about, he said::”My lord, the motion is seeking a leave for substituted service of the charge and other processes on the 1st to 3rd defendants/respondents.”

When the judge asked him under what law was the motion ex-parte brought, he said their application was predicated on Order 6, Rule 5(b), d(I), 5(e), and 8 of the FHC (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019.
The judge, therefore, asked Anthony if the case was a civil or criminal matter, and the lawyer responded that it was a criminal matter.
Justice Ekwo, then, told him that being heard under the law is supported by the law and that what would authorise him (Anthony) to file the motion should be pursuant to Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015
“So does this apply?” he asked rhetorically.
According to the judge, this is based on law and it is not exercises in vacuum.
“You have to go and put your house in order,” the judge said and adjourned the matter until Feb. 18 for hearing of the motion ex-parte.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the I-G, Mr Kayode Egbetokun, sued Andy, the former Senator representing Anambra South, and two others.
The I-G, in a two-count charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/538/2024 filed before Justice Ekwo, joined Crystal Uba and Benjamin Etu as 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively.
The charge, dated Oct. 8, was filed on Oct. 10 by Abdulrashid Sidi in the Legal/Prosecution Section at the Police Force Headquarters, Abuja.
In count one, Uba, Crystal, Etu and Hajiya Fatima now at large, sometimes in 2022, were alleged to have conspired amongst themselves to commit the offence.
Una and others were accused of obtaining by false pretence, by making a presentation to George Uboh that they had perfected ways for the appointment of the Managing Director of Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) to any interested persons who could afford N400 million.
“A presentation which you know is not true and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 8 and punishable under Section 1 (3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related offences Act, 2006.”
In count two, the defendants and Fatima, who is at large, were alleged to have conspired amongst themselves with intention to defraud and induce George Uboh by making a presentation to him that they had perfected way to give an appointment of the post of Managing Directorship of NDDC to any interested person who could afford the sum of N400 million.
The offence is contrary to Section 1 (2) and punishable under Section 1 (3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related offences Act, 2006,” the count read in part.
Uboh, in a letter dated April 5, 2023, and addressed to the I-G, said the petition was based on documentary and voice recording.
According to Uboh, the evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable.
No fewer than six witnesses had been listed to testify against the ex-lawmaker and others.
Justice Ekwo, in the last adjourned date, had adjourned their arraignment until Feb. 18, 2025.
The adjournment followed a complaint by Anthony, who appeared for the I-G, that the defendants had been evading the service of the court documents despite being given administrative bail.
Anthony told the court that they had been on the matter since 2023.
He said the defendants obtained a fundamental rights enforcement order which had prevented the police from bringing them to court.
The lawyer said it was until after the order was lifted that the defendants were finally charged before the judge.

 

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday, fixed Feb. 19 for hearing in a suit filed by Global Gas and Refining Limited against Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC) after an attempt to settle amicably failed.
Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date after counsel to Global Gas, Patrick Ikwueto, SAN, informed the court that out-of-court settlement, earlier opted for by parties, had failed.
Global Gas had, in the suit, sought an order restraining SPDC and the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) from selling its onshore asset to Renaissance, a Consortium made up of ND Western Aradel Energy, First E and P, Watersmith and Petrolin.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that in the originating motion marked, FHC/ABJ/CS/413/2024, the company sought the restraining order pending the hearing and the determination of the appeal and cross appeal filed by the parties before the Supreme Court.
The suit followed a protracted dispute over a Gas Processing Agreement (GPA) between the parties and the subsequent arbitration award that has become a subject of appeals.
Global Gas, in the suit, is praying the court to issue interim orders preventing SPDC from divesting its assets and halting the NUPRC from approving the sale.
The company argued that allowing the transaction to proceed would jeopardise its ability to enforce any favorable judgment or arbitration award, as the assets in question are integral to the dispute.
Global Gas contends that the divestment would undermine the ongoing proceedings and render any eventual arbitration or judicial relief ineffectual.
At the resumed proceedings, Ikwueto told Justice Ekwo that though the matter was earlier slated for report on out-of-court settlement, the reconciliation had broken down.
He, therefore, prayed the court for a date to commence hearing and lawyers to Shell and NUPRC confirmed the development.
Ikwueto also moved an application to join the Minister of Petroleum, who is President Bola Tinubu, as a defendant in the suit.
Tony Odidia, who announced appearance for a party seeking to be joined in the suit, said their motion on notice had already been filed.
Odidia, who represented Webster Global Ventures Limited, sought the leave of the court to move the application but it was discovered that NUPRC was yet to be served with the motion.
After listening to the submissions of parties, Justice Ekwo adjourned till Feb. 19 for hearing of the applications for joinder and trial.
NAN reports that Global Gas, in its affidavit in support of the application for joinder, argued that, by the provisions of the Petroleum Industry Act, 2021, the petroleum minister is in the administrative and supervisory capacity for divestment of any asset in the industry.
It said the relief sought might occasion a restriction on the power of the minister to give consent for divestment of asset of the SPDC.

