Tag: Court

 

Flowerbudnews

Dr Olu Agunloye, former Minister of Power and Steel under ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo, has filed a N1 billion suit against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over allegations that it published his name on its website’s wanted list.

Agunloye, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/167/2024 and filed by his team of lawyers led by Mr Adeola Adedipe, SAN, also joined the Attorney-General of Federation (AGF) as 2nd defendant.

The case, presently before Justice Emeka Nwite of a Federal High Court, Abuja, has now been fixed for April 18 for hearing.

The originating summons, dated and filed Feb. 8, was sighted by the News Agency of Nigeria on Friday.

The ex-minister sought six reliefs, including a declaration that the EFCC cannot lawfully exercise its discretion, powers and or functions under Sections 1(2\(c\, 6, 7, 13 of the EFCC Act, 2004, ditto Section 4 of the Police Act 2020, by declaring him wanted on its official website or any other related platform.

Agunloye said this was without recourse to any safeguard in Sections 34({1)(a), 35, 37, 39, 41 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), including a judicial intervention, order or leave of court pursuant to Sections 1(1), 8(1) & 42(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

He, therefore, sought an order for the EFCC, its agents, privies, representatives and other related affiliates to forthwith remove his picture, name, references, details and or particulars from the wanted list published on its official website or any other related platform.

He also sought a perpetual injunction restraining the EFCC and the AGF, “both jointly or severally, whether by themselves or their staff, from further declaring the plaintiff wanted in relation to the particulars and subject matter of this suit, either on the EFCC official website, newspaper publication or any other related platform, except by a judicial intervention and recourse to all constitutional safeguards available to him in law and equity.

“General damages of one billion baira (N1, 000, 000, 000 00) against the defendants, especially the 1st defendant

“Cost of this action.”

In the affidavit which he personally deposed to, Agunloye said he sought a redress and judicial intervention from court having regard to some very disturbing actions of the anti-graft agency, which he said, ought not to occur under the watch of the AGF, who is the chief law officer of the federation.

He said he sought a judicial determination on the propriety or otherwise, of the exercise of the EFCC’s discretion or power to declare him wanted without recourse to any judicial intervention or relevant constitutional safeguards.

“As at the time of filing this suit, my picture, name, particulars and othe details are currently uploaded on the official website of the 1st defendant,” he said.

The plaintiff said he was declared wanted for corruption and forgery.

According to him, as a result of this action by the 1st defendant, I have become a subject of ridicule, stripped of my dignity, freedom of movement and even presumption of innocence, with respect to a criminal trial which I am currently boing prosecuted of, by the 1st defendant.

He alleged that the deliberate act of the EFCC was orchestrated to negatively project him in the international community.

Agunloye said this was so because sometime in November 2002 to May 2003, while he served as Minister of Power and Steel, he awarded contract to Messrs Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited for the construction of the Mambila Power Project by the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN).

“The award of the said contracts followed all the necessary administrative and authoritative due process, obtaining the necessary approval.

“Moreover, since the award of the contract, successive administrations have continued to interface with the company, Sunrise Power and Transmission Limited, so much so that the government entered into a settlement agreement with it over a dispute.

“On an allegation of breach of contract by the company, Sunrise Power and Transmission Limited resorted to take out an arbitral proceeding before the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, France – in Case No: 26260/SPN/AB/CPB between Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited Vs. FGN

“It is in connection to this arbitral proceeding that the 1st defendant invited me for interrogation on 3rd of May, 2023 and I did honour same on 16th May, 2023, despite my frailties and hailing health conditions.

“Upon my release on administrativ bail, the 1st defendant persisted in hounding me to return for further grilling which I frowned at because I was undergoing serious medical treatment related to heart.

“When the threat and disturbances became alarming, in June 2023, I filed a suit in court to challenge the unnecessary harassment because I was not running away, but only attending to my health with notice to the 1st defendant.

“It was however traumatising on the night of Tuesday, 12th December, 2023, when I started receiving calls from all around the globe that I had been declared wanted by the 1st defendant.

“Knowing fully well that I was not on the run, I reported at the EFCC headquarters here in Abuja the next day, 13th December, 2023 where I was served with a criminal charge and was detained till 18th December, 2023.

“On 10th January, 2024, I was arraigned in court and admitted to bail on 11th January, 2024, because I am presumed innocent of all the criminal allegations,” he averred.

Agunloye said despite the fact that the law presumes him innocent of the criminal charge, EFCC continued with the unlawful publication on its website

He described the action of the anti-graft agency as “arbitrariness, oppression, violation of its statutory powers and functions and unlawful.”(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

 

Flowerbudnews

The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Friday, set aside the inspection order granted Murtala Ajaka, the candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) by the Kogi Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the tribunal had, on Nov. 25, 2023, granted an ex-parte order, allowing the SDP and its candidate in the Nov. 11, 2023 governorship poll to carry out forensic examination of all the Bimordal Voters Accreditation System (BVAS) used in the election, among other reliefs.

The three-member panel of justices led by Justice J.O.K. Oyewole, in a unanimous ruling, vacated the inspection order on the grounds that it went outside the provisions of the Electoral Act.

The appellate court held that while inspection is allowed under the Electoral Act, it must be jointly carried out with the respondents and the scope of the inspection should be within the strict limit allowed under the Electoral Act.

“The ex parte order made by the trial tribunal on the 25th November, 2023 at the instance of the 1st and 2nd respondents are within the jurisdictional competence of the said tribunal.

“However, paragraphs ‘g’, ‘k’ and ‘n’ thereof are beyond the scope of Section 146 (1) of the Electoral Act 2022. The said paragraphs ‘g’, ‘k’ and ‘n’ are hereby expunged.

“The inspection purportedly done pursuant to the said orders of the trial tribunal without the presence of the appellant violates paragraph ‘h’ of the said orders and it is hereby set aside,” the panel ruled

NAN reports that while the SDP was represented at the Court of Appeal by Pius Akubo, SAN; Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, appeared for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was represented by Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN.

Gov. Usman Ododo of Kogi was represented by J.B. Daudu, SAN, while the All Progressives Congress (APC) was represented by Abdulwahab Muhammed, SAN.

Other members of the Appeal Court panel include Justices A. I. Banjoko and A.B. Mohammed.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

 

Flowerbudnews

A lawyer, Emmanuel Ekpenyong, has dragged the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to Supreme Court over alleged failure to promulgate an order to bring Part 1 of the Foreign Judgment Reciprocal Enforcement Act, 1990 into operation since its enactment in 1960 to commence on Feb. 1, 1961.

Ekpenyong, in his notice of motion for leave to appeal dated and filed Feb.15 at the Supreme Court, listed the AGF as sole respondent.

In the motion marked: SC/CR/92/2024, the lawyer sought five orders, including an order extending time for him to seek leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja delivered on May 12, 2022 in appeal number: CA/A/132/2020 between him and the AGF.

He also sought an order of the court granting leave to him to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, among others.

It would be recalled that the Court of Appeal, Abuja had in an appeal number:: CA/A/132/2020, between Ekpenyong and AGF, dismissed the appeal on May 12, 2022.

It, thereafter, upheld the judgement of a Federal High Court (FHC), Abuja that the AGF had absolute discretionary powers under Section 3 (1) of the Act to promulgate an order to bring Part 1 of the Act into operation.

Ekpenyong of Fred-Young & Evans LP had, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/755/2017 dated and filed on June 21, 2017, sued the AGF as sole defendant before retired Justice Anwuli Chikere of a FHC in Abuja.