The company added that except the minister of petroleum is joined in the suit, they cannot be bound by the order of the court.
It further said that the joinder of the petroleum minister would avoid the risk of multiple litigation in which the same restraining order/grant of interim measure of protection is sought.

 

 

Mr Yisa Usman, the sacked deputy director in Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), has said that he was determined to expose corruption in the board irrespective of the threat and intimidation against him.

Usman told Justice Osatohanmwen Obaseki-Osaghae of the National Industrial Court, Abuja, while being cross examined as sole witness in the suit instituted against JAMB over his alleged unlawful dismissal.

While responding to questions put to him by counsel to JAMB, A. A. Owonikoko, the witness admitted writing petitions to various government agencies over alleged corruption in the board

The aggrieved ex-worker, who admitted receiving queries from the board and an invitation letter to appear before a disciplinary committee before his job was terminated, said he answered the queries and wrote a protest letter against the composition of the committee.

When Owonikoko asked Usman about the email message attached to the invitation letter, dated May 17, 2023, in response to the disciplinary committee’s invitation, the witness admitted writing the reply.

The lawyer then asked Usman to read out the printout of the email message dated May 18, 2023 in open court.

The witness, while reading, said: “Dear Directors, this is a follow-up to the two queries issued to me. I received a letter of invitation on Tuesday, 16th May, 2023, to appear before Disciplinary Committee.

“The attached is my response to the invitation for your information.

“This new development only renew my determination to continue with my quest for justice and my fight against the corrupt practices that characterise our organisation in the past six to seven years, which I stated in the letter, are perpetrated under the cover of the remittances made to the government.’

“It is of note that I am invited to appear before Disciplinary Committee while my contemporaries are invited to promotional examination to substantive director.
.
“But I am not bothered because I do know for certain that God alone promotes.

“I am not deterred by this development, neither am I intimidated in any way.

“The fight against corruption and abuse of authority is the responsibility of every Nigerian. The law will take its course, no matter how long it takes. Thank you.”

He told the court that his reply to the query was submitted in hard copy to his immediate superior and because he wanted all members of the management to be privy to what was going on, he also sent the message to the email addresses of the directors.

“My Lord, the email was to communicate to the directors, the response to the query that was issued to me,” he said.

When Owonikoko told him that his email message was totally unrelated to the subject for which he was invited by the committee, Usman said: “My Lord, it is related.”

The ex-staff admitted writing several petitions against JAMB to different investigating agencies, including National Assembly, about the alleged financial infractions under the current JAMB Registrar, Prof. Ishaq Oloyede.

He admitted writing to Attorney-General for the Federation, Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and Department of State Services.

He also admitted writing to the Minister of Education, Head of Service, National Human Rights Commission and Bureau of Public Procurement about alleged corruption, harassment, victimisation and procurement infractions.

When the lawyer asked him that all his petitions were directed at indicting the JAMB registrar as corrupt, Usman responded in the affirmative.

Owonikoko also asked Usman to read out the last two paragraphs in his response to the disciplinary committee and he read thus:

“As a committed Nigerian citizen, my loyalty remains first to the nation before any individual. The fight against corruption is the responsibility of everyone.

“The threat of the registrar to cause me harm or have my appointment terminated will not deter me, neither will the continued attempt to malign me.

“I remain determined in the fight for justice and against the corrupt practices in the system. I will not back down for any reason until justice is done and seen to be done.

“And while I look up to God for complete respite, I wish to state it here that my life has been under constant threat for the bold action I took to disclose the corrupt practices in JAMB and the abuse of authority by the Registrar, Prof. Ishaq Oloyede.

“I reported this to the DSS and the IGP previously. I am again stating it here that if anything happens to me, the Registrar, Prof. Ishaq Oloyede, and his DFA, Mr. Mufutau Bello, should be held responsible.’’

When the lawyer also asked him to read Paragraph 2 of the dismissal letter, Usman read thus:

‘‘This is sequel to the recommendation of the Directorate Staff Disciplinary Committee after due consideration of your written responses to the allegations of serious misconduct leveled against you.

“And also after taking cognisance of your letter of 17th May, 2023, wherein you state never to appear before the Board staff disciplinary committee despite the formal letter of invitation requesting you to appear.’’

Usman, however, denied saying that he would never appear before the disciplinary committee.

Usman said his letter of May 17, 2023, in response to the disciplinary committee’s invitation, was to reject the constitution of the committee.

According to him, the reason stated, my lord, was that they were all complicit in the infractions I reported to the relevant government agencies, and for that reason, I was not certain of getting fair hearing.

When asked if he was aware that the committee did not include the registrar of the board, he said: “My lord, I am not aware.”

When also asked if he was aware that the registrar and Director of Finance and Account (DFA) recused themselves in the committee, Usman said: “My Lord, I was never communicated to that effect. So, I was not aware.”

He admitted saying that the DFA “has overshot his retirement period and occupying the office illegally.”

When the lawyer asked him if he named the DFA as a party in his suit, he said: “My Lord, my suit is against JAMB and the DFA is a management member in JAMB.”

Usman denied that the criminal charge preferred against him at the Federal High Court in Abuja was as a result of the investigation conducted into his allegations against the board and after they were found to be unmeritorious.

Owonikoko to Usman: “Confirm to this honourable court that when the present Registrar assumed office, he did an audit of the finances and it was in the course of this that the investigating authorities came up with some of these infractions?”

“My lord, that is not true,” he responded.

When the lawyer asked him to confirm the date the five-count charge was filed, Usman said it was instituted on March 30, 2023.

When the lawyer then asked if there had never been any investigation into the activities of JAMB by investigating authorities since Oloyede assumed office, Usman said: “My lord, there had been investigations indeed but the charge just read out was never part of that investigation.”

Earlier, Justice Obaseki-Osaghae admitted the list of the claimant’s documents and statements on oath in evidence as presented by his lawyer, Mohammed Shuaibu, and marked as Exhibits C1-C5, CE1-CE23, and C6-C15 respectively.

The judge said the admissibility was subject to the right of the defendant to object to anyone of them.

The judge adjourned the matter until Feb. 27 for the defendant to open its defence.

It would be recalled that Usman had filed a N150 million suit against the board over alleged unlawful dismissal.

Usman, in the suit marked: NICN/ABJ/266/2023 and filed by his lawyer, Oseini Bamigbaye from the Chambers of Mohammed Shuaibu, sought nine reliefs.

While Usman is the claimant, JAMB is the sole defendant in the case dated and filed Sept. 29, 2023.

The claimant prayed the court to declare that the constitution of the Board’s Directorate Staff Disciplinary Committee set up by the office was wholly irregular, illegal, null and void for failure to comply with Article 3.5.4 of the Board’s Staff Manual and Conditions of Service.

He also prayed the court to declare that the composition of the committee, mostly consisting of the board’s registrar and other directors who were beneficiaries of infractions exposed by him “in Item No. 6, Page 5 of his response dated April 3, 2023, to the query issued on March 31, 2023, is unconstitutional,null and void.”

He premised his argument on the grounds that his right to fair hearing could not have been guaranteed before the committee.

Usman urged the court to declare that “the claimant’s purported dismissal by the defendant without the consideration of the Committee’s Report by the defendant’s board is unlawful, illegal null and void.”

The claimant, who sought an order setting aside his “purported dismissal” by the board, prayed the court for an order reinstating him “to his position with full entitlements, benefits and perks due to him by virtue of his position.”

He sought an order granting to the claimant all the salaries, allowances, perks due to him or that would have been due to him but for the purported dismissal, among others.