In the originating summons, the lawyer urged the court to determine whether there is a mandatory legal duty on the AGF under Section 3{1) and 9 of the Foreign Judgment Reciprocal Act, CAP F35, Law of the Federation, 1990 (the 1990 Act) to promulgate an order to bring Part 1 of 1990 Act into operation.

“Whether there is a mandatory legal duty on the defendant under Section 5 of the Foreign Judgment Reciprocal Act, CAP F35, Laws of the Federation, 1990 (the 1990 Act) to make rules to regulate the procedure for registration of foreign judgments in Nigeria,” among other questions.

Ekpenyong, therefore, sought an order of mandamus compelling the AGF “to exercise the mandatory legal duty stipulated in Section 3(1) of the 1990 Act to promulgate an order extending the applicability of part 1 of the 1990 Act to judgments of superior courts of foreign countries with substantial reciprocity treatment with Nigeria and deeming the courts stipulated in the order as superior courts in the foreign countries for the purpose of applicability of Part 1 of the 1990 Act.

“An order for mandamus compelling the defendant to exercise the mandatory legal stipulated in Section 9(2) of the 1990 Act to promulgate an order to bring Part 1 of the 1990 Act into operation and for the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Ordinance, 1958 (the 1958 Ordinance) to cease to have effect in Nigeria,” etc.

The plaintiff averred that he was a member of international law networks like IR Global, Global Law Experts, Legal Finest and International Credit Network and that evidence had shown that he had sufficient interest in the subject matter contrary to the AGF’s argument.

He stated that he had suffered some injuries and hardship as a result of the AGF’s failure to promulgate the order.

In addition, he contended that he had lost business for registration of foreign judgments in Nigeria because of the AGF’s failure to promulgate the order to bring Part 1 of the 1990 Act into operation.

Ekpenyong said that the promulgation of the order would make foreign businesses to do more businesses with Nigerians and Nigerian companies because they would be able to recover monetary judgments in Nigeria.

“This will improve international trade and foreign investments. This will also boost the Nigerian economy and the right to livelihood of the plaintiff and Nigerians,” he said.

Justice Chikere though held that the plaintiff had locus standi to institute the suit contrary to the defendant’s submission, she agreed with the defence arguments on the discretionary power of AGF to promulgate the order only if he was satisfied that there were countries with reciprocal treatment of judgments with Nigeria based on Section 3(1) of the Act.

She consequently dismissed Ekpenyong’s suit.

Upon his two grounds of the proposed appeal to the Supreme Court, Ekpenyong said he is desirous of appealing against the concurrent findings in the judgment of both the trial court and Court of Appeal on questions of mixed law and facts.

According to him, the AGF’s discretion under Section 3 (1) of the 1990 Act is not absolute but subject to judicial review of the courts under Section 6 (6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) in order to prevent an abuse of the discretion under the Act.

He further stated that the courts ought to give a purposive interpretation of Section 3 (1) of the Act and not a literal interpretation which, he argued, has led to absurdity.

He contends that he has shown that his proposed appeal is an exceptional circumstance and urged the apex court to grant him leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of both the trial court and Court of Appeal on the issue.

“The grounds of appeal in the proposed notice of appeal contain cogent, recondite, substantial points of law.

“The applicant has an arguable appeal and the appeal is a public interest litigation which will greatly improve Nigeria’s economy and jurisprudence on the subject matter,” he said.

Ekpenyong said he filed an application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment on July 29, 2022 within the statutory three months’ period but the Appeal Court did not hear or grant the application within the stipulated period.

He said: “The applicant did not file an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal at the registry of the Supreme Court soon after the expiration of the statutory three months’ period because he genuinely believed that the Court of Appeal must first hear the application for leave and reject the same before a fresh application can be filed before the Supreme Court.

No date has been given yet for hearing of Ekpenyong’s application at the Supreme Court. (Flowerbudnews)

 

Flowerbudnews

The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), on Wednesday, closed its case against Prof. Cyril Ndifon, the suspended Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Calabar (UNICAL), and his co-defendant, Sunny Anyanwu.