 

Mr Tunde Omosebi, a former presidential aspirant on the platform of All Progressives Congress (APC) in the 2023 elections, has sued the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and others for 990 trillion pounds in damages for allegedly violating his fundamental rights.

Omosebi, in the suit filed before Justice James Omotosho of a Federal High Court in Abuja, also prayed the court for an order converting the CBN to a Reserve Bank of Nigeria (RBN).

He also urged the court to make an order that the commercial banks involved in the alleged financial irregularities operating and contributed to the disadvantaged economy be converted to “DRIG BANK” at the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).

He equally sought exemplary damages against the defendants in the sum of £99 trillion pounds.

Omosebi, who sought a 10 per cent interest on the total recoverable amount, prayed the court for the sum of N5 million as cost of filing the suit.

He urged the court to grant his reliefs over alleged traumatic torture he went through and in line with the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedures) Rules 2009 as guaranteed by 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/766/2024, the plaintiff named CBN, United Bank for Africa (UBA), Guarantee Trust Bank (GTB), Zenith Bank, the Senate and House of Representatives as 1st to 6th defendants respectively.
The claimant, who listed other banks in the suit, also sued the Ministry of Finance as 7th defendant.

The suit was filed pursuant to Order , Rules 1, 2, 3, & 5 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009; Sections 34(1)(a), 35(1), 36(1), 41(1), 46(1) – (3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

The applicant, in the affidavit he personally deposed to, described himself as a businessman and politician.
Omosebi also described himself as the Chairman, Federation Executive Council (FEC) and the Prime Minister of Federal Republic of Nigeria, even though these positions are unrecognised in the Nigeria’s constitution.

According to him, the applicant 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 averred.
He alleged that the defendants breached the assembly industrial agreement/arrangement, denied him his Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rule 2009, Sections 35, 43, 45 and Fundamental Objectives and Directives of State Policy 14(2)(b), 16(1)(a-b).
“That approximately four years ago, the applicant opened and operates few corporate and personal accounts with defendants 2 with aim 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 breached the industrial agreement consented to during the assembly of Business Owners, FEDERAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, AND THE CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL EXECUTIVE COUNCI.
”The defendant (s) also infringed on the applicants Intellectual property and obstructed the 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.
“WHEREFORE, based on the facts and defendant(s) abusive conducts, disregard for Rule of the Assembly and Constitution, applicant respectfully prays that this honorable court grants applicants relief and enter judgement as prayed,” Omosebi averred.
Justice Omotosho fixed Feb. 5 for hearing.
NAN recalls that Omosebi was evicted from his Abuja residence on Nov. 15, 2024, after a lengthy dispute over unpaid rent and a broken lease agreement.
The eviction took place when a court enforcement team, supported by police officers, arrived to execute the order at Omosebi’s property located at a highbrow area of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
The landlord, who requested anonymity, explained that Omosebi’s tenancy had expired more than four years before the order was gotten from the court.
According to the landlord, Omosebi claimed ownership of the property but never appeared in court to defend his position, leading to a final court judgment in the landlord’s favour.

 

A Lawyer, Emmanuel Ekpenyong Esq.FCIArb., has prayed the Supreme Court to set the appeal against the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, seeking an order compelling the AGF to promulgate the order to bring Part 1 of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, CAP. F35, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria into operation, down for accelerated hearing.

Ekpenyong dragged the AGF to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal, in appeal number: CA/A/132/2020, between Ekpenyong and AGF, dismissed the appeal on May 12, 2022.

The Appeal Court upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court (FHC), Abuja, delivered by retired Justice Anwuli Chikere, that the AGF has absolute discretionary powers under Section 3 (1) of the Act to promulgate an order to bring Part 1 of the Act into operation.

But the Supreme Court had on May 27, 2024, granted leave to Ekpenyong to appeal the judgement of the Appeal Court which dismissed his appeal against the AGF.

A five-member panel of the apex court, in a unanimous ruling delivered by Justice Adamu Jauro, granted the appellant’s prayer for leave of the apex court to seek redress against the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

Meanwhile, Ekpenyong of the law firm of Fred-Young & Evans LP filed his Appellant’s Brief marked: SC/CR/92/2024 dated and filed on Oct. 17, 2024.