ICPC’s counsel, Osuobeni Akponimisingha, told Justice James Omotosho of a Federal High Court, Abuja after Bwaigu Fungo, the 4th prosecution witness, a Forensic and intelligence Analyst with the commission, was cross-examined by the defence lawyer, Joe Agi, SAN.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Akponimisingha had earlier informed the court that the anti-corruption commission had about seven witnesses and also planned to amend the charge to increase the witness number in proving their case against the defendants.

Ndifon was, on Jan. 25, re-arraigned alongside Anyanwu as 1st and 2nd defendants on an amended four-count charge bordering on alleged sexual harassment and attempt to perverse the cause of justice.

Anyanwu, who is one of the lawyers in the defence, was joined in the amended charge filed on Jan. 22 by the ICPC on allegation that he called one of the prosecution witnesses on her mobile telephone during the pendency of the charge against Ndifon to threatened her.

They, however, pleaded not guilty to the counts.
Justice Omotosho had, on Friday, granted bail to Ndifon.and Anyanwu in the sum of N250 million and N50 million respectively with two sureties each in the like sum.
Upon resumed trial on Wednesday, Fungo’s cross-examination continued.
When Agi asked the forensic analyst if he knew what Ndifon and TKJ, the female Diploma student alleged to have been sexually harassed, discussed in the call log, he said he did not know.
When the lawyer asked the witness if he knew the first communication between Ndifon and TKJ, Fungo said from the analysis he carried out on the mobile phones, their first communication through the WhatsApp channel was on March 14, 2023 and the message was: “Good evening sir.”
The witness, who also said that he did not analyse TKJ’s phone in the course of the investigation, said he was not given TKJ’s phone by the ICPC to analyse.
After Fungo’s testimony, Akponimisingha told the court that the prosecution was closing its case.
“This is the case for the prosecution and we have closed our case today,” he said.
Responding, counsel to the defendants’, Agi, told the court that they planned to file a no-case submission.
He said he would need seven days to file the application.
The ICPC lawyer assured the court that immediately the defence served him with the no-case submission, he would also need about seven days to reply.
Justice Omotosho consequently adjourned the matter until Feb. 27 to hear the defendants’ no-case submission.
Meanwhile, Ndifon and Anyanwu were yet to perfect their bail described as being too stringent.
NAN report that Justice Omotosho had, on Feb. 9, admitted Ndifon to a N250 million bail with two sureties.
The judge held that the two sureties, who must be owners of landed property in the FCT with registered titles and minimum valuation of N150 million, must submit their certified bank statements to the registrar of the court.
He also directed Ndifon to submit his international passport to the court registrar.
The judge ordered the suspended dean to sign an undertaking not to interfere with the case, be ready to stand his trial and not to delay the trial.
Also ruling on Anyanwu’s bail plea, Justice Omotosho, who granted him a N50 million bail with two sureties, held that one of the sureties must have a property in FCT, but not with a registered title.
The judge directed the sureties to file their bank statements and ordered Anyanwu to equally signed an undertaking not to interfere with the trial, to be ready to stand his trial and not delay the trial.
Justice Omotosho also ordered accelerated hearing of the matter.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)/ Flowerbudnews

 

Flowerbudnews

A Nigerian, Mr Chianugo Peter, on Monday, disagreed with Google LLC, an American multinational technology company, over allegation that his 150 million dollars suit is frivolous and unmeritorious.

Peter, through his counsel, Emmanuel Ekpenyong Esq. of Fred-Young & Evans LP, told Justice Obiora Egwuatu of a Federal High Court, Abuja Division in his Reply to Google’s Statement of Defence.

It would be recalled that the company, in its Statement of Defence dated Nov. 9, 2023 and filed Nov. 10, 2023 by its lawyer, Mark Mordi, SAN, urged the court to dismiss Peter’s suit for being unmeritorious and unworthy.

Peter had sued GoDaddy.Com LLC and Google LLC as 1st and 2nd defendants over allegations bordering on the shutdown of his YouTubeAudio.com domain name after eight years of promotional and marketing works.

Google, in its defence, averred that Peter did not own the YOUTUBE trademark nor did he have a bona fide claim to use or register any mark that incorporates or is similar to the YOUTUBE trademark.

According to the company, the plaintiff was aware of his lack of bona fide claim because he approached it before he commenced operation “and acknowledged the 2nd defendant (Google)’s rights.

But in his response dated Feb. 7, 2024 but filed Feb. 8 2024, Peter argued that “though it is a common knowledge that Google owns the YouTube trademark, the plaintiff’s YouTubeAudio.com domain and business name is different and distinct from the YouTube trademark.”

According to him, the followers and users of YouTubeAudio.com know that it is different and distinct from YouTube and it is not calculated to deceive them.

He said the 1st and 2nd defendants, as well as the relevant regulatory authorities, acknowledged that his YouTubeAudio.com domain and business name is different and distinct from the YouTube trademark.

“The 1st defendant being a domain registrar who works hand in hand with the 2nd defendant, has been in the domain hosting business for more than 2 (two) decades and has a database of existing domain names and domain names likely to infringe existing domain names.

“Upon a compulsory search, the plaintiff lawfully purchased and acquired YouTubeAudio.com domain name from the 1st defendant without any caveat or objection that the domain name is similar or infringes the YouTube trademark or any of the 2nd defendant’s trademarks.

“The plaintiff approached the Corporate Affairs Commission (“CAC”) and upon conducting the compulsory search, reserved and registered YouTubeAudio.com as a business name for the plaintiff’s business without any caveat or objection that it is similar or infringes the YouTube trademark or any of the 2nd defendant’s trademarks.

“The plaintiff approached the Trademark, Patents and Designs Registry, Commercial Law Department, Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade And Investment, Abuja, Nigeria (“the Trademark Registry”) to register the YouTubeAudio.com trademark with logo No. 173554 in Class 16.

“And after the compulsory search, the Trademark Registry accepted the same for publication without any caveat that it is similar or infringes the YouTube trademark or any of the 2nd Defendant’s trademarks.

“The 2nd defendant only has exclusive right over its trademarks registered in Classes 9, 41, 38, 35, 42 as listed in Paragraphs 9.1 to 9.8 of its Statement of Defence.

“None of the 2nd defendant’s trademarks is registered in Class 16 where YouTubeAudio.com trademark and logo is accepted for registration before the Trademark Registry.

“In 2021, the plaintiff approached the 2nd defendant to hoist YouTubeAudio.com application as “YTAudio” and its website youtubeaudio.com on the 2nd defendant’s Google Playstore.

“And the 2nd defendant duly approved the name and the website and hoisted the same on its Google Playstore without any caveat or objection that it is similar or infringes the YouTube trademark or any of the 2nd defendant’s trademarks until 25th December 2023 when it unilaterally removed the plaintiff’s application on its Google Playstore in reaction to the plaintiff commencing this suit.

“Upon clicking the application on the 2nd defendant’s Google Playstore, users are seamlessly redirected to the website youtubeaudio.com which was duly approved by the 2nd defendant.

“The YouTubeAudio.com website functioned as the application’s engine room on the 2nd Defendant’s Google Playstore,” he said.

He said in 2021, Google also duly approved and registered YouTubeAudio.com on its Google AdSence program with publisher ID pub-4279408488674166 without any caveat or objection that YouTubeAudio.com infringed its YouTube trademark.

He said the 2nd defendant would not have registered the YouTubeAudio.com domain name on its Google AdSense and Google Playstore platforms in the first place if it infringed on its YouTube or other trademarks

Upon resumed hearing on Monday, Ekpenyong informed the court that a Reply had been filed on Feb 8 2024 in response to the Statement of Defence and that Google has been served.