The human right and constitutional lawyer therefore said that more than two months since he filed his brief at the apex court, the respondent (AGF) was yet to respond.

He therefore filed a motion on notice pursuant to Order 4, Rule 1, Order 16, Rules 2(1), Rules 4(1) and 12 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2024, Section 22 and 27 of the Supreme Court Act and under the inherent jurudiction of the court.

In the motion he filed on Jan. 17, 2025, Ekpenyong sought an order to set down appeal number: SC/CR/92/2024; between him and the AGF, for hearing on his brief of argument dated October 17, 2024 alone.

He also sought, “an order of this Honorable court for accelerated hearing of Appeal No. SC/CR/92/2024; Emmanuel Ekpenyong Esq. v AGF in the interest of justice and national interest.”

The Lawyer, in his six-ground of arguments, said he filed his Appellant’s Brief of Argument within the time stipulated under the rules of the court.

According to him, the 30 (thirty) days period stipulated under the rules of this Honorable court for the AGF to file his Respondent’s Brief of Argument has since expired.

He submitted that the AGF had not filed his brief of argument because he does not have a formidable response against the issues of law raised and argued in the Appellant’s Brief before the court.

“Since the enactment of the Foreign Judgment Reciprocal Enforcement Act, CAP. F35, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 (“the Act”) in 1960, shortly after Nigeria’s independence, the Act has not come into operation because successive Attorney Generals of the Federation have not promulgated an Order pursuant to Section 3 (1) of the Act to bring the Act into operation.

“This appeal is in the interest of justice and national interest because Nigeria, Nigerians and Nigerian businesses lose several millions of dollars every day in business opportunities and international trade because Nigeria does not have a modem legislation on recognition and registration of foreign judgments.

“Accelerated hearing of this appeal will clear the air on the extent of the AGF’s administrative discretion under Section 3 (1) of the Act as well as that of other public officers under Nigeria’s constitutional democracy and lead to a landmark decision which will improve Nigeria’s legal system,” he argued.

 

 

Justice Emeka Nwite of a Federal High Court in Abuja has returned the case file of a suit filed by 18 suspended Edo local government chairmen against Gov. Monday Okpebholo and others for reassignment.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the suit was filed by the suspended chairmen to seek an order of status quo ante bellum to restrain Gov. Okpebholo from giving effect to the house of assembly’s resolution for their removal.

The matter, which was held on Jan. 6 when Justice Nwite was a vacation judge, NAN reliably gathered, had been remitted back to the Chief Judge, Justice John Tsoho, for reassignment after the vacation ended.

Court activities resumed officially on Jan. 7 after the Christmas holiday which began on Dec. 16, 2024.
It was also gartered that the case may either be reassigned back to Justice Nwite or another judge.

NAN reports that the judge had, on Jan. 6, ordered all the parties in the suit to maintain a status quo.
Justice Nwite, in a ruling, gave the order after counsel to the plaintiffs moved a motion ex-parte to the effect.
The judge, who said extreme carefulness needed to be exercise in granting the reliefs, said he would only make order for parties to maintain a status quo pending the hearing and the determination of the substantive suit.
The matter was subsequently adjourned until Jan. 20 for hearing of the substantive suit.
The aggrieved 18 LG chairmen and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) had filed the motion ex-parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1952/V/2024.
In the motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, but filed Dec. 24, 2024, the chairmen and the PDP sued Speaker, Edo State House of Assembly; Edo State House of Assembly; Executive Governor of Edo State; Government of Edo State as 1st to 4th defendants.
Also joined in the suit include the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Edo State; Attorney-General of the Federation and Inspector-General of Police as 5th to 7th defendants respectively
They sought an order of interim injunction compelling or directing the 1st to 5th defendants, their servants, agents, privies, any person, institution or successors howsoever called, acting or purporting to act on their behalf to maintain status quo ante bellum, as at 15th December, 2024, pending the determination of the substantive suit, filed contemporaneously with this application.

They sought an order of interim injunction restraining the 3rd to 5th defendants from further acting on the resolution of the assembly, suspending the plaintiffs and their deputies pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit filed contemporaneously with this application.