The court, then, regularised the plaintiff’s Reply to Google’s Statement of Defence.

The lawyer equally informed the court of their intention to amend their Statement of Claim and Writ of Summons

Oluwaseyi Ogundiran Esq., who appeared for Google, responded that the plaintiff had just served on them the motion to amend their Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on Friday last week.

She said the application was not ripe for hearing.

Justice Egwuatu subsequently adjourned the matter until April 18 for mention.

Recalled that GoDaddy.Com LLC, the 1st defendant, had neither been represented in court nor filed any application since the commencement of the case. (Flowerbudnews)

 

Flowerbudnews

The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), on Monday, played nude videos of a female Diploma student of University of Calabar (UNICAL) in the open court in evidence against Prof. Cyril Ndifon, the institution’s suspended Dean of Faculty of Law.
The development occured when the ICPC’s lawyer, Osuobeni Akponimisingha, led Bwaigu Fungo, the 4rh prosecution witness (PW4), in evidence in the ongoing trial of Ndifon and his co-defendant, Sunny Anyanwu, before Justice James Omotosho of a Federal High Court, Abuja.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Ndifon was, on Jan. 25, re-arraigned alongside Anyanwu as 1st and 2nd defendants on an amended four-count charge bordering on alleged sexual harassment and attempt to perverse the cause of justice.

Anyanwu, who is one of the lawyers in the defence, was joined in the amended charge filed on Jan. 22 by the ICPC on allegation that he called one of the prosecution witnesses on her mobile telephone during the pendency of the charge against Ndifon to threatened her.

They were, however, admitted to bail on Friday after a female student, identified as TKJ (not real name) by the court, one of the alleged victims of sexual assault by the don, completed her testimony.

NAN earlier reported that the court had admitted in evidence two mobile phones seized by the anti-corruption commission from Ndifon.
Justice Omotosho admitted the mobile devices; an Oppo Phone and a Tecno Pova Phone with their chargers after they were tendered by Akponimisingha, and the application was not opposed by the defence counsel, Joe Agi, SAN.

The Oppo and Tecno Phones were marked Exhibits N and O by the court.

Meanwhile, Fungo, a Forensic and intelligence Analyst with ICPC, while giving his testimony analysed three nude videos obtained from Ndifon’s Oppo Phone.

The PW4 said the videos were extracted from Exhibit N belonging to the professor.
He said they were videos of TKJ as requested by Ndifon.

“The videos as sent by TKJ to the Exhibit N (Oppo Phone owned by Ndifon) is usually sent by the 1st defendant to another subscriber (another phone number),” the witness said.
He said though about 16 videos were extracted, three were TKJ’s videos.

He said TKJ did the videos on Sept. 26, 2023.
The forensic analyst also played three of the videos of other female students but the judge directed him to limit it to videos relevant to the charge, which were TKJ’s.

When asked why Ndifon would have forwarded the videos sent to him by TKJ to another phone number, Fungo it was to preserve the video for whatever reason.

Akponimisingha also requested for Exhibit 0 (Tecno Phone) and the witness was asked questions on some of the extractions.

While being cross examined, Agi asked Fungo if from the videos he played, TKJ did it involuntarily.

The witness said: “The acts of TKJ were involuntarily done.”

He added that from their forensic report, there was a part in the videos where TKJ said she was not comfortable sending the videos.

When Agi asked him if in one of the videos, TKJ displayed a movement and was fidgeting to prove that the young lady did the videos without compulsion, Fungo simply said: “There was movement,”

Meanwhile, Justice Omotosho had ordered the management of the Kuje Correctional Centre to allow Anyanwu access a medical facility of his choice with a view to treating himself.
The judge gave the order after Agi moved the application to the effect.

Justice Omotosho adjourned the matter until Feb. 14 for trial continuation.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)/ Flowerbudnews